Bernie Sanders Wins TIME 100 Reader Poll. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50138580]What duke actually said: What Trump said in response: You're jumping on trump for the same thing that you scold me for doing. [B]There is a reason that a proverb like, a man is known by the company he keeps, is present in almost every culture. When you have the endorsement of an anti-semite and he's one of the first to endorse you, it's extremely concerning. [/B] If you had a black candidate who had the support of the KKK, you wouldn't be concerned?[/QUOTE] So you're just going to be entirely, and unreasonably one sided in your application of "Guilt by association" and you're not even going to be the least bit aware of it? And just so you can stop being so dishonest by omission, here's what Trump actually said. [QUOTE][B]"I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," he said. "So I don't know. I don't know -- did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."[/B][/QUOTE] Now, that's the man you want to be president? That's the man? That guy right there who you're bending over backwards to give every fucking concession to. The guy who's just as guilty by association as you're claiming bernie is, but no, that doesn't apply to the Golden Don, does it?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50138425]Okay, so let's use Genghis Khan's intentions as something to judge him by. Genghis Khan wanted to conquer the known world and sack it. While people can point to his being religiously tolerant as a good thing, it's actually not as benign as it sounds. Genghis Khan required people to pray for his success if they wanted to keep on practicing their own religion.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the free history lesson I guess, but this does nothing to address what I said. You explained why Genghis Khan was an all-around despicable person, which makes the concept of admiring someone for one thing and hating them for another implausible because...? I can admire Tarantino's work (because he's a terrific filmmaker), and dread being a part of it (because he's also an obnoxious and unlikable filmmaker). I can love Bill Maher's bluntness (because I think a voice like his is necessary), and despise the thought of having an actual conversation with him (because it's not a voice I necessarily want to hear). I can praise John McCain at every turn (for his integrity and level-headedness in the context of the Republican party), and never vote for the guy (when the context is different). Or, apparently, I can't, because none of it fits within your arbitrary definitions of what people are allowed to think of others

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50130922]The cult of personality is real here Bernie isn't that influential. Pope Francis leads over a billion people, Yousafzai is a woman who is fighting for schools for women and has been shot for that, and Aung San Suu Kyi has been imprisoned for trying to bring democracy to Myanmar. In contrast, Bernie has only had 3 sponsored bills that became law, 2 of them to name post offices [URL="https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D"]https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D[/URL][/QUOTE] Yousafzai mostly tells westeners stories about how she had been shot. There are people who did way more for schools (even in her country), but didn't spend time "raising awarness" and spent it helping people.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138594]So you're just going to be entirely, and unreasonably one sided in your application of "Guilt by association" and you're not even going to be the least bit aware of it? And just so you can stop being so dishonest by omission, here's what Trump actually said. Now, that's the man you want to be president? That's the man? That guy right there who you're bending over backwards to give every fucking concession to. The guy who's just as guilty by association as you're claiming bernie is, but no, that doesn't apply to the Golden Don, does it?[/QUOTE] In what you're quoting, Trump says that has no idea about white supremacists or his being "endorsed" by them and says that he knows nothing about them. That's different than a Jew openly celebrating the endorsement of someone who closely worked with the anti-semitic Nation of Islam and went on stage with an anti-Semite.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50138703]In what you're quoting, Trump says that has no idea about white supremacists or his being "endorsed" by them and says that he knows nothing about them. That's different than a Jew openly celebrating the endorsement of someone who closely worked with the anti-semitic Nation of Islam and went on stage with an anti-Semite.[/QUOTE] Again, guilt by association. Fallacy. And again, Bernie may have supported something about that situation, it doesn't mean he's an anti-semite because you say he is. Is nuance and context just these big mysteries you just don't understand yet or something? How do you even see the world in such a perplexing manner?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138734]Again, guilt by association. Fallacy. And again, Bernie may have supported something about that situation, it doesn't mean he's an anti-semite because you say he is. Is nuance and context just these big mysteries you just don't understand yet or something? How do you even see the world in such a perplexing manner?[/QUOTE] Okay, since I'm so stupid, explain to me the differences.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50138703]In what you're quoting, Trump says that has no idea about white supremacists or his being "endorsed" by them and says that he knows nothing about them. That's different than a Jew openly celebrating the endorsement of someone who closely worked with the anti-semitic Nation of Islam and went on stage with an anti-Semite.[/QUOTE] Does he still work closely with him? Because your example was from 23 years ago, that's a lot of time.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50138752]Okay, since I'm so stupid, explain to me the differences.[/QUOTE] explain your notion that supporting one thing about someone means you support everything about them, because your argument falls apart without it

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138734]Again, guilt by association. Fallacy. And again, Bernie may have supported something about that situation, it doesn't mean he's an anti-semite because you say he is. Is nuance and context just these big mysteries you just don't understand yet or something? How do you even see the world in such a perplexing manner?[/QUOTE] Can you explain how he's saying there's guilt by association? Wouldn't that be saying that Sanders is responsible for anti-semitism because he is associated with anti-semites, therefore being guilty of something that he didn't actually do? Svinnik doesn't seem to be saying that. He just saying that a person's character can be partly judged by the people they willingly associate with.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50138752]Okay, since I'm so stupid, explain to me the differences.[/QUOTE] You are assuming Sanders is guilty of holding all the opinions, or supporting, all of the opinions of any of the speakers he's stood with over the years that [B]you don't like[/B]. You are placing Sanders as guilty by his association with those people as if he were those people. You are saying he is an anti-semite based on this erroneously. Am I an anti semite because I think Palestinian people deserve a shot at their own government and that Israel has done more than their fair share of horrible things in that region(Of course Hamas has done equally as bad).

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138776]You are assuming Sanders is guilty of holding all the opinions, or supporting, all of the opinions of any of the speakers he's stood with over the years that [B]you don't like[/B]. [/QUOTE] I've been following your discussion, and I haven't seen him do this at all. He even specifically said that he doesn't think Sanders is anti-semitic.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138774]Can you explain how he's saying there's guilt by association? Wouldn't that be saying that Sanders is responsible for anti-semitism because he is associated with anti-semites, therefore being guilty of something that he didn't actually do? Svinnik doesn't seem to be saying that. He just saying that a person's character can be partly judged by the people they willingly associate with.[/QUOTE] Not so much my friend. [quote]Sen. Bernie Sanders will get a pre-debate boost from Rep. Keith Ellison, the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who will become the second member of Congress to endorse Sanders’ insurgent presidential campaign Monday, he told MSNBC. In 1993, Keith Elliot appeared on stage with Khalid Muhammad while Muhammad went on an anti-Semitic rant.[/quote] He's implying that "Sanders is endorsed by this guy, who endorsed this guy, therefore, Sanders is untrustworthy and the company he keeps leads one to believe he's an anti-semite" [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50138780]I've been following your discussion, and I haven't seen him do this at all. He even specifically said that he doesn't think Sanders is anti-semitic.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I made a mistake. Bernie brags about his support from Keith Ellison even though Keith Ellison has worked closely with people like Farrakhan and Muhammad. If you're a Jew, why would you brag about having support from someone with close ties to anti-semites? It's like a black person bragging about having a supporter who supports the KKK.[/QUOTE] Then why does he keep tossing statements like this out that would lead a reader to believe he is saying that he's responsible for those views and those people?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138786]Not so much my friend. He's implying that "Sanders is endorsed by this guy, who endorsed this guy, therefore, Sanders is untrustworthy and the company he keeps leads one to believe he's an anti-semite"[/QUOTE] I think you're making that connection, not him. It's extremely common to judge the quality of a person by their associates, but that's different than assuming a person holds all the same views as their associate. It's not a necessary or obvious assumption that you're making. The fact that he even specifically said he didn't think Sanders was an anti-semite seems to make it clear that he didn't mean what you're trying to say he meant. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138786]Then why does he keep tossing statements like this out that would lead a reader to believe he is saying that he's responsible for those views and those people?[/QUOTE] A black person hanging out with the KKK doesn't necessarily tell me that they're racist against black people, but it does tell me that they don't mind racist people being around them. It tells me that racism isn't a massive turnoff for the person in question. In the same way, Sanders having anti-semitic associates might tell a person that Sanders doesn't take anti-semitism very seriously. He's willing to overlook anti-semitism if the person in question has other good traits that he sees as more important or valuable. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] Let me be clear: I haven't done the research about Sanders and any connection to anti-semitism. So I'm not going to make any claim one way or the other. You just kept attacking Svinnik for using guilt by association and it didn't seem accurate.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138780]I've been following your discussion, and I haven't seen him do this at all. He even specifically said that he doesn't think Sanders is anti-semitic.[/QUOTE] he said that, then immediately contradicted himself by arguing that you cannot separate someone's support of a person and their support of that person's tactics and intentions

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138798]I think you're making that connection, not him. It's extremely common to judge the quality of a person by their associates, but that's different than assuming a person holds all the same views as their associate. It's not a necessary or obvious assumption that you're making. The fact that he even specifically said he didn't think Sanders was an anti-semite seems to make it clear that he didn't mean what you're trying to say he meant. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] A black person hanging out with the KKK doesn't necessarily tell me that they're racist against black people, but it does tell me that they don't mind racist people being around them. It tells me that racism isn't a massive turnoff for the person in question. In the same way, Sanders having anti-semitic associates might tell a person that Sanders doesn't take anti-semitism very seriously.[/QUOTE] Anti-semitism in a modern connotation is pretty worthless though. I've seen enough polarizations of the argument to know that even supporting relatively tame policies that are Anti-Israel means ones an anti-semite, depending on the person casting the aspersion. In this sense, I find it hard to even remotely describe Sanders as a person who's in that group. Bernie doesn't seem like a zionist, like Svinnik, so I imagine that alone is what describes him negatively, even taking into account the company he's kept over the years, it seems he just has a more tolerant view of criticism of one of the more powerful governments in that region.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138831]Anti-semitism in a modern connotation is pretty worthless though. I've seen enough polarizations of the argument to know that even supporting relatively tame policies that are Anti-Israel means ones an anti-semite, depending on the person casting the aspersion. In this sense, I find it hard to even remotely describe Sanders as a person who's in that group. Bernie doesn't seem like a zionist, like Svinnik, so I imagine that alone is what describes him negatively, even taking into account the company he's kept over the years, it seems he just has a more tolerant view of criticism of one of the more powerful governments in that region.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying there's nothing to discuss here. For all I know, Svinnik's claims are totally off base when it comes to Sanders and anti-semitism. I'm not that interested in the discussion because there are plenty other clear and obvious policy ideas that I disagree with to talk about when it comes to Sanders. In my opinion, Sanders' ideology concerning Israel and Palestine is naive at best and dangerous at worst. Any sort of anti-semitism is irrelevant. I just didn't see him trying to draw guilt by association, even going so far, as I've said a couple times, as to clarify that he specifically doesn't think Sanders is an anti-semite. I mean, it's hard to argue that a person is calling Sanders an anti-semite when he directly said the opposite. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] As far as I can tell, this is his central claim as it relates to Sanders and anti-semitism: [QUOTE]He's not anti Semitic himself but works closely with anti-Semites.[/QUOTE] Assuming that's true, then it is worrying, but I would need to put in my own research before I accepted it as true.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50138873]I'm not saying there's nothing to discuss here. For all I know, Svinnik's claims are totally off base when it comes to Sanders and anti-semitism. I'm not that interested in the discussion because there are plenty other clear and obvious policy ideas that I disagree with to talk about when it comes to Sanders. In my opinion, Sanders' ideology concerning Israel and Palestine is naive at best and dangerous at worst. Any sort of anti-semitism is irrelevant. I just didn't see him trying to draw guilt by association, even going so far, as I've said a couple times, as to clarify that he specifically doesn't think Sanders is an anti-semite. I mean, it's hard to argue that a person is calling Sanders an anti-semite when he directly said the opposite. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] As far as I can tell, this is his central claim as it relates to Sanders and anti-semitism:[/QUOTE] That's just not a damning claim to me. It's hard to argue against something as benign as "He knows people who hold views that aren't popular in todays world". Svinnik, in my opinion, is claiming that his character is so questionable because of these associations that he's a very scary presidential concept for someone like Svinnik. I think that comes down to a Zionist not wanting to elect a non-zionist president and even attempting to "De-jew" him a few times in this conversation, and in other conversations.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50138904]That's just not a damning claim to me. It's hard to argue against something as benign as[B] "He knows people who hold views that aren't popular in todays world"[/B]. Svinnik, in my opinion, is claiming that his character is so questionable because of these associations that he's a very scary presidential concept for someone like Svinnik. I think that comes down to a Zionist not wanting to elect a non-zionist president and even attempting to "De-jew" him a few times in this conversation, and in other conversations.[/QUOTE] But he hasn't said that either, right? I mean, there's a difference between a person knowing people who hold bad views and working closely with people who hold bad views. He's said the latter, not the former. If you're saying that you disagree that the views in question are even bad, then there's not really much to discuss. You have differing moral frameworks.

Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping? This poll was supposed to be about the most influential in the world. It seems to be more about who has the most online support.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;50131185]I'm not saying that success in modern US politics makes you a good person, I'm saying that to be influential in the US, you have to get shit passed. This isn't about who is a good person and who isn't, it's about who is influential. A politician who doesn't get stuff passed is useless[/QUOTE] 155 bills is nothing to sneeze at. I don't think Congressmen expect [I]all[/I] their bills to pass, it's more of a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" kind of game.