|
Being a Hillary man is a spiritual title, but I understand you probably have no concept of such things
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Being a Hillary man is a spiritual title, but I understand you probably have no concept of such things Unless you're into Kabbalah, we Jews are not a spiritual people. We're G-d's rules-lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Whether you want it to happen or not, forcing an immediate minimum wage rise will give employers an excuse to fire people. A delayed introduction helps mitigate that. This has never happened any other time we've raised the minimum wage, but other than all recorded history proving you wrong, okay. We just looked at what happens when a state raises the wage to $15 and it was fine https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1056579517152522240
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Why don't the dems just make a UBI and call it SS4A? It's the same exact messaging as M4A and it would work for the same reason. UBI For all would be great. It benefits the entire country and would encourage more consumer spending. We get rid of the welfare state and unify the concept of ss or wic etc. Get pregnant? Your ubi increasese by x to help pay fof the child. Disability? Temporary increase of UBi to makeup difference. The objective of UBI Is a more flexible society with regard to spending, while slowly eradicating the credit debt this countries people have accured. If the dem establishment was okay rigging the election against bernie once they will do it again this time itll be way earlier and way less obvious
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This has never happened any other time we've raised the minimum wage, but other than all recorded history proving you wrong, okay. I don't disagree with the larger point, but the actual article you are citing says that they did lose some jobs and hours were cut. But that it was a very small amount and the employees who had hours cut usually broke even or made more with the new wage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I already showed you that wasn't his point. Not only are you lying about his original claim for god knows what reason, but in the post I responded to he argued it doesn't matter if you let inflation eat away at the living wage for an extra 18 months [/quote] No, but that was his point. You're cherry picking sentences from a Wikipedia article he mentioned in order to invent a point he didn't make. I don't know why you are fighting about this, it's crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I don't disagree with the larger point, but the actual article you are citing says that they did lose some jobs and hours were cut. But that it was a very small amount and the employees who had hours cut usually broke even or made more with the new wage. It doesn't say any jobs were lost you liar. And I never said "no hours were cut" because people working fewer hours for equal or greater takehome pay is a good thing, so my argument that it was fine didn't imply anything like "no hours were cut"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It doesn't say any jobs were lost you liar. Yeah, the actual article cited in the story says there was a small job loss. You can even see the tiny tick downward in the graph on the twitter embed. quote:We attribute significant hourly wage increases and hours reductions to the policy. On net, the minimum wage increase from $9.47 to as much as $13 per hour raised earnings by an average of $8-$12 per week. The entirety of these gains accrued to workers with above-median experience at baseline; less-experienced workers saw no significant change to weekly pay. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:No, but that was his point. You're cherry picking sentences from a Wikipedia article he mentioned in order to invent a point he didn't make. I don't know why you are fighting about this, it's crazy. Yes I linked the definition of a term he used to describe the 2020 candidates, "The Narcissism of Small Differences" which literally means superficial differences covering up underlying uniformity. He has since confirmed that by continuing to argue different policies might as well be the same. If you don't want to fight about this, stop muddying the waters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yeah, the actual article cited in the story says there was a small job loss. You can even see the tiny tick downward in the graph on the twitter embed. Aahaha that quote says literally the opposite of "there was a small job loss". A reduction in turnover rate means fewer people were losing their jobs and it goes on to say that employment increased. The graph doesn't show what you think either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aahaha that quote says literally the opposite of "there was a small job loss". A reduction in turnover rate means fewer people were losing their jobs and it goes on to say that employment increased. Nope, dawg. Read a little closer. Low-wage job totals decreasing by 0.4% does not mean that jobs increased. It's saying that in a period of overall growth, that jobs impacted by the wage increase declined a small amount. A significant reduction in new entries also means that growth in that sector slowed over time or jobs declined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Well why don't we just ask him what his point was, then. LT, when you said there were "no huge differences" did you mean to say that any differences were superficial and meaningless, or did you mean to say that the left and right flanks of the party are closer than they've ever been?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nope, dawg. Read a little closer. No it doesn't you loving liar because you deliberately excised the explanation of that stat quote:Which may actually reflect stronger demand for workers and fewer workers in this category of very-low-hour work There was fewer low-hour work because people were getting better jobs (This isn't for LT2012 who is doing his usual troll-by-lying thing, but for anyone else reading it who might be taken in)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Well why don't we just ask him what his point was, then. No, VitalSigns is right. I was making an elaborate metaphor based on the assumption that everyone is familiar with Freud's writings on ethno-sectarian conflict and not that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it doesn't you loving liar because you deliberately excised the explanation of that stat Dawg, I'm not trying to pick on you and I even said I agree with your larger point. But you are not reading it correctly. You're citing the Bloomberg OPINION column on the paper and not the actual paper. I think we might be talking about different aspects. It says overall growth increased, but sector jobs declined. That means it was an overall economic positive, but did cause sector jobs to decline. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Dawg, I'm not trying to pick on you and I even said I agree with your larger point. The claim "jobs were lost" is not supported by the paper. Just because there are fewer hours being worked in certain jobs doesn't mean that those jobs were lost, as the author of the column explained, but you know that don't you. I don't have access to the paper so I can't check the paper's explanation for that stat (if any), but what you've quoted so far does not support your claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
That is correct. The statement "low-wage job totals declined by 0.4%" is the sentence that means jobs were lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
No that sentence does not mean that. If thanks to increased demand for higher-paid workers, 0.4% of us quit our low-wage jobs for better jobs and our employers can't find replacements, then low-wage job totals have declined by 0.4% but no jobs have been lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:If the dem establishment was okay rigging the election against bernie once they will do it again this time itll be way earlier and way less obvious There are many people in the Democratic establishment who would love to stop Bernie or anyone else halfway progressive from getting the nomination but I would dispute that such persons are competent and/or powerful enough to rig a church raffle. I certainly wouldn't prematurely surrender based on the 2016 race where the most powerful political dynasty in a generation with near universal establishment support still almost lost the nomination to a septugenarian socialist who had never run a national campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is correct. You're kinda embarassing yourself here. Not only is there the "low-wage job total declined due to higher-wage job totals increasing" interpretation VitalSigns mentioned, but it explicitly says "While overall employment increased 1.6% during this period, low-wage job totals decreased by 0.4% during this period." Was that increase in overall employment due to the minimum wage increase? Probably not, but the same applies to low-wage employment, and it doesn't change the fact you're somehow turning "overall jobs were gained, while a subset of jobs decreased" into "jobs were lost."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Lol, Bernie has never had an A+ rating from the NRA you loving liar. I'm glad you made this post because up until this point I was like "ehhhh LT2012 seems to be skirting the line between rear end in a top hat incorrect arguments and bad faith arguments based on what I know" but trying to imply that Bernie currently or recently has had an A+ rating from the NRA because he got one in 1990 when running for the House for the first time is remarkably dishonest. I wouldn't have known this if you didn't challenge him, so thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Sorry what Someone makes an accurate factual statement (that they subsequently back up), you probate them for it, and you praise the person who called them a "loving liar" for falsely calling them a liar?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:You're kinda embarassing yourself here. Not only is there the "low-wage job total declined due to higher-wage job totals increasing" interpretation VitalSigns mentioned, but it explicitly says "While overall employment increased 1.6% during this period, low-wage job totals decreased by 0.4% during this period." So he's going to troll you for this because "overall jobs were gained, while a subset of jobs decreased" could mean "jobs were lost". Job losses refer to workers being involuntarily moved unto un- or underemployment and could coincide with overall job gains. For example, if half the nurses in town were laid off, but they all got jobs along with other townsfolk at a bunch of brand-new McDonald's locations that opened the next day then it would still be accurate to say that nursing jobs were lost even though there was an overall job gain in the economy, because a bunch of former nurses are now involuntarily underemployed. So the numbers could mean that employers fired some poor people, and then hired other different people to better jobs. But they don't have to mean that, and he claimed that a decrease in jobs in any sector always means jobs were lost which is of course not true. (If it were true, then job losses would be a hallmark of tight labor markets and full employment, which is of course nonsense)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Sorry what No it was not accurate, read the original statement. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think that is a legit concern and criticism. But it seems to be selectively applied. Nobody who applies it for certain issues or candidates applies it to the fact that Sanders was anti-immigration, pro-legal immunity for gun manufacturers, had no major opinion on criminal justice reform, supported three strike laws, was pro-NRA (A+ rating), and pro-tariffs until he ran in a Democratic Presidential Primary and Trump proposed tariffs. Bernie did not have an A+ rating for 30+ years nor did that rating only change over the course of two months in the 2015/16 primaries. In fact he had a D-minus rating from the NRA in his 2012 reelection camapign E 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Sorry what LT2012 intentionally framed the post as "Bernie has an A+ rating from the NRA." Bernie had an A+ rating, once, 28 years ago, which immediately dropped to a D the next term. LT2012's framing implied some kind of long-standing staunch support for conservative gun rights, rather than what amounts to the NRA not evaluating him very well when he first ran for the House. That's not honest argumentation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Has he been consistently pro immigration and anti tarrif as well?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Liz Warren's recent wonk proposals have been pretty good, though. The federal corporate charter where worker's reps must make up 40% of the board of directors is actually a very good idea that other countries do, and not something that gets talked about over here. Holy poo poo, I'd been kicking something like that around in my head, but someone is actually proposing it?  And of course it's Warren, she's been a Good Wonk for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Has he been consistently pro immigration and anti tarrif as well? I don't believe so. But I didn't probate LT2012 for not liking Bernie or for the arguments he was making per se, I probed him for being intellectually dishonest and fishmeching. There's a reason you, Brony Car, GreyjoyBastard, and Pinterest Mom go unprobated despite agreeing with aspects of LT2012's arguments, and it's because I don't think you're intentionally arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Sorry what Why are so many people giving noted troll Leon Trotsky 2012 so much loving benefit of the doubt? Why do you and Hellblazer187 think he's arguing in good faith? Why do y'all have zero sense of pattern recognition? Just because he posts a lot of words doesn't make his argument better or more credulous, he's pushing you all into a conservative framing of issues and you just let it happen. Am I the only poster who recognizes usernames and notices when people are intentionally lovely?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't believe so. I'm not arguing with the probe, btw. I think most of what LT WAS saying today was correct but his gimmick of turning into ultra troll when he finds it funny means mods should have a hair trigger on the probe button for him. That said, back to the point he was making, because besides the NRA stuff it was a good one. Bernie changed his views on some items and that's great, but I think we need to allow all candidates to move ideologically. Reagan was a new deal Dem at one point, the conservative movement didn't dump him over it. And tactically that worked out for them. So I think we should be happy more candidates are for M4A, etc, even if they didn't used to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Why are so many people giving noted troll Leon Trotsky 2012 so much loving benefit of the doubt? Why do you and Hellblazer187 think he's arguing in good faith? I recognized the poster but agreed with what he was saying today about the ideology of the Democratic party today. And I think vital signs was in the wrong on this one (although 100% right on the Seattle min wage discussion, as exhausting as that was)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:LT2012 intentionally framed the post as "Bernie has an A+ rating from the NRA." Bernie had an A+ rating, once, 28 years ago, which immediately dropped to a D the next term. LT2012's framing implied some kind of long-standing staunch support for conservative gun rights, rather than what amounts to the NRA not evaluating him very well when he first ran for the House. That's not honest argumentation. WampaLord posted:Why are so many people giving noted troll Leon Trotsky 2012 so much loving benefit of the doubt? Why do you and Hellblazer187 think he's arguing in good faith? I happen to not think of myself as bound by what LT2012 posts~ Idk, I might be telling on myself here, but I don't think anything they posted on the last two pages was unreasonable or clearly in bad faith. The point about the issue positions of candidates running this cycle is a really fair one, and I don't know that holding someone to the strictest possible reading of their post is something we want to do. People use hyperbole and overstate things all the time, and "not all the policy positions on this list (or parenthetical supporting evidence) were held for exactly 30 years" seems pretty thin to me, especially given that the list was obviously meant to be a mirror of the kinds of posts people make about bad positions others candidates have held in order to dismiss them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So I think we should be happy more candidates are for M4A, etc, even if they didn't used to be. We can be happy more candidates are for M4A because of what it says about the zeitgeist, while still rationally preferring candidates who have a long record of supporting and working for it over candidates who only started supporting it now that it's a prerequisite to have a chance at winning. It may be a genuine change of heart which is great, but we can't know that, and when it comes to the office of president it is perfectly reasonable to fear that the risk of nominating someone who cynically says the right things but has no interest in doing it is too great. E: And yes I apply the same to Sanders. If free trade is your issue for god-knows-what reason it would be perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of someone who supported tariffs his whole career and then changed his mind at the last minute (although I don't think Sanders' tariff position was as flip-floppy as LT2012 tried to imply but I'm not 100% sure what he meant because vagueness is part of his schtick) . It's also perfectly reasonable to apply scrutiny to some of Sanders' previous remarks about immigrants (assuming you apply the same scrutiny to establishment Dems who also have a history of anti-immigration rhetoric going back to at least the 90s) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Pretty sure "Medicare for all" under Booker, Harris, Biden, etc. will evolve at least as much as Obama 08's primary pitch for a universal healthcare system that was defintely not going to rely on a mandate like Clinton's. Of course it will. I reckon that if anyone were seriously leading the pack he or she would eventually fall back on the weaksauce CAP "medicare extra" plan that further privatizes Medicare and subjects it to much harsher means-testing than its current model. It's not remotely like Medicare but the branding makes it the perfect escape hatch for donor-driven candidates bc it has Medicare in its name, plus "extra" to make it sound even better than Medicare although it's actually much worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I recognized the poster but agreed with what he was saying today about the ideology of the Democratic party today. Pinterest Mom posted:Idk, I might be telling on myself here, but I don't think anything they posted on the last two pages was unreasonable or clearly in bad faith. "There's no difference between the candidates, Bernie and Kamala will govern the exact same way" was the gist of his argument, if you actually believe that then you're just as stupid as a noted troll and idiot. Why do you think someone who has abhorrent views can just suddenly turn them off and argue honestly? He's in this thread to push people away from the most left leaning candidate because he's a regressive fuckhead. There are giant differences between the candidates, if you can't see that just because they all make the mouth motions that say "Medicare for all" then you're being blind and naive and you'll happily elect another Obama who promises the world and delivers nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Has anyone actually done the work to compile what "Medicare for all" means to different potential candidates - or at least all the things M4A might mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
I think this is the key insight for 2020. You have tons of candidates all saying very similar things policy-wise but there is a massive, massive credibility gap. Bernie will absolutely go for the stuff he's saying even if the implementation is a disaster/he doesn't understand the nuance/other wonky criticisms. I am still fairly skeptical of Bernie as an administrator but because he's so clear and resolute in what he wants, he's near the top of my rankings. I know he's not going to screw us over with a bait-and-switch. I have 0 faith that Booker/Biden/Harris would follow through because I fundamentally don't find their leftism credible. I think they would end up being overwhelmed by wonkishness and policy details rather than understanding people care about the general policy, not the details of implementation. The 2020 candidates need to realize that, after the shitshow of 2016, people really do not care about how wonky and workable your plan is. I went from being one of those "but how do we pay for it??  " people to "gently caress it, implement it now and soak the rich later". The more time people like Harris, Booker, Biden, etc. spend making these highly intricate plans (that no one believes they'd really fight for) and the less time they spend allaying people's fears about inauthenticitiy the more time the Bernie/Warrens of the race have time to build things up.
axeil fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I happen to not think of myself as bound by what LT2012 posts~ You also don't have a history of posting long conservative poo poo tier quotes unattributed as if you were saying them and letting people think you're being serious, or whatever the hell they were going for in the link that is their current avatar. Arguments don't happen in a vacuum, and once someone is recognized as someone who routinely makes bad-faith arguments, they're treated differently than people who aren't. As for Medicare for All, I was under the impression there was an actual bill that has been written, proposed, and endorsed in the Senate, is there not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
 Pinterest Mom posted:Has anyone actually done the work to compile what "Medicare for all" means to different potential candidates - or at least all the things M4A might mean? Booker, Harris, Warren, and Gillibrand all cosponsored the Sanders Medicare for All bill---but it's worth noting that there are no meaningful stakes to doing so when there is zero chance that bill goes anywhere at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I recognized the poster but agreed with what he was saying today about the ideology of the Democratic party today. And I think vital signs was in the wrong on this one  Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:30
|
|