|
"Starting right now, I'll be strong." That's how this works, right? Starting right now I'll be in shape.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I honestly hope she does run in 2020. I hope she participates in a well-vetted primary field and she gets 100% shut out within the first month. She get's soundly rejected by the voters in the first 4 states and whoever takes on Bernie's mantle is overwhelmingly supported. Only in the face of certain unquestionable defeat will Hillary (and her donors) finally get the message. do you think that hillary and Clinton Inc are going to let a minor detail like nobody voting for her stand in the way of her coronation in 2020? since they put one of her toadys in charge of the DNC, I think it's safe to assume that the nomination will be earned 100% by superdelegates just to make sure that she isn't failed by the lumpen proletariat again
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I honestly hope she does run in 2020. I hope she participates in a well-vetted primary field and she gets 100% shut out within the first month. She get's soundly rejected by the voters in the first 4 states and whoever takes on Bernie's mantle is overwhelmingly supported. Only in the face of certain unquestionable defeat will Hillary (and her donors) finally get the message. And another finger on the monkey paw folds: Get ready for a Booker/Kerry run
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:do you think that hillary and Clinton Inc are going to let a minor detail like nobody voting for her stand in the way of her coronation in 2020? since they put one of her toadys in charge of the DNC, I think it's safe to assume that the nomination will be earned 100% by superdelegates just to make sure that she isn't failed by the lumpen proletariat again Nah, Superdelegates will not be anywhere near the factor they were this year. That is something that even Perez can agree on. While Clinton had her hand on the scales in 2016, Trump has smacked it away, so the Clinton-wing will have to find another way to manipulate the process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:And another finger on the monkey paw folds: Get ready for a Booker/Kerry run Finally, Wall St gets a voice in DC
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Nah, Superdelegates will not be anywhere near the factor they were this year. That is something that even Perez can agree on. While Clinton had her hand on the scales in 2016, Trump has smacked it away, so the Clinton-wing will have to find another way to manipulate the process. It's not really hard. Give their people safe seats, try to make themselves not too loud, throw a sacrificial lamb at the 2020 elections, and remember that a whole new group of voters who are barely aware of why you lost the last time are going to start voting in 2024. I'll be mostly amazed if Chelsea doesn't have at least a Manhattan house seat by then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Nah, Superdelegates will not be anywhere near the factor they were this year. That is something that even Perez can agree on. While Clinton had her hand on the scales in 2016, Trump has smacked it away, so the Clinton-wing will have to find another way to manipulate the process. i'll take some action on that. already got the resident ultralib on my team to donate $200 to the NRA and Food for the Hungry by losing an election bet. time to fleece some more non believers
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Louikankos would've won. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3814068 Vote now!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Office Surprise Store posted:so after hillary runs and loses in 2020 do they run her again in 2024 in a "we're going to do this until you loving like it" gesture I am Tiresias and I predict the grim eternal future of the Democratic Party is this except a primary  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod SickZip has issued a correction as of 17:27 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
it will be her turn in this life or the next
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:So much certainty for 2020, no betting of even a minor punishment on it in the betting thread. sad. Hard to predict how much dems will gently caress over lefties again, bigly or yuuuge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:No, i expect something fresh, like her fellow young people listen to like this song is catchy as hell and anyone who uses it WILL win
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I honestly hope she does run in 2020. I hope she participates in a well-vetted primary field and she gets 100% shut out within the first month. She get's soundly rejected by the voters in the first 4 states and whoever takes on Bernie's mantle is overwhelmingly supported. Only in the face of certain unquestionable defeat will Hillary (and her donors) finally get the message. i hope she does this and is booted out only after wasting hundreds of millions of hers and her donors' dollars
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Clinton, Cuomo, or Booker are the only dems that can lose to Trump in 2020. So it will be one of them who is the 2020 nom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:So much certainty for 2020, no betting of even a minor punishment on it in the betting thread. sad. If you want people to make stupid bets on "sure things" you're targeting the wrong audience - you really want to go after the Hill-folk for that particular mix of smug certainty and terrible decision making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Clinton, Cuomo, or Booker are the only dems that can lose to Trump in 2020. "A woman, an Italian, and a Black guy walk into a convention..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
call to action posted:For a bunch of data driven "wonks" and "quants" they sure don't seem to give a gently caress about looking at the data that's always instantly available at their fingertips. I think wonks and quants are actually less well equipped to understand the world than most other people because of their data driven approaches. Many of them seem to lose the ability to think about context or anything that can't be boiled down to statistics. Worse, because they have all these complex systems they are forever feeding data into it just never occurs to them to ask people whats going on or to listen to their answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
The 2016 election was just like Jurassic Park. The dems were the hubris filled scientists and capitalists who thought they could control everything. Newman was the Russians, and Trump is the T-Rex. Me? I'm mr. Jeffery Goldblum - Life, it found a way. Ah-ha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:What genre will hillary 2020 use for their campaign theme song? Grindcore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r16NjjDPLlc
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:"A woman, an Italian, and a Black guy walk into a convention..." I forget the rest of the joke but it turns out that the only reason they weren't selected is racsexism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I think wonks and quants are actually less well equipped to understand the world than most other people because of their data driven approaches. Many of them seem to lose the ability to think about context or anything that can't be boiled down to statistics. Worse, because they have all these complex systems they are forever feeding data into it just never occurs to them to ask people whats going on or to listen to their answer. You're obviously not wrong, but I think this approach is still too kind. It's not as if these folks are limited to simply looking at U-3 unemployment and, seeing that it's in a pretty decent state, declaring that all is well. They've got the data on new housing starts, U-6 unemployment, GINI indices, portions of returns on investment going to capital and labor, etc and all of it would seem to indicate the same things that talking to real people would: there is high level of precarity amongst Americans and a diminishing confidence in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you want people to make stupid bets on "sure things" you're targeting the wrong audience - you really want to go after the Hill-folk for that particular mix of smug certainty and terrible decision making. people seem pretty sure itt :thinkingface:
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
call to action posted:You're obviously not wrong, but I think this approach is still too kind. It's not as if these folks are limited to simply looking at U-3 unemployment and, seeing that it's in a pretty decent state, declaring that all is well. They've got the data on new housing starts, U-6 unemployment, GINI indices, portions of returns on investment going to capital and labor, etc and all of it would seem to indicate the same things that talking to real people would: there is high level of precarity amongst Americans and a diminishing confidence in the future. Yes I know when I go into my local tavern and hang out with my brothers and sisters in the working class, the thing that gets brought up every single night, with tears in eyes, and burning passion in hearts, is the GINI coefficient. We like to discuss the works of kropotkin and marx over chicken nug nugs and genny on tap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:So much certainty for 2020, no betting of even a minor punishment on it in the betting thread. sad. I am 100% certain of the outcome and if you put up the toxx thread I'll toxx right now... ...For Jeb! EDIT: Didn't see the thread, will go post in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
 I think hubris was her campaign message.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Montasque posted:
If I ever build a time machine, I'm going to try to attend as many Manhattan election parties as possible before I overdose on schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yes I know when I go into my local tavern and hang out with my brothers and sisters in the working class, the thing that gets brought up every single night, with tears in eyes, and burning passion in hearts, is the GINI coefficient. We like to discuss the works of kropotkin and marx over chicken nug nugs and genny on tap. He was saying there's statistics that show that pretty much most people are going through hell, there's no excuse for people who consider themselves learned about the economy and policy to be blindsided by the idea that for a lot of people it's fuckin' rough out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
machen Deutschland wieder groß
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Has anyone posted that one Lee Atwater quote
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yes I know when I go into my local tavern and hang out with my brothers and sisters in the working class, the thing that gets brought up every single night, with tears in eyes, and burning passion in hearts, is the GINI coefficient. We like to discuss the works of kropotkin and marx over chicken nug nugs and genny on tap. If things really suck, have sucked for a while, and look to continue sucking for the foreseeable future, then we ought to be able to find a way to measure how much it sucks. It's always something that's gonna be messy and inexact, but saying that it can't be put into numbers is some right-wing Austrian economics poo poo. Top-line unemployment numbers are kinda poo poo, but it's easy for people to understand. It'd just be nice if they started using a number that in some way incorporated the person who got laid off, then took a job making 50% of his old salary to make ends meet, or the parent who now stays at home or maybe works part time and isn't looking for work because things suck and they couldn't find anything when they were looking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Couldn't they just find the number of people making < their local cost of living or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:Has anyone posted that one
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Couldn't they just find the number of people making < their local cost of living or something? For example, if you've got six people that live in a studio apartment, buy everything they can second-hand, and don't report that they've experienced hunger in the last year, can you take their yearly expenditures and divide by six to get the cost of living in the area? How does that change if it is six young men vs. two adults and four children. I mean, we know what their cost to live was, but is it reasonable to expect others to live like that? Or, go to the other side, is the cost of living in an area what it would take for a person to live in their own apartment/house? How many non-family roommates is a person expected to have? Should kids factor into the cost of living? On one side, of course not, no one has to have a kid and if they can't afford it, they should wait until they can. On the other side, accidents happen. Now, how do you factor daycare into that? Parents either need it or they need to be close enough to (and have) family that can watch your kids while you go to work. What if Memaw and Pep Pep won't (or can't) watch the kids? What's an acceptable amount that a person should spend every year on medical stuff every year? And you can't just take what people spent last year, since you'll have to factor in how insurance will change in the future, and you've gotta be careful since you're also gonna have to define what an acceptable level of health is as a part of this, since a lot of poor people don't get care that they would likely qualify as "necessary" if they had more money. Oh, and don't forget to grade it by age, since that's gonna matter a lot. There's a billion other little things that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head that would be just as thorny too, but would be absolutely necessary to codify to get that cost of living number. Just take a look at the current definition of the poverty line: "three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index". It's been in law since LBJ's Great Society and look at how goddamn useless it is now. Everyone knows that it's laughably low, so much so that you don't see much in the way of news anymore about how many people are above or below the poverty line, because pretty much everyone acknowledges that you can be above the poverty line, even by a pretty good margin, and still be in grinding poverty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying a federally determined cost of living would be a powerful weapon for the left? I think "cost of living" in an awesome phrase to be throwing around if so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying a federally determined cost of living would be a powerful weapon for the left? I think "cost of living" in an awesome phrase to be throwing around if so. cost of living is good because it sounds like a so so REM album that I would defend when I was a teenager because it had one really strong track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Good in theory, tougher in practice, because there's no official way to determine what the cost of living is, and thus what a living wage would be. [some good poo poo] I mean, the government can figure this poo poo out if they really want to. The consumer price index takes a LOT of effort and data collection to get right, and yet we do it because finance demands it. If this Misery Index were only slightly more accurate than U-3, GDP per capita, etc., I'll take it for now. I completely agree that it's a political football though. No establishment politician will have donors that want that kind of baseline established.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying a federally determined cost of living would be a powerful weapon for the left? I think "cost of living" in an awesome phrase to be throwing around if so. It's all about breaking out of the idea that people who should be in a secure position really are not. It's the slow death of the 50's era American Dream, the implicit promise that if you work hard and play by the rules, you'll be able to provide for your family and be "middle class". That doesn't mean living in luxury, but living in economic security. Take a look at that recent study that showed how 50% of "middle class" people couldn't deal with an unexpected $500 expense without resorting to credit or raiding some kind of non-savings investment like a 401k. Those people may meet the definition of "middle class" technically, but they're one bad event from losing that status, and that doesn't feel "middle class". I think the Great Recession showed a lot of people, even ones who kept their house and job and standard of living just how precarious their situation could become through things outside their control. Anger over that simmered for eight years under Obama, then exploded in 2016 and the party that harnessed it best won big. However, that same anger is now swinging back to Republicans, because people expect them to do something about it, and they're ideologically ill-equipped to do so. The left already moving towards it a bit sideways with the push for a $15/hr federal minimum wage, which is good as a conversation starter, but bad policy nationally. The idea underpinning that is that people can't afford to live on minimum wage in a lot of areas, but $15/hr isn't a living wage for a single person in some high-cost places, but in the town I was born in, it's right about the cost of living for two adults and two kids, if both parents work. I'd like to see "Fight for 15" turn into "Fight for a Living Wage" or "Fight for Economic Security", but the last two aren't quite so catchy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Actually fight for 15 is something understandable and easy to rally around and determine win/lose. Minimum wage was $11/hour in the 60s and the idea is that a $15 law would have a 4 year adjustment period means it's not much different, it's just giving millennialist one of the things boomers got. And your garbage fanciful "in fairness" approach dies and is literally the worst way to do political struggle Look at how insanely lock step and demanding the republicans are and how they've gotten what they wanted over and over
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Like if I met you in real life and heard you telling people that opinion as of it were informed and not insane ramblings I'd whoop your rear end then and there (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
Modest Mao posted:Like if I met you in real life and heard you telling people that opinion as of it were informed and not insane ramblings I'd whoop your rear end then and there
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:43
|
|