|
RuanGacho posted:Imagine the effect on the remaining companies if Equifax was ended. The government should be able to force companies convicted of such crimes, whether through malice or negligence, to toss out their management and completely restructure. But what I am trying to get at is that it would also be nice to see justice dealt with on a personal level. If nurses who fail to store medical records properly and lock document rooms can lose their license, then the management of infosec companies entrusted with even more delicate personal information of far more people should go to jail for the same reasons. For dog tax, here is security dog 
BlueberryCanary fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 13, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
try the new taco place posted:He inspired people as an accident in his quest to keep all slaveowners rich and powerful for as long as possible. Keep the statue, but make it play Yakkity-sax 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
try the new taco place posted:The fact that Jefferson wrote that pretty bullshit and brutalized humans that he owned makes him worse imo. He inspired people as an accident in his quest to keep all slaveowners rich and powerful for as long as possible. Patrick Henry is even better. There's no argument about the Confederate statues. I feel like in the case of the Founding Fathers, it's more important to have a serious cultural reckoning with what with horrible things they considered "norms" than it is to tear down statues/monuments to the things they did. I like people agitating about the monuments because it gets the conversation started, but I'd feel pretty weird about us actually taking a bulldozer to the Washington Monument. We should see our historical figures in shades of grey.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well you edited it, but consider this when talking about "middle America" if we wait until they'll approve before acting, when do we draw the line? What happened in 1996?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:There's no argument about the Confederate statues. I feel like in the case of the Founding Fathers, it's more important to have a serious cultural reckoning with what with horrible things they considered "norms" than it is to tear down statues/monuments to the things they did. I like people agitating about the monuments because it gets the conversation started, but I'd feel pretty weird about us actually taking a bulldozer to the Washington Monument. We should see our historical figures in shades of grey. Republicans have a huge problem with shades of grey. Everyone is either pure good or pure evil. Which is why they were confused when Democrats were pissed at Coney's firing after calling for it six months beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
I'm not counting on it, but if the Republican were to only win by like 5, that would be stunning. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/907985486702096384
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'm not counting on it, but if the Republican were to only win by like 5, that would be stunning. Roy Moore is almost even more unfit than Trump is. Brooks is just a moron but probably not out of the mainstream of republican elected these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Single-Payer is also not the end-all, be-all of health care. Only a few countries (2?) actually have it while most of the others with UHC have other means of achieving it. This is technically correct, but I feel like this argument is always a little bit disingenuous. Canada and Taiwan are the only countries with true, full single-payer systems, but several more developed nations have forms of single-payer hybridized with private insurance. Like it's technically true that the UK doesn't have a 100% single-payer system, but it's a wonky point to make that won't meaningfully matter to most people. A free-at-point-of-care public system that could meet the needs of most people would satisfy just about everyone agitating for some form of UHC, even if the private health insurance industry continued to exist alongside it. Calling it single-payer as a matter of branding is fine, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/907988834260017158 Jeff Flake is a dead man walking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is technically correct, but I feel like this argument is always a little bit disingenuous. Canada and Taiwan are the only countries with true, full single-payer systems, but several more developed nations have forms of single-payer hybridized with private insurance. Like it's technically true that the UK doesn't have a 100% single-payer system, but it's a wonky point to make that won't meaningfully matter to most people. A free-at-point-of-care public system that could meet the needs of most people would satisfy just about everyone agitating for some form of UHC, even if the private health insurance industry continued to exist alongside it. Calling it single-payer as a matter of branding is fine, I think. Honestly I get the impression that from what the 'Single Payer, nothing less' crowd says that they wouldn't consider the hybrid systems acceptable. Condiv posted:i meant not including it in the final legislation That's what would get through arch-traitor Joe Lieberman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Patrick Henry is even better. rededicate the washington monument to the city/nation as a whole. keeping it as is is also acceptable if mount vernon is redone to emphasize the slaves he had
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Honestly I get the impression that from what the 'Single Payer, nothing less' crowd says that they wouldn't consider the hybrid systems acceptable. single payer is the first step to a NHS, so no it wouldn't be acceptable
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Pakled posted:What happened in 1996? I couldn't find any clear answers, but based on this New York Times article, the number of interracial marriages was increasing, so I guess it was just exposure? https://mobile.nytimes.com/1996/07/04/us/study-finds-rising-number-of-black-white-marriages.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is technically correct, but I feel like this argument is always a little bit disingenuous. Canada and Taiwan are the only countries with true, full single-payer systems, but several more developed nations have forms of single-payer hybridized with private insurance. Like it's technically true that the UK doesn't have a 100% single-payer system, but it's a wonky point to make that won't meaningfully matter to most people. A free-at-point-of-care public system that could meet the needs of most people would satisfy just about everyone agitating for some form of UHC, even if the private health insurance industry continued to exist alongside it. Calling it single-payer as a matter of branding is fine, I think. Single--payer isn't a great name for it. Too technical. We need to sell it to the morons, too. "Universal healthcare" sounds better and can't be willfully distorted by Republican wormtongues. "It's not *single* payer! We all pay for it, in our taxes! Can the American family pay thousands more dollars a year in taxes so that the workshy can get Botox at the dermatologist?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Single--payer isn't a great name for it. Too technical. We need to sell it to the morons, too. "Universal healthcare" sounds better and can't be willfully distorted by Republican wormtongues. "It's not *single* payer! We all pay for it, in our taxes! Can the American family pay thousands more dollars a year in taxes so that the workshy can get Botox at the dermatologist?" It's called hlthCare. Get the app on your iPhone now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Hilldawg's interview on Pod Save America is real good and everyone should listen to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
axeil posted:Hilldawg's interview on Pod Save America is real good and everyone should listen to it. Is this on iTunes or is there a platform agnostic link?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
axeil posted:Hilldawg's interview on Pod Save America is real good and everyone should listen to it. "Good" how? About how delusional and clueless she still is about why she lost and the direction the democratic party is moving in? RuanGacho posted:Is this on iTunes or is there a platform agnostic link? It's on iTunes
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Honestly I get the impression that from what the 'Single Payer, nothing less' crowd says that they wouldn't consider the hybrid systems acceptable. I really don't think this is true. The point I was making is that a hybrid system is a single-payer system, it's just single-payer with a multi-payer private system latched on. There's a ten mile gap between something like the ACA and a hybrid single-payer system, so there's absolutely no reason to believe that the people who complain about one will complain about the other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is technically correct, but I feel like this argument is always a little bit disingenuous. Canada and Taiwan are the only countries with true, full single-payer systems, but several more developed nations have forms of single-payer hybridized with private insurance. Like it's technically true that the UK doesn't have a 100% single-payer system, but it's a wonky point to make that won't meaningfully matter to most people. A free-at-point-of-care public system that could meet the needs of most people would satisfy just about everyone agitating for some form of UHC, even if the private health insurance industry continued to exist alongside it. Calling it single-payer as a matter of branding is fine, I think. Most of mainland Europe uses what are absolutely and undeniably multi-payer systems, just actually universal and with more heavy regulation on the private elements. A number of them tend to get better outcomes than Canada and the UK besides, and from where the US is now it would be an easier transition in both a technical and a worker sense than single payer. If you still want single-payer anyway that's fine but there's ample reason for those on the left to support multi-payer UHC rather than single-payer. UHC should be a litmus test at this point, but I've yet to see anyone articulate a reason "single-payer" should be. It isn't even a better verbal shorthand than "universal healthcare".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:"Good" how? About how delusional and clueless she still is about why she lost and the direction the democratic party is moving in? Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it. gently caress Bernie Sanders (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Yeah it was really messed up how the sexists stopped her from campaigning in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Every thread is primary chat once again, jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Honestly I get the impression that from what the 'Single Payer, nothing less' crowd says that they wouldn't consider the hybrid systems acceptable. dems were asking for it though since they supported lieberman over his dem opponent despite him abandoning the party. they were perfectly fine with him going independent after he lost the democratic primary: quote:right after Lieberman lost the primary, he was welcomed with a standing ovation back to the Senate club by his Democratic colleagues. Subsequently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid indicated that Lieberman's seniority would be preserved if he won reelection, despite the fact that he officially abandoned the party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Every thread is primary chat once again, jesus christ. thank axeil for that gift axeil posted:Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it. i don't see how anyone "rightfully" hates bernie sanders. he's done p good keeping voters engaged past the election
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
axeil posted:Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:Yeah it was really messed up how the sexists stopped her from campaigning in Wisconsin. Campaigning in Wisconsin wouldn't have saved her. Being a man would've sure helped though! Condiv posted:thank axeil for that gift He is a cuckoo in the nest of the Democratic Party, replacing all the eggs with his own poo poo-filled ones. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are party leaders. Bernie Sanders is a crotchety old man who is encouraging party in-fighting because he's not a Democrat by his own admission Also the woman wrote a book that just came out about why she thinks she lost. It's not primary chat to bring that up. The #1 reason she thinks she lost is sexism, pure and simple. axeil fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dems were asking for it though since they supported lieberman over his dem opponent despite him abandoning the party. they were perfectly fine with him going independent after he lost the democratic primary: here's a slate article backing this up further: quote:With just a few days to go until the midterm elections, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut has a 14-point lead over Democratic challenger Ned Lamont. Lieberman started his campaign as a Democrat but switched his affiliation to Independent after he lost the party primary in August. What will happen if he gets re-elected to the Senate? the dems patted lieberman on the back after he abandoned the party cause he lost the dem primary, then he stabbed them in the back in return
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:rededicate the washington monument to the city/nation as a whole. keeping it as is is also acceptable if mount vernon is redone to emphasize the slaves he had Well that's good news, because Montecello has a lot of space dedicated to discussion and examination of Jefferson's use of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
axeil posted:He is a cuckoo in the nest of the Democratic Party, replacing all the eggs with his own poo poo-filled ones. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are party leaders. Bernie Sanders is a crotchety old man who is encouraging party in-fighting because he's not a Democrat by his own admission both of which support bernie's medicare for all plan unlike hillary clinton, who is going around throwing tantrums about how obama and bernie didn't do enough for her campaign  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
axeil posted:Campaigning in Wisconsin wouldn't have saved her. investment banker mad at socialist for being popular sky blue, water wet
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
It was pretty obvious that Lieberman would get a pretty huge chunk of the Republican voters voting for him in the general election as well as those democrats that voted for him in the primary. Smoozing him so he didn't run immediately into the open arms of the Republican party was pretty sound political strategy. The GOP candidate got less than 10% of the total election. Wiki posted:Exit polls showed that Lieberman won the vote of 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I really don't think this is true. The point I was making is that a hybrid system is a single-payer system, it's just single-payer with a multi-payer private system latched on. There's a ten mile gap between something like the ACA and a hybrid single-payer system, so there's absolutely no reason to believe that the people who complain about one will complain about the other. I'm unfortunately not knowledgeable enough about healthcare funding to know, so here's a question: Let's say the ACA passed with the public option intact. Where would that put it on the scale of "ehhh I guess it's better" to "actual universal healthcare?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:investment banker mad at socialist for being popular  I'm not an investment banker.It's just so loving frustrating that it is verboten on this forum to say "hey I actually like Hillary Clinton" Harrow posted:I'm unfortunately not knowledgeable enough about healthcare funding to know, so here's a question: I think the idea with a public option->UHC is eventually the public option gets more and more popular and it becomes de facto UHC over time. I honestly don't know if that's a better play than just straight up Medicare-for-all though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:both of which support bernie's medicare for all plan unlike hillary clinton, who is going around throwing tantrums about how obama and bernie didn't do enough for her campaign Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
axeil posted:
I'd be curious to know your top 5 as mentioned up thread. I really want people to examine whom they value and why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what? She didn't say poo poo about Obama, at least not in the PSA interview. But clearly she obviously hates him for some reason. It's because she's a woman and everyone assumes the worst about her because of it because subconscious sexism like this is a cancer in this country axeil fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:Also the woman wrote a book that just came out about why she thinks she lost. It's not primary chat to bring that up. The #1 reason she thinks she lost is sexism, pure and simple. There were a lot of factors that were "the final straw" because the contest was extremely close. In a lot of ways everyone is right. She lost because she was a woman - and because of campaigning in the wrong states, being a Clinton, having a fight with Bernie, email shenanigans, and Trump bringing the racists out of the woodwork. If any of those things had been absent, she would have won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
axeil posted:
hillary supporter finds not being met with instant approval for his opinions a horribly frustrating imposition on the natural order sky, water unchanged from previous diagnoses
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
I love primary chat, it's like a Heller-ian microcosm of the state of political discourse in the US, most of the characters are too caricatured to be believable, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
