|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:A minor nitpick, but grammatically-speaking it's 'president' as a singular noun and 'President ______' as a title, isn't it? Yep!
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
botany posted:Yep! I'm a writer so I care about these things. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/18/politics/poll-russian-hacking/index.htmlquote:Washington (CNN)More than half of Americans say they're bothered by Russian hacks of Democratic emails in an effort to help Donald Trump win the election, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Apparently Obama has come out and said the Democrats don't need to change any policy, just the messenger
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Radish posted:I had a co-worker tell me that the Gilded Age was obviously a good thing because otherwise why would they call it "gilded?" KomradeX posted:Apparently Obama has come out and said the Democrats don't need to change any policy, just the messenger
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Radish posted:I had a co-worker tell me that the Gilded Age was obviously a good thing because otherwise why would they call it "gilded?" That's a tricky argument. Did you attack the stupidity of thinking something's name must be true and descriptive of the thing, or did you decide to explain to them the hyper-appropriate difference between golden and gilded?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Higsian posted:That's a tricky argument. Did you attack the stupidity of thinking something's name must be true and descriptive of the thing, or did you decide to explain to them the hyper-appropriate difference between golden and gilded? I said nothing because that person could get me fired. KomradeX posted:Apparently Obama has come out and said the Democrats don't need to change any policy, just the messenger Of course he did, it worked for him. REALLY can't wait to see how he fails at his plan on getting gerrymandering solved. It's pretty clear at this point that Obama is all talk and really doesn't actually give a poo poo beyond half hearted bipartisan-ism. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Apparently Obama has come out and said the Democrats don't need to change any policy, just the messenger Worked for Trump (he's not going to do anything the GOP weren't already going to tear down), and if anyone would know, it's a center right technocrat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:I said nothing because that person could get me fired. He's just one more Ivy League centrist retard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:I had a co-worker tell me that the Gilded Age was obviously a good thing because otherwise why would they call it "gilded?" but... it was called gilded because the nice parts of it were entirely superficial....
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:Of course he did, it worked for him. REALLY can't wait to see how he fails at his plan on getting gerrymandering solved. It's pretty clear at this point that Obama is all talk and really doesn't actually give a poo poo beyond half hearted bipartisan-ism. It was pretty clear four years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:It was pretty clear four years ago. Yeah but there was always a excuse that he had to do it for whatever reason but post Trump he has no reason other than being sincere in his true love of polite capitulation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not really. If everyone is forced into the same system, then the rich people will still ignore it and try to underfund it, until the exact point at which they need it, at which point they will bitch about it and go get medical treatment abroad anyway. The only way to make it work is to allow private healthcare, and make sure that it generates money that's funnelled back into the public system, and to tie medical licensure directly to providing service within the public system to some degree. Walk this back for me because I'm not sure I follow you. How does the rich ignore the system? The alternative is Canada or Mexico/ overseas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:Walk this back for me because I'm not sure I follow you. How does the rich ignore the system? The alternative is Canada or Mexico/ overseas. Most rich people will still not need the system on a continual basis, because most people don't need healthcare constantly, and of the people that do, very few of them tend to be rich. So the system will tend to be underfunded and lovely as a rule. When those rich people actually do need healthcare, there won't be time to fund the public system properly, so they will indeed go to another country for the healthcare they need. Granted, they'll probably still go to a local doctor for checkups and minor ailments, but anything significant, life-threatening or time-critical will be handled privately, and if that means going to another country, that's what will happen. That's what happens in Canada right now, in a lot of cases. You might as well keep that in the country, and use a significant portion of the proceeds to fund the public system. Or, as some provinces have done here, allow private clinics to operate only under the condition that they provide some level of services free to the public system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Any time the American health care system gets discussed, I get struck by how insane and byzantine literally any part of the process is. The fact that anyone can defend it's existence comes of as someone eloquently explaining the benefits of your house being on fire with you inside it. Case in point: enraged_camel posted:Maybe, but the problem is that this happens through tremendously bloated and inefficient channels. If my premium goes up $50 year-over-year, only $5-10 of that increase actually pays for the bills of those who can't afford healthcare. The rest ends up in the pockets of various parties along the way. A Buttery Pastry posted:Also known as jobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Worked for Trump (he's not going to do anything the GOP weren't already going to tear down), and if anyone would know, it's a center right technocrat. It just really sucks to know the Democrats aren't going to learn any lessons from the last 6 years and ate just going to become irrelevant as a political party because they can't be assed to give up center right bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
They'll learn three lessons: - - double down on women and silicon valley types making more than 50k - pray white people die faster than the GOP can grow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:They'll learn three lessons: - We need bigger and better celebrities to sell our brand
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
We're so hosed
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Uh I'll have you know that the Democrats are quite popular which is why three of the last four people they've nominated for president as the best the party could offer were beaten by idiots so we don't need to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:Uh I'll have you know that the Democrats are quite popular which is why three of the last four people they've nominated for president as the best the party could offer were beaten by idiots so we don't need to change anything. 2.8 million votes
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
You keep saying that but for some reason the electors just gave the presidency to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
botany posted:2.8 million votes So who should headline HRC's inauguration celebration, Beyonce or Katy Perry?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Lady Gaga, duh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Like let's say that yeah nationally the Democrats are more popular, if they are so inept that the GOP manages to keep running circles around them and winning regardless that doesn't make them look like a more competent party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
2.8 million votes is a mandate. A mandate to change from the broken electoral college system. But guess who benefits from the current system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
The Dems should have made that their goal after 2000 instead of just meekly accepting the system. Probably wouldn't have been able to do it, but at least it would be something to fight for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
botany posted:2.8 million votes
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:So who should headline HRC's inauguration celebration, Beyonce or Katy Perry? lena dunham
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:- We need bigger and better celebrities to sell our brand Kanye already said he's running in 2020 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Kanye already said he's running in 2020 he tweeted #2024 after meeting with trump and getting a signed copy of his autobiography  also, has your av ever changed at all? it's one of the very few i know who you are just glimpsing it hope that doesn't sound creepy
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Radish posted:Like let's say that yeah nationally the Democrats are more popular, if they are so inept that the GOP manages to keep running circles around them and winning regardless that doesn't make them look like a more competent party. Yeah I'd never claim the Dems are especially competent or that Clinton was a good candidate, but saying that the GOP is more popular when they lost the popular vote is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
botany posted:Yeah I'd never claim the Dems are especially competent or that Clinton was a good candidate, but saying that the GOP is more popular when they lost the popular vote is nonsense. 
cheese fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
cheese posted:And yet they won more electoral college votes and now have the Presidency, in addition to a majority of Senate and House seats. and state legislatures and governorships
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
cheese posted:And yet they won more electoral college votes and now have the Presidency, in addition to a majority of Senate and House seats. Yes, despite getting less votes. Less of the popular vote. Which makes them less popular that the other party, that got more of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
botany posted:Yes, despite getting less votes. Less of the popular vote. Which makes them less popular that the other party, that got more of the popular vote. The great irony is that even in defeat, Hillary Clinton will gently caress over the women and POC she claimed to represent, as centrist establishment Democrats are going to use the popular vote margin + Russian hacking to argue that they don't need to change the Dem platform at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
cheese posted:And yet less of the electoral college votes, which according to our national documents is what determines the president. 4/5 Dentists could recommend Hillary over Trump and it would mean just as much as the popular vote margin. Let me explain this using very simple words. The original poster said the GOP was more popular than the Dems. This is false (not true), since the Dems got more of the popular vote than the GOP. This means more people voted for the Dems, which makes them the more popular party. That is the entirety of the argument. The fact that the US electoral system is dumb is also an interesting topic, but it has no bearing on popularity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
botany posted:Let me explain this using very simple words. The original poster said the GOP was more popular than the Dems. This is false (not true), since the Dems got more of the popular vote than the GOP. This means more people voted for the Dems, which makes them the more popular party. That is the entirety of the argument. The fact that the US electoral system is dumb is also an interesting topic, but it has no bearing on popularity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
At this point I'm liking Hillary despite her actions because the alternative is agreeing with some really disgusting "leftists."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
botany posted:Let me explain this using very simple words. The original poster said the GOP was more popular than the Dems. This is false (not true), since the Dems got more of the popular vote than the GOP. This means more people voted for the Dems, which makes them the more popular party. That is the entirety of the argument. The fact that the US electoral system is dumb is also an interesting topic, but it has no bearing on popularity. Do you think Presedential votes are the best way to judge how popular a political party is? What if we looked at say, the Congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:16
|
|