|
woke wedding drone posted:Ahahaha Rick Lazio. The Prostate Monologues
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Are ya'll comparing the results of senate races to the 2000 presidential race because those are tremendously unlike things. Lots of people will cross parties to vote for state politicians with a long history perceived as moderates when they wouldn't for president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Are ya'll comparing the results of senate races to the 2000 presidential race because those are tremendously unlike things. Lots of people will cross parties to vote for state politicians with a long history perceived as moderates when they wouldn't for president. I think we were just making fun of Rick Lazio
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:One leads to the other though, most of America you need a car to get to work in under like 3 hours. Yup. Again, recruiter stories, but I have a job that's only 10 minutes from large portions of downtown Cincinnati that's actually a solid, permanent position with an industry leading company that includes crazy good benefits (zero deductible health insurance) but it's stuck in purgatory because the company is only offering $12 an hour and has zero tolerance for BGC or drug testing. The people who have a car can make better money and the people who can't make better money don't have a car and would have to take, on average, 90 minutes worth of busing and a 40 minute walk. I've been begging for them to reconsider employing someone with a record but they aren't budging. I need out of this line of work, it's soul crushing telling desperate people about a position that they would gladly take and then having to tell them they can't realistically have it because they can't afford a car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah, and the libertarian he mentions got under 5000 votes: I mean you might consider it a squeaker if you go and look at it by area lost   but then you have to realize that no one lives in most of those regions and aren't Democratic voter strongholds, mostly Republican.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
vorebane posted:Somone better tell me about Hillary talking about inner city problems, though. Donald trump has poisoned Google such that any use of "inner city" in a political context is pulling up page after page of trump, even if the string is "Hillary Clinton inner city jobs". So how about a blast from the past? After all, anything she says now could be hand waved away as pandering, no? In 2014 the Clinton foundation started a program called "Jobs One" in its America focused arm ( Clinton Global Initiative: America ) focused on getting companies to hire and train more underserved youth. This is a press conference thanking business partners for pledging to create over 100k new jobs for underserved youth. The links a little screwed up, it's dropping me in the comments then I have to scroll up. http://livestream.com/CGI/CGIAmerica2014/videos/54790231 But that's the kind of stuff she does when she has no office, no hard power, and nobody is paying any attention to her. In terms of proposals going forward she is looking to create 10 million jobs in her first term through green energy and infrastructure initiatives. Independent economic review of her plans back up her estimates. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/30/mccain-advisor-clinton-economic-plans-create-10-million-jobs.html quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
I think Corey Booker will be the frontrunner for the 2024 Dem primary. Obviously a lot can change in 8 years but it's pretty obvious the party is setting him up for that role. I just hope the US follows up the first black and female presidents with the first LGBTQ president, Latinx president, first Asian American president, etc. I can't wait for the right wing media to start saying "when will a white man ever get to be president again???  "
bowser fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:One leads to the other though, most of America you need a car to get to work in under like 3 hours. Yeah and that's why the industry needs to get regulated so it stops loving over people that have the least ability to pay the loan off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also, wouldn't a tepid recovery imply a similarly tepid contraction later? No not at all. This isn't the right thread to talk about this, but that idea is where peak oil and the failure of late stage capitalism all come together. Our economy continues to have the same boom-bust cycle it always has, but since resources get harder and less profitable to extract, the booms are getting smaller while the busts stay the same, so that the economy gradually goes downhill. So called peak oil is an example of this. We will never actually run out of oil, there is just too much of it. The problem is that 100 years ago it literally burst forth from the ground in some places, while now we have to go after harder to reach oil in shale rock. This shocks the economy since one of the inputs now cost more, and oil is just one example. The solution to this is to build a more sustainable way of life. Green energy investment, walkable cities, using train mass transit again, eating locally grown food , widespread nuclear power, ect ect. We don't have the political will to do this, so we keep throwing money at new technology hoping that a tech breakthru can save us, either by making resources easier to get (new drilling techniques and such) or by revamping the economy the way that the internet did back in the begining of the computer era, (hence "start up culture" as people throw money at bullshit trying to find the next big thing). Even if a tepid recover causes a tepid bust, that's still a disaster because a capitalistic economy must grow. We would have to greatly change our society and rules to deal with a steady state economy that either didn't grow or grows very little. The woes of Japan might be an example. Other threads in dnd talk about these things much better. As for politics, Clinton won't go for "full socialism now" of course since she is a centrist, but I'm hopefull we can get incremental change in the right direction. Creating jobs with a green energy push would be great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
bowser posted:I think Corey Booker will be the frontrunner for the 2024 Dem primary. Obviously a lot can change in 8 years but it's pretty obvious the party is setting him up for that role. Corey Booker is very clearly angling for the job but I think his chances are slim. Regardless of the success/failure of Bernie Sanders political revolution, the 2024 democratic party is going to be far too leftist to just smile and nod considering Booker's close ties with charter schools, voucher programs, and other republican methods to gut public education.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
What does everyone think about Kamala Harris? By 2024 she'll have had 8 years in the senate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
One more question: Should democrats/progressives like myself feel depressed that despite Donald Trump inviting a political landslide for Hilary Clinton that we still can't lodge the GOP out of the house? Could it be done in 2018? Or are we democrats going to underperform again during those midterms?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah, and the libertarian he mentions got under 5000 votes: I never thought about it before but I bet "left blank" outperforms 3rd party candidates almost every time 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Corey Booker is very clearly angling for the job but I think his chances are slim. Regardless of the success/failure of Bernie Sanders political revolution, the 2024 democratic party is going to be far too leftist to just smile and nod considering Booker's close ties with charter schools, voucher programs, and other republican methods to gut public education. lol if you dont think he will change accordingly
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Wait what My bad. At the time I read articles like this showing them within margin of error and both below 50 due to the spoiler. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/02/news/mn-45911 And the GOP nationally was pouring a lot of money into that race to stop Hillary. I also saw a video of George bush congratulating Lazio on his win though I can't find a link to the footage right now. When I later heard Clinton won I was surprised. These things caused me to "know" it was a squeaker so I didn't look that race up. I think the soul of my assertion stands since she increased her margins substantially.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:So called peak oil is an example of this. We will never actually run out of oil, there is just too much of it. The problem is that 100 years ago it literally burst forth from the ground in some places, while now we have to go after harder to reach oil in shale rock. This shocks the economy since one of the inputs now cost more, and oil is just one example. Costs can decrease. A method of extracting oil (e.g., shale) might be expensive early on because no one's done it (because super cheap methods exist, etc). Once it does become a standardized process, prices can drop. I mean using your logic, we should never have gotten to coal mining in the first place because harvesting wood is just so easy. Or if we did get to coal, we should never have built such deep coal mines because it costs so much more to do it. The other thing is that we're not starting from the same place. If two countries start from ground zero, then the one with easier access to oil is going to make more money. If one country starts from ground zero and one has an established oil refinement system, even if the former has easy access to oil and the latter has shale oil the latter can still be much more profitable *and* have cheaper oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:What does everyone think about Kamala Harris? By 2024 she'll have had 8 years in the senate. I think that will depend on how congress shakes out under Hillary, but going by her record so far I'd have no problem voting for her in eight years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Are ya'll comparing the results of senate races to the 2000 presidential race because those are tremendously unlike things. Lots of people will cross parties to vote for state politicians with a long history perceived as moderates when they wouldn't for president. It's like a tracking poll. You ask the same people their opinions over time and see how they change. Clinton increased her margin of victory in New York ( 67/55 = 1.22 ) by 22% on re-election. You can disagree with my narrative explaining this jump. Perhaps you think it is entirely incumbent advantage while I think it is a mix of incumbent advantage and cynical leftists realizing she is the real deal. But insisting it won't happen in 2020 is magical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:One more question: Should democrats/progressives like myself feel depressed that despite Donald Trump inviting a political landslide for Hilary Clinton that we still can't lodge the GOP out of the house? Could it be done in 2018? Or are we democrats going to underperform again during those midterms? No you shouldn't feel depressed about the us house ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Corey Booker is very clearly angling for the job but I think his chances are slim. Regardless of the success/failure of Bernie Sanders political revolution, the 2024 democratic party is going to be far too leftist to just smile and nod considering Booker's close ties with charter schools, voucher programs, and other republican methods to gut public education. His positions will "evolve" just like Clinton's have, and we'll be just as if not more accepting of it since he's appealing in a way that Clinton isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
2020 will be another blood bath/circus because a senator from CO will run and break all these beltway pussies with his barehands. Also he's a 3rd party. Grandma's only hope is to get augmented like hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Could it be done in 2018? Or are we democrats going to underperform again during those midterms? There's very little chance of the Democrats taking control of the House in the midterms. In addition to the current round of GOP-favoring gerrymandering still being in place then, the Democrats' demographic advantage is less pronounced during midterms because voter turnout is lower, especially among young people, ethnic minorities, and poor people. It would take either a very fast judiciary-led crackdown on gerrymandering and voter suppression, some kind of movement that massively energizes the Democratic base to participate in the elections to the same level as, say, the Tea Party did for Republicans in 2010, or preferably both, to overcome that disadvantage. Obviously, a lot can happen in 2 years, but most likely the Republicans are probably going to expand their control of the House in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
joeburz posted:lol if you dont think he will change accordingly Deified Data posted:His positions will "evolve" just like Clinton's have, and we'll be just as if not more accepting of it since he's appealing in a way that Clinton isn't. I think you're underselling how chained he is to the subject. Booker got his start in the Newark city council using huge swaths of wall street money from master's of the universe that wanted to totally restructure the education system. Booker also founded the Newark Charter School fund. I mean his brother runs a charter school in Memphis, dude's in deep. Maybe he can do what Biden did with anti-busing and ignore it for 25 years until everyone has forgotten his lovely opinion but 2024 ain't 25 years away. Ignoring the education issues I actually really like Cory Booker. He seems an overwhelmingly decent person that is focused on achieving workable solutions. I just hope the Ds can come up with someone better in the next 8 years. Which yeah, is pretty much how I felt about Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:One more question: Should democrats/progressives like myself feel depressed that despite Donald Trump inviting a political landslide for Hilary Clinton that we still can't lodge the GOP out of the house? Could it be done in 2018? Or are we democrats going to underperform again during those midterms? Republicans usually mobilize during midterms and score decent amounts of points. Democrats normally don't show up like during a presidential race and therefor don't do as well. This is fairly normal. Don't get your hopes up for 2018. The two ways for the GOP to lose the house is either for gerrymandering to stay like it is and the republicans lose it because of a wave election as the leads in those counties are brittle at around 3% or for the gerrymandering laws to be overturned and they lose after the census.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
I don't know about Booker or Harris, but I seriously can't wait to pull that lever for Tammy Duckworth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Pakled posted:There's very little chance of the Democrats taking control of the House in the midterms. In addition to the current round of GOP-favoring gerrymandering still being in place then, the Democrats' demographic advantage is less pronounced during midterms because voter turnout is lower, especially among young people, ethnic minorities, and poor people. It would take either a very fast judiciary-led crackdown on gerrymandering and voter suppression, some kind of movement that massively energizes the Democratic base to participate in the elections to the same level as, say, the Tea Party did for Republicans in 2010, or preferably both, to overcome that disadvantage. Obviously, a lot can happen in 2 years, but most likely the Republicans are probably going to expand their control of the House in 2018. On the other side of things: 2018 will see the 2010 gerrymandering nearing the end of its lifetime. As gerrymanders age they become less and less effective as the D-sections of the electorate gain population and the R-sections keep bleeding people. The real prizes are statehouses and control of the 2020 redistricting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I think that will depend on how congress shakes out under Hillary, but going by her record so far I'd have no problem voting for her in eight years. She apparently filed an amicus brief in the Heller case saying the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to own firearms. Ignoring the dodgy legal standing of that argument, I feel like that would come back to haunt her in a general. Not that I personally particularly care about that issue. I'd be super down with a Russ Feingold run but he's a white dude and he also is a great Senator so meh. I feel like Cory Booker would be a good Hillary to someone to his left to play Bernie, who is less electable but can push things in a better direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Or hell, maybe something crazy will happen like a Trumpist third party emerging that siphons off a big chunk of the Republicans' voter base and delivers a commanding House majority to the Democrats. That's just a pipe dream, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
There is a faint hope that there will be lasting rifts between the post election Trumpists, the fringe and the remaining GOP mainliners. It's two years to hope that they stay broken, but a permanent or at least major schism could happen that could gently caress them over in certain states by 2018.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
E: so dumb
WHOOPS fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I never thought about it before but I bet "left blank" outperforms 3rd party candidates almost every time Oh yeah totally. Hell, for some local positions that get voted on the same day as President or Senator, blank votes for the position can even outnumber the major party votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
E: wtf wrong topic
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
vorebane posted:From a few pages ago, but I missed this, if Hillary talked about solutions for inner cities, I'd like to read it, where was the speech at? I think it's noteworthy to point out that their 10-point plan was released about a week after her famous "You're not going to change hearts" conversation with protesters in August 11, 2015. Maybe it was already in the works, but looking at the timeline while googling the topic, you could argue that she was responsible for getting them to sit down and hammer out their policy plan. Campaign Zero's domain was registered 8/18/15 according to whois data. Definitely debunks the "Why would blacks vote for Hillary?" thing that Trump is doing. I haven't been following her day to day campaign closely enough to know if she's given a speech that frames her platform in terms of fixing the inner city, but if the topic comes up in the debates I imagine this is some of what she'll say to appeal to minorities. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:There is a faint hope that there will be lasting rifts between the post election Trumpists, the fringe and the remaining GOP mainliners. It's two years to hope that they stay broken, but a permanent or at least major schism could happen that could gently caress them over in certain states by 2018. Granted, Trump is not a 'true believer' like some of those Tea Party whack jobs are, but because he says the right things those same people will excuse the other stuff he says that doesn't jive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
WHOOPS posted:Stefan Diggs runs real pretty routes. It's still true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:I think you're underselling how chained he is to the subject. Booker got his start in the Newark city council using huge swaths of wall street money from master's of the universe that wanted to totally restructure the education system. Booker also founded the Newark Charter School fund. I mean his brother runs a charter school in Memphis, dude's in deep. Maybe he can do what Biden did with anti-busing and ignore it for 25 years until everyone has forgotten his lovely opinion but 2024 ain't 25 years away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Environmental and renewable energy would be basically impossible to get passed, since so many Republicans think Climate Change is not just fake, but a hoax. This is factually wrong as we did pass a massive extension to subsidies for renewables through the Republican congress. Passing new anti-carbon regulations is a different matter however.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also, wouldn't a tepid recovery imply a similarly tepid contraction later? The "massive recovery" of the early 2000s just set us up better for failure. Besides, the only domestic industries that are particularly bubbly are the Fart Apps of Silicon Valley. No, not necessarily. Recessions don't just happen, so the depth of one depends largely on what caused it and what monetary and fiscal tools are available to guarantee a soft landing and recovery. If you can't interrupt the positive feedback loop of reduced business and consumer spending, then it doesn't really matter what the economy looked like before things went sideways. I'm honestly less concerned about bubbles and more concerned that this recovery is largely built on pulling future consumer demand into the present and driving consumers to take on more debt. Business and government spending is absurdly low at the moment. That's both very fragile and not at all sustainable. Edit- I'd also argue that equities in general are in a bubble right now, but I have no idea what the implications of that might be (if there even are any) for the larger economy. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
If you want to galvanize the economy, build infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, not necessarily. Recessions don't just happen, so the depth of one depends largely on what caused it and what monetary and fiscal tools are available to guarantee a soft landing and recovery. If you can't interrupt the positive feedback loop of reduced business and consumer spending, then it doesn't really matter what the economy looked like before things went sideways. That's my point. The "recovery" of the 2000s was fueled by a large credit bubble. I guess to be accurate - what are the "legitimate" recoveries you're thinking of? Certainly the 90s (tech boom), 80s (Reagan tax cuts), etc don't count.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:52
|
|