|
Pinterest Mom posted:You put quotes around bootstraps and I'm not sure which democrat you're quoting It's been months of reading it in tweets and interviews and speeches over and over again. Probably confirmation bias of some sort, but it's been an overwhelming sense.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
NumberLast posted:It's been months of reading it in tweets and interviews and speeches over and over again. I really think it is! The Democrats of the 1980s and 90s talked about bootstraps, not today's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:All I see are drone strikes, pro-censorship laws and "BOOTSTRAPS." Corporatist, anti-crypto. On basically everything I care about team blue is better than team red, but for a big chunk of that they're BOTH moving away from me. The dems aren't moving away as quickly in most cases, but a vote for generic blue isn't even a vote for poo poo to get worse slower at this point, it's just a vote for things to get worse slightly less fast. I can't reward that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
There's still a good bit of inflation of self-importance here. Whether or not some randos on a website like this or the big talkers on reddit don't support hillary or don't come back to the party is irrelevant. No one needs to do anymore than they are already doing for the 10% of Bernie supporters who need additional placating. It's the same attitude that generates this utter disbelief among his core, core supporters that hundreds of thousands more people voted for Hillary in various states. How can it be possible? We're so loud and we have so many people!? Well, apparently that's all just inflated. I imagine the number of people resigning themselves to a party line vote or people who have left Sander's campaign after CA for whatever reason outnumber these vocal people by 10 to 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Apparently Sanders won California by a landslide but it's been covered up. A lawsuit has been filed. Uh how reputable is this BC p hosed up if true
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:There's still a good bit of inflation of self-importance here. Whether or not some randos on a website like this or the big talkers on reddit don't support hillary or don't come back to the party is irrelevant. No one needs to do anymore than they are already doing for the 10% of Bernie supporters who need additional placating. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:It doesnt matter, we dont need you or your votes, all of your concerns and excitement were just over inflated by people on the internet. Is that essentially what you were saying?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
albany academy posted:Uh how reputable is this BC p hosed up if true It's not reputable at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
SneakyFrog posted:Is that essentially what you were saying? Yep, that's what he was saying. Hence,
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Also to everyone: Alright just making sure. I'm talking to others irl who are throwing up their arms and abandoning everything. That's primarily the mentality I'm fighting. edit: That and those who are falling into the breitbart rabbit hole but I feel those guys are lost-causes
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:It's not reputable at all. Ok good BC yeah that would b p mesSED UP
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
SneakyFrog posted:Is that essentially what you were saying? The excitement was definitely inflated. The votes speak to that. The party probably doesn't need the supporters who are still posting how different states were won by fraud alone or how Hillary Clinton belongs in prison. This is all fairly obvious. What you're missing is that Bernie's supporters are, each day, bleeding back over into a party line vote whether the core supporters of Sanders like it or not. The same thing happened when Hillary lost to Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
albany academy posted:Uh how reputable is this BC p hosed up if true there's an ad for a book on free energy halfway down the page
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
I think a lot of y'all have spent a lot of time convincing yourself that mainstream Dems are right-wing, but the main policy fights of the primary were mostly quibbles, not fundamental gulfs Like, if you look at the big policy fights of the primary: Health care: Bernie wanted universal coverage through single payer, Hillary wants universal coverage through expanding medicaid, expanding medicaid, and bringing in a public option. College: Bernie wants tuition to be free (but no word on costs other than tuition: room/board/books etc) for everyone in public colleges, Hillary wants to expand grants so that the total cost of attending public college (tuition + room + board etc) doesn't exceed ~400-600$/month Banking regulation: Bernie wanted to break up the big banks, Hillary says that breaking up the big banks is an option but we should be paying more attention to other financial sector firms, like big insurers and mortgage brokers, that are largely un- or mis-regulated today. Minimum wage: Bernie wants $15 everywhere, Hillary wants $12 everywhere but higher local minimum wages where the COL is higher. The differences between the two aren't that big, except on foreign policy. My sense is that Bernie has been talking in broad strokes about an ideal world, and Hillary's been more focused on the nitty-gritty detail on how to get close to the goals she shares with Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think a lot of y'all have spent a lot of time convincing yourself that mainstream Dems are right-wing, but the main policy fights of the primary were mostly quibbles, not fundamental gulfs i've always viewed it as a negotiation tactic, you start farther left and you end upw ith something in the middle. bernie starts farther left, so in this hypothetical world we'd end up with policies that are farther to the left (but not exactly what he called for).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
all or nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think a lot of y'all have spent a lot of time convincing yourself that mainstream Dems are right-wing, but the main policy fights of the primary were mostly quibbles, not fundamental gulfs I think dahnahdu had some link rhat explained all of the differences as he saw them
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:giving up on electoral politics isn't the same as giving up on politics imo It is in any meaningful sense. Unless the politics you haven't given up on are a might-makes-right coup to install a dictator, which wouldn't surprise me from a tankie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:Corporatist, anti-crypto. On basically everything I care about team blue is better than team red, but for a big chunk of that they're BOTH moving away from me. The dems aren't moving away as quickly in most cases, but a vote for generic blue isn't even a vote for poo poo to get worse slower at this point, it's just a vote for things to get worse slightly less fast. I can't reward that anymore. I wouldn't worry about the anti-crypto too much. This same scare happened in the 90s and once they actually got into the weeds of how to actually regulate crypto it all blew up in their faces. The tech sector didn't even have a recognizable lobby at the time either. A few politicians might rabble about it if they want to seem anti-crime but that's about as far as it'll ever go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:The excitement was definitely inflated. The votes speak to that. The party probably doesn't need the supporters who are still posting how different states were won by fraud alone or how Hillary Clinton belongs in prison. This is all fairly obvious. What you're missing is that Bernie's supporters are, each day, bleeding back over into a party line vote whether the core supporters of Sanders like it or not. The same thing happened when Hillary lost to Obama. The votes don't exactly speak to a landslide win either. Hillary got more votes, but there is still a large minority of primary voters who felt her policies and rhetoric were not as good as the opposition. Hillary will need these people in he general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:there's an ad for a book on free energy halfway down the page A good article has everything of relevance in the headline. I don't actually read them like some scrub tier moron 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Re college: Expanding the amount of granting dollars will do literally nothing in making college more accessible. It's happened before and it'll happen again. The market just finds a new equilibrium around the amount of effective dollars that can be spent on education and the actual cost goes up. If it does anything it'll actually make education less accessible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:i've always viewed it as a negotiation tactic, you start farther left and you end upw ith something in the middle. bernie starts farther left, so in this hypothetical world we'd end up with policies that are farther to the left (but not exactly what he called for). That's generally not how these things go though. A resolution isn't necessitated in every engagement—there has to be a reason for both parties to want to agree on something, otherwise one side simply doesn't help you. That alone brings a lot of opening positions farther center than you'd like, because it has no chance of being a thing if there is no carrot for the other side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:all or nothing nooo!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I wouldn't worry about the anti-crypto too much. This same scare happened in the 90s and once they actually got into the weeds of how to actually regulate crypto it all blew up in their faces. The tech sector didn't even have a recognizable lobby at the time either. A few politicians might rabble about it if they want to seem anti-crime but that's about as far as it'll ever go. I too remember the pre-  world. It really isn't the same this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It is in any meaningful sense. Unless the politics you haven't given up on are a might-makes-right coup to install a dictator, which wouldn't surprise me from a tankie. most major changes have come about after pressure from mass movements. it's why $15 minimum wage is even a campaign issue and being adopted in states and municipalities in any case, *eyes you stalinly*
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ2ZrnsDAkQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:I too remember the pre- nah it's all rabble quote:Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who last December called on Silicon Valley to stop selling encrypted devices, expressed serious concern on Wednesday about the precedent the Department of Justice would set if it successfully compels Apple to break iPhone security features. i mean if graham of all people can have a change of heart here i don't see this getting very far
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Re college: Expanding the amount of granting dollars will do literally nothing in making college more accessible. It's happened before and it'll happen again. The market just finds a new equilibrium around the amount of effective dollars that can be spent on education and the actual cost goes up. If it does anything it'll actually make education less accessible. This is what happened when student loans were expanded for the record Universities were all "so students can now pay whatever they need to eh" and the little dollar-signs showed up in their eyes
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
a primate posted:The votes don't exactly speak to a landslide win either. Hillary got more votes, but there is still a large minority of primary voters who felt her policies and rhetoric were not as good as the opposition. Hillary will need these people in he general. In the overwhelming number of contexts the victory was big. Very big. Whether as raw percentages - 55-42 (double digits) [note: Obama/McCain was 52-45 and Obama/Romney was only 51/47. Even the democratic primary of 2008 was 47-48]. Theoretical EVs (Clinton with way more than 300) Demographic victories (Bernie's demos, well..) Important state victories (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) Democratic fortress victories (California, New York) Whether or not some percent felt her policies and rhetoric weren't as good as the opposition is entirely irrelevant. Frankly, she doesn't need to really get the hardcores for Bernie anymore than they already are. That may upset some people, but again, my original point was some people feel the core of Bernie's campaign are more important than they are and more necessary. I don't think it's true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:In the overwhelming number of contexts the victory was big. Very big. ...Unless you care about having a healthy party and not just winning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
So, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but in California the percent of ballots cast as provisional ballots and Bernie's percent of the total vote by county, weighted by registered voters, are moderately negatively correlated at -0.274. Also, voter turnout and Bernie's percent of total votes are moderately positively correlated at 0.290, also by county and weighted by registered voters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
loquacius posted:This is what happened when student loans were expanded for the record certainly wouldn't be the first time the government handed money over to corporations and large organizations
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:...Unless you care about having a healthy party and not just winning. There's reaching out that's reasonable and there is reaching out that is unreasonable. Winning is an indication of a core platform that people in the party prefer, and Sanders can have some degree of influence in the context of losing pretty much every way you look at it. Shammypants has issued a correction as of 18:50 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:There's reaching out that's reasonable and there is reaching out that is unreasonable. Winning is an indication of a core platform that people in the party prefer, and Sander's can have some degree of influence in the context of losing pretty much every way you look at it. that smug dismissive attitude is pretty much why I'm starting to believe dems are loving horrible FYGM people. I didnt even feel that way before this election season. apparently when i became a racist, sexist, violent bigot berniebro i guess i lose all my previous credentials of being an actual person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:In the overwhelming number of contexts the victory was big. Very big. Irrelevant because Hillary has enough voters already tyvm? This isn't 3 people who usually vote GOP anyway that we're talking about. These are Democrats who presumably vote Democrat in the GE, and marginalizing them won't do the DNC any favours. Knowing how poorly she does with independents, it might be a good idea to get her adopted base on side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
my sense is you can actually be working for working people, like bernie is at least to a democratic socialist extent, or basically be working for corporate donors, like hillary does, and who you're loyal to is more important than stated policy goals, because if you're beholden to moneyed interests then any "progressive" policy you actually enact will probably have to be screened and approved by them, like the way obama negotiated with the health care industry to come to ACA. that's why i reject the democratic party establishment, because they're a party that pays lip service to the people while ultimately being unwilling to alienate the rich. and that's without getting into hillary's wars and imperialism. i do understand some people will vote for hillary etc as a lesser evil and that's a separate argument than the one about whether they're actually good or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Re college: Expanding the amount of granting dollars will do literally nothing in making college more accessible. It's happened before and it'll happen again. The market just finds a new equilibrium around the amount of effective dollars that can be spent on education and the actual cost goes up. If it does anything it'll actually make education less accessible. Sure, but both candidates' plans have this underpants gnome aspect to them where they assume (Hillary's plan says this explicitly, idk about Bernie's) that there's going to be some discipline and regulation and cost control at the state level; On Bernie's side, it doesn't do much good to zero out tuition when colleges are still free to charge all kinds of ancillary fees - room and board (though this is less a concern for instate colleges, ofc), all kinds of building or "incidental" fees, required fees for software licenses or spurious online components to classes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Sure, but both candidates' plans have this underpants gnome aspect to them where they assume (Hillary's plan says this explicitly, idk about Bernie's) that there's going to be some discipline and regulation and cost control at the state level; On Bernie's side, it doesn't do much good to zero out tuition when colleges are still free to charge all kinds of ancillary fees - room and board (though this is less a concern for instate colleges, ofc), all kinds of building or "incidental" fees, required fees for software licenses or spurious online components to classes. but they do this already anyways? what is your point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:55
|
|