|
Mr Hootington posted:Lol at dems getting angry about Medicare for all purity tests then apply purity tests to Bernie and his supporters. Is the purity test Medicare for all or single payer or public option or UHC? They're all different.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Do you understand that there could be a double standard perceived between this statement and this other one?: no, not really. i was clearly discussing voters (unless you think obamaboys was targeted specifically at obama?  )attacking your opponent's voters is a very bad idea as it causes a rift in the party edit: also, should we actually consider primary challenges "attacks"? or pushing from the left? Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Is the purity test Medicare for all or single payer or public option or UHC? They're all different. Don't be pedantic
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I was going off of the data listed here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/ Nate Silver was the only person who gave her an ~80% chance compared to other poll aggregators, but when you look back at his reasoning it is the most spot on. Basically all of those other aggregators weren't taking into consideration the possibility that state level polling could be systematically incorrect in a specific way. The polling that was correct was the polls saying that Clinton would win a 2-3% national vote victory, but was generally incorrect regarding her chances with the Electoral College result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:
The problem is that she never addresses how her own actions contributed to the situation. She is not incorrect that acrimony from the Sanders camp damaged her campaign, but she omits the many actions she took over the years that made the term "Crooked Hillary" have some teeth. While she never engaged in obvious pay-for-play (and very probably never engaged in it at all) she still did not avoid decisions that certainly skirted along the edges- even if they were not technically illegal While the RWM certainly over-hyped and blew everything out of proportion, even John Olliver admitted" there's not nothing there". While what she did is actually quite trivial in comparison to Trumps many crimes, this isn't about comparing Trump versus Hillary anymore, the general election is over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI&t=578s
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I think the important discussion in this thread should be why Koalas March isn't posting gifs Posters demanding that PoC entertain them. Verdict: Problematic
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Maybe the party isn't the most important part of politics, in fact the party is an unfortunate side-effect of our voting system and has no value on its own. The party should be poo poo all over the unelected leaders of the party poo poo all over as well as long as they do not push for polices that help the people. A party is required in our system of government. You can dislike it all you want, but if you want to accomplish anything you need a party. Contributing is fund raising. Contributing is campaigning down ballot. Contributing is building the elected and unelected people in the party. Sanders simply isn't interested in doing any of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Don't be pedantic I'm not, it is an important distinction (and a more interesting conversation to me). Some people clearly think a public option is insufficient and suportint a public option isn't good enough. Others think any UHC program that's actually universal is good enough to support the candidates. Seeing as there was some outrage that Pelosi refused to declare Single Payer a litmus test for party support in 2018, I think the nuances of what each of these positions means matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Xae posted:A party is required in our system of government. Like America itself however I have no intrinsic loyalty that defies reason to the Democratic Party. The fund raising is going bottom down right now for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
quote:Contributing is fund raising. Contributing is campaigning down ballot. Contributing is building the elected and unelected people in the party. he's actually been doing all of these things what do you think he was doing endorsing quist and other dems running in special elections? what do you think ourrevolution is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, not really. i was clearly discussing voters (unless you think obamaboys was targeted specifically at obama? You replied to me replying to Prester Jane talking about a quote where Hillary talked about things Bernie himself had done, so I misunderstood that. I agree that attacking the voters is generally unproductive. Prester Jane posted:The problem is that she never addresses how her own actions contributed to the situation. She is not incorrect that acrimony from the Sanders camp damaged her campaign, but she omits the many actions she took over the years that made the term "Crooked Hillary" have some teeth. While she never engaged in obvious pay-for-play (and very probably never engaged in it at all) she still did not avoid decisions that certainly skirted along the edges- even if they were not technically illegal While the RWM certainly over-hyped and blew everything out of proportion, even John Olliver admitted" there's not nothing there". While what she did is actually quite trivial in comparison to Trumps many crimes, this isn't about comparing Trump versus Hillary anymore, the general election is over. This repetition may seem pedantic, but I don't place much stock in claims about what she never addressed or what she omitted in the context of a book that I don't think anyone in this discussion has actually read yet. We're still talking about leaked excerpts here. I would argue that if you think the term "Crooked Hillary" had teeth then you were probably internalizing a bit too much of the right-wing propaganda you meant to reject, and we all know how the media loved false equivalencies this go around. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who actually cares about this? Who actually obsesses over the details of their insurance plan? Maybe I'm just not rich enough or not high enough on the corporate ladder, but I've never scrutinized the long list of fine-print stuff my insurance won't cover and then said "man, my insurance is awesome and I deeply love this exact plan and want to have it forever". Changing your insurance is a big deal in the private market, because there's always gaps and the gaps aren't ever going to quite line up, but that's not a problem for a good government plan that covers everything. Who the heck, aside from CEOs and people who enjoy gambling with their financial stability or well-being, actually is all that attached to their current insurance plan? Do people quit their jobs en masse when their company changes insurance plans, providers, or conditions? The issue is more that if a person is generally satisfied with their health insurance, which polls show most are, then there is a good chance they will be reluctant to give up their plan for something that for them there is uncertainty about, even if all the evidence points to it being a better option. (This is why Obama emphasized "if you have a plan you can keep it" when selling ACA). People are generally risk adverse, and it factors greatly into their voting patterns. The greater a policy seems less risky and there's less uncertainty around, there's a greater chance of people supporting it. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Do you understand that there could be a double standard perceived between this statement and this other one?: Maybe a sitting candidate shouldn't automatically expect support for reelection without at least a tiny bit of reflection of their term, which a Primary challenge can give. Maybe it's utterly stupid tribal politics to regard a Primary challenge as a horrible affront and an attack instead of a way to push forgotten about internal policy discussions to the fore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:You replied to me replying to Prester Jane talking about a quote where Hillary talked about things Bernie himself had did, so I misunderstood that. I agree that attacking the voters is generally unproductive. If Hillary Clinton Has Taken Some Responsibility For Her Loss In 2016, Why Do I Keep Claiming She Hasn't?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Maybe a sitting candidate shouldn't automatically expect support for reelection without at least a tiny bit of reflection of their term, which a Primary challenge can give. Maybe it's utterly stupid tribal politics to regard a Primary challenge as a horrible affront and an attack instead of a way to push forgotten about internal policy discussions to the fore? Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was attacking a (wrongly) perceived double standard, I do not categorically disagree with the concept of a primary challenge to a sitting president. Hell, I'd love for the GOP to challenge theirs if he hangs on that long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not, it is an important distinction (and a more interesting conversation to me). Some people clearly think a public option is insufficient and suportint a public option isn't good enough. Others think any UHC program that's actually universal is good enough to support the candidates. I don't care you pedant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Just to reiterate I would like to know if Hillary Clinton says anything about White Nationalism or racism in the book. We all know that is the biggest deciding factor in determining voter preferences in the election so it should be a topic, if not I think the book is too early from her, a self described wonk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Just to reiterate I would like to know if Hillary Clinton says anything about White Nationalism or racism in the book. The book hasn't been released yet. Only a handful of review copies are out. Right now everyone is just posting out of context quotes for clicks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:[MARTIN LUTHER] Genuinely laughed at this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:I don't care you pedant. Why don't you care about the differences between single payer and a public option?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why don't you care about the differences between single payer and a public option? Because being informed makes circle jerking and poo poo posting harder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Xae posted:The book hasn't been released yet. Pretty sure I said this on the previous page but the book came out yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Just to reiterate I would like to know if Hillary Clinton says anything about White Nationalism or racism in the book. Considering she did a whole speech about it and then talked about the basket of deplorables, I'm going to guess that yes it is in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Pretty sure I said this on the previous page but the book came out yesterday. drat, I completely forgot it was mid September already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Pretty sure I said this on the previous page but the book came out yesterday. Lol at the difference between the verified reviews and the unverified reviews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Xae posted:drat, I completely forgot it was mid September already. I can't believe that Donald Trump has been president for 7 years already!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Lol at the difference between the verified reviews and the unverified reviews. Now that's a bimodal distribution!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Xae posted:Because being informed makes circle jerking and poo poo posting harder. No it doesn't
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:No it doesn't How would you know?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Xae posted:A party is required in our system of government. Not only that, but is actively hostile to doing that and when you point out that hey, while this guy might have some good ideas he's being kind of a lovely person and hurting things you get mobbed by his cultists. Although to be fair, I now suspect a lot of the more insane Berniebros were funded by the Russians 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:The problem is that she never addresses how her own actions contributed to the situation. drat you read it quickly!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Xae posted:drat, I completely forgot it was mid September already. You said you'd never forget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How would you know? https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/907564616363986944
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Xae posted:The book hasn't been released yet. I'm not sure what context there could be that would change the meaning of the quotes that have been posted. The whole "magic abs/free pony" nonsense and her claims that Sanders' (extremely mild) attacks paved the way for the "Crooked Hillary" slam are pretty cut-and-dry assertions. axeil posted:Not only that, but is actively hostile to doing that and when you point out that hey, while this guy might have some good ideas he's being kind of a lovely person and hurting things you get mobbed by his cultists. You came into this discussion saying "gently caress Bernie Sanders," and now you're saying he's being kind of a lovely person. It's maybe a little bit on you if you find yourself getting mobbed. Also, what is he doing that makes you think he's being kind of a lovely person? Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
axeil posted:Not only that, but is actively hostile to doing that and when you point out that hey, while this guy might have some good ideas he's being kind of a lovely person and hurting things you get mobbed by his cultists. Please explain how you think Sanders is being a lovely person. I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:Although to be fair, I now suspect a lot of the more insane Berniebros were funded by the Russians I suspect a lot of the more demonized online "Berniebro" quotes were from Russian bots stirring discontent instead of actual Americans in any sense. Funny how there were lots of "I said X online and got mobbed by insane Berniebros" stories I remember but not that many actual Bernie supporters I heard about doing crazy poo poo, with the exception of that one guy who shot up the GOP baseball practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Please explain how you think Sanders is being a lovely person. I'm genuinely curious. I can't speak for axiel but if you want to know the specific ways hilary clinton thinks so she just discussed it on the pod save america podcast which is what started this discussion
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Considering she did a whole speech about it and then talked about the basket of deplorables, I'm going to guess that yes it is in there. The collective memory of this forgets she said half of all Trump voters were deplorable and then they all embraced it and theres a significant difference from infering the alt are idiot mooks and the HOP is being ruled by neo Nazis. I feel like it would have been highlighted if it was in there but I'll reserve judgement yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I would argue that if you think the term "Crooked Hillary" had teeth then you were probably internalizing a bit too much of the right-wing propaganda you meant to reject, and we all know how the media loved false equivalencies this go around. It did, though, if only piling on to the 30 year smear. I spoke to a few acquaintances who were going to be voting for the first time, never having followed politics before, and all of them said that Hillary was somehow vaguely untrustworthy. None could cite a single reason. People hear that stuff for so long that they DO internalize it, that's the point. To a lot of people if he is calling her Crooked Hillary and the press isn't 100% repudiating it, it must be for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
it's me, i'm trying to kill the white race. please do not tell the police, thank you
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:24
|
|