Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

I'm not making an argument. I'm asking a question.If I'm in a canoe and I move to the left, I need an equal and opposite shift of weight to the right to avoid turning over. Why is it different in politics?

Because the laws of physics don't influence politics.
Seems quite silly to think the two things are at all related.
I do think if the Democratic Party advocated for state sponsored socialism there would be backlash, because that is far out of the norm. What Bernie Sanders has advocated is well within the norm.

Because there is no evidence to show such a thing. If there is evidence please show it.

On the contrary, I don't see why the two wouldn't be analogous. That's what I was asking. So your answer is "yes", not "no". I would think that the word "socialist" alone would be enough to cause a backlash.

I asked a question and you answered "no". The onus is on you to provide backing for your answer.

What if Hillary picks Rep. John Lewis, aged 76, to be her running mate?

I said there is no evidence to show you are correct. What more can I say?

The US is a socialist country. A poor example of one, but many of our institutions are socialist already. This is an argument the right is trying to use but it is only getting traction among a small population. Again, show some evidence to back your assumptions.The two are no where near analogous. In order for them to be analogous political change would have to only function one way like a scientific law. Not sure how you can show that as happening.

Then ... that would be quite surprising?He hugged me once. This is not particularly relevant.

It makes no diference whether the US "is" socialist or not. The point is that the word "socialist" is enough to get some people almost in a lynching mood. To those people, a candidate self-identifying as "socialist" - whether he really "is" socialist or not - is almost certain to drive some people to vote for anybody but him, isn't it?I may not have any "evidence" for what's blatantly obvious but that doesn't stop it from being blatantly obvious. You and I both know that people will bend over to pick up a dollar that they find on the street, whether there are any scholarly studies on the subject or not. So your answer is, "Yes, among a small (segment of the) population," not, "No." You just did.

You conveniently left out the part where the right wing conservatives at the time were also doing some pretty disgusting things, including shutting down the public school system, beating and murdering black folks, etc. The KKK at the time was still one of the most powerful organizations in the south.Conservatives nowadays have learned their lesson. If they tried to push the country too far to the right, most people would be turned off by it and progressive policies would win the day. That's why they've come up with bullshit stances like hate the sin but love the sinner, traditional marriage, etc.What MLK Jr. did worked because the conservatives at the time ape shit crazy. The same cannot be said today.I've also noticed that you conveniently ignored the prop 8 thing when I pointed it out. Let me repeat. The liberal elements in California pushed for marriage equality too fast and it resulted in the most liberal state in the country to pass prop 8 via popular vote. This fact cannot be ignored.

The right and trump already had that population. It is called the right wing base. They are already to the right they can only move further right.

Yikes. Thanks for a disturbing afternoon thought. Guess I'd best skip that nap I had planned. I might end up in a dream that I'd welcome having Freddy Krueger interrupt. You did not know it because you don't generally know what church/synagogue/mosque any of the Trumps attend? Now if Ivanka was a former member of the Nation of Islam, perhaps that would be a face palm moment. I assume that this sentiment also applies to non-billionaires as well billionaires. If you can figure out a way to do this constitutionally, I'd like to hear how that might work. What I find more problematic than the money the candidates spend is the money spent by anonymous non-candidate sources on behalf of their candidates. That money generally dwarfs the amounts the candidates have access to. Yet I see no constitutional way to outlaw such spending.

The Republicans have to stay far enough right that the Libertarian candidates don't pick up enough from the Republicans to cause a Democrat win. According to RealClearPolitics.com, Johnson (L) is polling at very roughly the difference between Clinton & Trump.But Republicans can't move too far right to lose the Independent-ish Republican-ish people to non-vote or Democrat.

On most issues Libertarians are not to the right of the Repubs. Then again Libertarians change their views daily. Anything that threatens their personal greed, they are against. The party of the spoiled rotten child. Worse than repubs in that manner.