|
[quote="Pener Kropoopkin" post=""452742191"] Your issue is that you hate Bernie for no good reason. [/quote] I love how in 2015 people are still walking on eggshells to avoid upsetting Eric's dad from that 70's show
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:
and under clinton's batting average, the 12usd ~compromise of compromises~ would only resurface in 2023 to be defeated among party-wide proclamations of "welp"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
The out of context soundbites from Clinton (and moderators with the "are you at war with radical islam, yes or no" question) are the main reasons why the DNC wants fewer debates instead of the 20+ cluster gently caress the RNC has going on. Fewer debates are safer for the general election. And as you can see after two debates the DNC has no real reason to want fewer debates to hold Sanders down from Clinton- he not good at debates and has come out of both with worse numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:All of them were intentionally vague about foreign policy, and only Bernie had a specific proposal which is to get our Mooslim allies in the region to coalesce against ISIS. I don't think it's particularly realistic but at least it's something. How could he do that, more than what's already being done? Because unless there's a concrete answer for that, all his words are just cover for cutting and running from ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
So my fuckup of a local backwoods CBS station said they were going to air the debate at 9 Pacific. But nope, it's Jeopardy. Fuckers. Is there any properly approved, online recording of the entire debate? CBS's website has clips and recaps, but I'd like to actually watch the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:And as you can see after two debates the DNC has no real reason to want fewer debates to hold Sanders down from Clinton- he not good at debates and has come out of both with worse numbers. Bernie still seems to think that earnestly restating his principles will win him debates while Hillary knows this is all political theater. She also has a lot more experience than Bernie at this. He hasn't had a serious challenger since the early 90s and hasn't had to do tough debates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:and under clinton's batting average, the 12usd ~compromise of compromises~ would only resurface in 2023 to be defeated among party-wide proclamations of "welp" the entire discussion is hypothetical anyway, the republicans will control the house of representatives for the foreseeable future so none of the poo poo these candidates talked about will happen in any event dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie still seems to think that earnestly restating his principles will win him debates while Hillary knows this is all political theater. Again, Bernie never changed his message. People just started listening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:Guys you realize Eisenhower signed off on the coup in 1953 in Iran that ultimately lead to a more disastrous situation in Iran that is completely unfriendly to us now. what does that have to do with taxes??
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:the entire discussion is hypothetical anyway, the republicans will control the house of representatives for the foreseeable future so none of the poo poo these candidates talked about will happen in any event when are the polls predicting turnout going to appear then we can continue this argument
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:How could he do that, more than what's already being done? Because unless there's a concrete answer for that, all his words are just cover for cutting and running from ISIS. It's not as if he's been against bombing ISIS. I mean, Bernie still supports the Drone War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:when are the polls predicting turnout going to appear really we wont know poo poo until after the election and me saying something 'will' happen is horseshit here's my stupid little argument just for the hell of it the median house district was 7% more republican than the national popular vote in the 2012 presidential election. you've got to see an '08-level margin (obama beat mccain by 7.3%) plus a bit more to deal with the advantages of incumbency and ticket splitting in places like upstate new york, long island, maine, rural minnesota, i guess that's almost the whole list of places that still vote republican for congress but democratic for president, ticket splitting is a pretty small issue these days, as a basic rule of thumb if you want democrats to control the house. it could happen - maybe dr ben carson loses to hillary by 15% i dont loving know - but i am guessing that it will not. even if it did it'd be awfully tough to hold on to marginal seats in the midterm when democratic voters wander off the senate is another issue, 2018 sees a bunch of democrats in states that romney won in 2012 running for reelection in a midterm with the democratic coalition almost certain to fall a few % points below their presidential year benchmarks and it'll be really hard for democrats not to lose a bunch of seats. it's really hard to predict senate poo poo though, democrats held it for a few cycles when early predictions would've handed it to republicans recently, they had some historically terrible candidates thanks to the tea party beating the establishment in primaries. might happen again, might not and sure maybe bernie changes everything but people say that kind of thing whenever it's convenient and it usually doesn't happen. i remember one poll i dug into had more than half of the respondents say they didnt recognize the name joe biden, the voting public has almost nothing to do with the information-world and consequent opinions/assumptions/arguments we all take for granted as the prerequisite of political discussion also here's a fun little factoid: the same 2014 arkansas electorate that voted for an increase in the state minimum wage by a 32% margin also voted for an all-republican congressional delegation by margins of 17% (senate), 31%, 8%, 59%, and 11% (house). im not doing the research but i doubt any of those winning candidates supported a raise in the minimum wage* http://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_Minimum_Wage_Initiative,_Issue_5_%282014%29 http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Arkansas,_2014 http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arkansas,_2014 voters are just stupid assholes and nothing makes sense. dehumanize, bloodshed, blablabla *the raise was of course only to $8.50 by 2017 so maybe a third of arkansans are cool with 8 bucks an hour and not cool with 12, but really i dont think most voters even look at the numbers. this is the kind of sentiment that helps poll numbers on the minimum wage but it sure as hell doesnt help minimum wage get votes in congress oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 06:53 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-dxT9lyhJs
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bernie still seems to think that earnestly restating his principles will win him debates while Hillary knows this is all political theater They are both correct
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
When Hillary said that thing about Trump's kids, she didn't mean wealthy families should be excluded, she literally meant just the Trumps should.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:When Hillary said that thing about Trump's kids, she didn't mean wealthy families should be excluded, she literally meant just the Trumps should. Which doesn't make any sense because someone whose made Trumps amount of money is not going to send their kid to a public college and even if they did gently caress it they pay taxes why not? It's a dumbass point for multiple reasons
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:When Hillary said that thing about Trump's kids, she didn't mean wealthy families should be excluded, she literally meant just the Trumps should. One ofm these days someone on stage needs to point out millionaire kids tend not to go to state schools
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
triple sulk posted:there should be schools for people who want to learn stuff that isn't generally applicable of real life jobs They are called universities as opposed to vocational schools
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:One ofm these days someone on stage needs to point out millionaire kids tend not to go to state schools I'm pissed she's said that poo poo twice and no one's said anything, we're going to have to hope for another twitter smackdown. Personally I support all presidential candidates getting bodied by tweets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:When Hillary said that thing about Trump's kids, she didn't mean wealthy families should be excluded, she literally meant just the Trumps should. Sounds like your typical liberal trying to coopt the language of class struggle but failing entirely by saying "eat the rich!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
you could call med school, law school, engineering, architecture, accounting, research and development, so on, so forth, vocational schools, the only reason we dont is classism. the white vs blue collar distinction basically 'STEM' is a classist way to say 'vocational school for jobs that make you prestigious' hillary doesnt care about the concerns that are being raised wrt this point of hers and neither do most voters, she just likes winning debates and they just like simple arguments involving names they recognize and dont like
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Maybe I just don't get it, but assuming Trump's or some other billionaires kid somehow actually decided to take advantage of a free public college and spent four years hanging out with the kids of poor and middle class families would that really be so bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:also here's a fun little factoid: the same 2014 arkansas electorate that voted for an increase in the state minimum wage by a 32% margin also voted for an all-republican congressional delegation by margins of 17% (senate), 31%, 8%, 59%, and 11% (house). im not doing the research but i doubt any of those winning candidates supported a raise in the minimum wage* http://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_Minimum_Wage_Initiative,_Issue_5_%282014%29 http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Arkansas,_2014 http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arkansas,_2014 voters are just stupid assholes and nothing makes sense. dehumanize, bloodshed, blablabla The Arkansas races had an absurd amount of outside money poured into them. Every commercial break for months was an impenetrable wall of Tom Cotton or French Hill ads so there wasn't any space left over for any campaigning against the minimum wage increase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Here's my issue with free college: Giving everyone free college, to me, signals that we're giving up on our public primary school education system. If you really want a revolution in education, we need to revamp K-12 before we tackle free college. I'm not saying that we should do nothing w/r/t student debt etc., but I'm more in favor of "no going into debt for education" rather than "free college". If you say "everyone should have the right to go to college", you're just tacking an additional four years of school on to everyone's educational lifespan, which is great if you're into education, but if you're not a learner (which I would fall into, despite the fact that I enjoy picking up knowledge, I really floundered in a school setting), it's basically condemning you even further into being an "other" than someone without a college education now. I think that we should make sure that everyone who wants to go to college can without destroying their credit, but "free college" is only going to expand our post-secondary system even further, when we could do a lot better expanding high school and junior high to create more of a liberal arts-esque well-rounded education that doesn't take 17 years of school to get out of. Basically, what I want to see is for college to become even more specialized, and less ubiquitous, and if you have free college for everyone, it's only going to create a situation where people who don't have a college degree are even more worse off than people who don't have one now. Taking half of the money that would be used for free college and funneling that into our public schools (and simultaneously saying "gently caress off" to that charter school bullshit) would be a much better use of the money, because we already have the structure of the K-12 system that everyone goes through now, and just punting that off to colleges (which would still be separated into public/private, and thus, more susceptible to creating divisions between people with money and people without) isn't going to do as much good for people who don't have the time or aptitude for more school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
But as long as college costs money, there will be people who can't afford it without going into debt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Basically, free college would be a lot more effective if we took care of all of the bullshit GenEd classes in high school. I don't disagree that there are benefits to taking them, but at the college level, they seem like a way of extracting more money from students, and there's no point in offering free college if kids are still graduating high school without basic knowledge. That will just lead to the further dumbing down of college, and will end up with kids taking 16 years of school instead of 12, and ending up with little more than they would have graduating from high school now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Here's my issue with free college: Giving everyone free college, to me, signals that we're giving up on our public primary school education system. If you really want a revolution in education, we need to revamp K-12 before we tackle free college. I'm not saying that we should do nothing w/r/t student debt etc., but I'm more in favor of "no going into debt for education" rather than "free college". If you say "everyone should have the right to go to college", you're just tacking an additional four years of school on to everyone's educational lifespan, which is great if you're into education, but if you're not a learner (which I would fall into, despite the fact that I enjoy picking up knowledge, I really floundered in a school setting), it's basically condemning you even further into being an "other" than someone without a college education now. I think that we should make sure that everyone who wants to go to college can without destroying their credit, but "free college" is only going to expand our post-secondary system even further, when we could do a lot better expanding high school and junior high to create more of a liberal arts-esque well-rounded education that doesn't take 17 years of school to get out of. This 100%. zen death robot posted:Yeah K-12 needs to get fixed up way before we start worrying about free college. Let's be serious for a moment and call that promise what it is: a way to get the young crowd to vote for you. You mean Bernie Panders might be pandering to his audience? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Immortan posted:This 100%. Why is there no Bernie Panders emote for shame goons, shame. The $hillary Bernie Panders spam must be endless
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
The problem with K-12 is that we don't even seem to really know how to fix it, whereas our colleges are already pretty good, they're just expensive. Thus, we can be pretty confident that we can solve the latter by just hurling money at it, but can't say the same about the former.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Just because it's difficult to fix doesn't mean we shouldn't try
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
but it being difficult to fix does mean that if one team tries the other team has to nitpick and stonewall and come up with creepy little lies and make political hay while the creepy making-profit-off-of-human-suffering-using-lies-sun shines thats one of the preconditions that decides which issues the political elite will put on the table in any given generation and which theyll shove into a cubbyhole somewhere to accumulate cobwebs while millions of lives are squandered
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The problem with K-12 is that we don't even seem to really know how to fix it, whereas our colleges are already pretty good, they're just expensive. Thus, we can be pretty confident that we can solve the latter by just hurling money at it, but can't say the same about the former. Why can't we say the same? Dump an absolute poo poo ton of money into public schools immediately. every single aspect of K-12 education is so underfunded it's pathetic
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Yeah K-12 needs to get fixed up way before we start worrying about free college. Let's be serious for a moment and call that promise what it is: a way to get the young crowd to vote for you. You can do a lot more overhauling our colleges than our K-12 system, though. Our university system is more than just a money vacuum to teach people, so it's a little easier to sell to the general public. For example, consider how public funds our used to fund research. The Europeans do the same: Treat their equivalents of K-12 as a gateway to college.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Do you have kids? If not then I can understand why you might think that college might be an easier sell than making K-12 not be complete poo poo for a lot of people. Rural and inner city districts get hosed badly on funding in comparison to more affluent suburbs and the quality of education suffers as a result. If your fundamental education is flawed then college is gong to be that much more difficult for you no matter what. Our colleges are flawed for completely different reasons than our K-12 system, though. We're still the best in the world in terms of higher education. And again, it's easier to sell because colleges do a lot more than just teach students in terms of substance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Sanders has made universal Pre-K a core part of his campaign, which is a good first step to fixing K-12.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Higher education means poo poo if you're forced to go to a substandard public school system that lost its state accreditation while you were attending. A higher education is always worth something if you can get it. I don't see your point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:So my fuckup of a local backwoods CBS station said they were going to air the debate at 9 Pacific. But nope, it's Jeopardy. Fuckers. Is there any properly approved, online recording of the entire debate? CBS's website has clips and recaps, but I'd like to actually watch the whole thing. So FWIW the CBS News stream has the entire debate on repeat. It just restarted now if you missed it and have nothing better to do over the next two hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 09:01
|
|