|
Bernie _______ This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| would've won! |
|
87 | 34.52% |
| has won! |
|
45 | 17.86% |
| will win! |
|
56 | 22.22% |
| is winning! |
|
64 | 25.40% |
| Total: | 124 votes | ||
|
"look some people are getting crushed but that is mostly over now and we can't turn back or the crushing will have been for nothing!"
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/PplPolicyProj/status/913129727702990848 Centrist fixation on the intersectionality of elites isn't a new strategy for social justice, it is just new paint on trickle down economics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm assuming the large dip corresponds with the war on drugs? the bottom axis is wealth percentile, the left axis is how much wealth that percentile gained or lost from 2007-2016 so the poorest people are farthest to the left, the richest are on the right. if the line goes up, that means that group's average wealth grew from 2007-2016; if it goes down, their wealth decreased. the wealth numbers are nominal, not percentage, so things will read a little different than what you'd expect a brief summary: - the poorest 20% lost wealth. the poorer they were, the more they lost, with the absolute bottom percentile losing an average of over $50k - the richest 50% lost money, with the rate of loss increasing noticeably in the richest 30% and again in the richest 20%. the richer they were, the more they lost, with one exception - the richest 10% lost a lot more than everyone else, with one exception - that "one exception" is the richest 1%, who made massive gains, being the only group to gain more than $150 worth of wealth in the nine-year period covered by the graph - everyone not in one of those categories gained or lost basically nothing the Hispanic graph is essentially the same, except the losses are even bigger among the richest 20%. again, the top 1% are the only ones to gain any meaningful amount the white people graph holds steady at basically no gain or loss until it reaches the richest 20%, who start gaining wealth. the richer they are, the bigger the gain, except in the top 10%, where the gains noticeably dip (but are still six-digit increases). as with other groups, the richest 1% has a much larger increase than anyone else, but the white 1% also gains 4-5x as much as the black and Hispanic 1%s
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
The percentiles are relative by race, correct? Does the black 1% correlate to the white 1% or would it be more like the white 10%? E: great post btw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the bottom axis is wealth percentile, the left axis is how much wealth that percentile gained or lost from 2007-2016
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Heck Yeah Loam is just like any other centrists. Fine with the status quo until it becomes something by they can't control so they turn facist and shut down the discourse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
By the way, I'm not rgoyovitch but I do approve this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Centrist fixation on the intersectionality of elites isn't a new strategy for social justice, it is just new paint on trickle down economics. Not an empty quote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Centrist fixation on the intersectionality of elites isn't a new strategy for social justice, it is just new paint on trickle down economics. Well-put. Boardroom diversity is apparently enough for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well-put. Boardroom diversity is apparently enough for them. It makes sense when you're rich as poo poo and those are the only people you interact with, ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the bottom axis is wealth percentile, the left axis is how much wealth that percentile gained or lost from 2007-2016 Thank you for the breakdown. They tried to spin this as a positive outcome? Ugh. That spike at the end of the graph will forever be Obama's shame. I still think he was a good president for the time, but there is still so much to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
What makes me almost sick to my stomach is Obama's total failure to realize the propaganda potential of the Great Recession! It's like if FDR completely ignored bankers and trusts so he could treat the Depression like a natural disaster. He and the Democrats allowed the loving GOP to capitalize on the populist antiestablishment anger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What makes me almost sick to my stomach is Obama's total failure to realize the propaganda potential of the Great Recession! it was like having Clinton as president for another two terms as far as realizing why any economic issues are issues
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
So uh, why'd the Hillbot/Bernout thread die? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this thread is open again, but I've been falling behind trying to keep track of my bookmarked threads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
The OP got butthurt and closed it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:So uh, why'd the Hillbot/Bernout thread die? who cares
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Hey, I'm just asking questions here, I'm as interested in Party reform as much as the next shitposter (who isn't allowed to vote); I just want to know if it was forum drama, or something else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
don't worry, barron will conquer you my man
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
e: whoops, that probably risks breaking Thunderdome rules.
Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
I'm personally confused what we are allowed to discuss in this thread while Thunderdome exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm personally confused what we are allowed to discuss in this thread while Thunderdome exists. The Democrats, and how they are bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The Democrats, and how they are bad. quote:1. Posting is strictly limited to the topic of politicians in the United States of America and why certain politicians, or groups of them representing various ideologies, are good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Maybe it's ok to talk about the same topic but in different ways in different threads
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:This seems squarely under Thunderdome purview: Welp, can't post excerpts from Thomas Frank's newest book anymore then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
The thing that is craziest about this, to me, is Krugman calmly explaining that "we have to live in the same world" while apparently unable to see that he's basically on another planet from the people that this is "hurting". He's a multi-millionaire academic columnist, and they are destitute unemployed in crumbling communities who are literally killing themselves with drugs. I sincerely doubt that Krugman would refer to having his livelihood destroyed and life upended for 4 more feet of some rich guy's yacht as "underestimated pain".
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
i assume (perhaps incorrectly) that r guyovich would've reclosed this thread when he made the thunderdome if he didn't want people posting in this one, or discussing its subject
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Speaking of dems being a waste... https://twitter.com/Zeninjor/status/913036593115615232 every bit as bad as her husband
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Yeah, Michelle Obama, erm, sucks
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Speaking of dems being a waste... shes significantly better than her husband but yes this is an extremely silly thing to say
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I liked her when she spoke about exercise and eating your vegetables. Both her and her husband are very charismatic and wholesome, and make a great celebrity couple. They're bad in every other way. Your Parents posted:shes significantly better than her husband but yes this is an extremely silly thing to say "When they go low, we go high!" *loving belly flops in full view of the entire nation, then blocks a real chance for change in the Democratic Party before running off to Billionaire Island*
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Speaking of dems being a waste... i hate when anyone does this. leftist, centrist, etc, no matter who you are, you are not owed peoples' votes based on what they are
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i hate when anyone does this. leftist, centrist, etc, no matter who you are, you are not owed peoples' votes based on what they are True, but to be fair, I'm guessing/hoping Michelle was referring to the white women who broke for Trump, even after Pussygate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Seems kinda rude to decide for other people that Hillary Clinton isn't just the best candidate for them but literally somebody who has the right to speak for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:True, but to be fair, I'm guessing/hoping Michelle was referring to the white women who broke for Trump, even after Pussygate. Are you saying you would prefer it to be a race issue instead of solely a sex issue? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:True, but to be fair, I'm guessing/hoping Michelle was referring to the white women who broke for Trump, even after Pussygate. What about Stein and Johnson voters? As people who didn't vote for Hillary, they'd be covered by Michelle's statement too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Are you saying you would prefer it to be a race issue instead of solely a sex issue? Nah, I'm saying that a large demographic of women that one would have hoped would have not-voted for Trump, still somehow managed to do so, even after Pussygate. I don't know the context of her speech, so I'm just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Main Paineframe posted:What about Stein and Johnson voters? As people who didn't vote for Hillary, they'd be covered by Michelle's statement too. They would be, and I wouldn't approve of that if that's who her statement was most targeted towards. I'm just hypothesizing on who she had most in mind when saying that, though. I would approve of her criticizing women who voted for Trump, because holy poo poo. What can I say, I like Michelle. If I'm wrong and she was targeting left-wing women who didn't feel compelled to turn out for Hillary, that's disappointing and it was an unfair thing for her to say. e: Eh...I'm looking at CNN's piece on it, and while I think I'm right, I have other objections to it now: quote:"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like." That kind of removes female Trump voters' agency from them, which isn't really fair either. It lets them off the hook. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What about Stein and Johnson voters? As people who didn't vote for Hillary, they'd be covered by Michelle's statement too. Gorsuch is gonna make the whoje country "right to work" but hey at least we got to white knight those Johnson/Stein voters. Fun fact, 50% of open Johnson/Stein voters I know are truthers. (The rest are libertarians.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
I will never understand why Democrats attack people who vote for left wing third parties. They did it to Nader voters too. Yeah, they didn't vote for the Democrat candidate, but the Republican voters not only didn't vote for the Democrat, they also voted for the Republican. They're the people you should me mad at, imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Gorsuch is gonna make the whoje country "right to work" but hey at least we got to white knight those Johnson/Stein voters. They also made almost no difference whatsoever in the 2016 election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
If you need to blame me for your candidate being lovely. It's okay. I'm a big, tough, mediocre white man. I can take it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:53
|
|
