|
Ytlaya posted:Uh, you realize that there's a problem in Actual Science with manipulating data/statistical criteria to achieve the desired outcome. The idea that political pollsters, who are anything but ideologically neutral, might tailor their assumptions in a way that de-emphasizes the Democrats who support Sanders is not nearly as Wild And Crazy as you seem to be implying. 
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:The under 30 group could be correctly polled in isolation from anyone above 30. All that matters is that the other demographics within the 30 group, eg race, education, income are reflective of the broader universe within that subgroup. So long as you collect a meaningful n-size within that group it has statistical validity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 07:07
|
|
twodot posted:Yes if you create a poll that systemically under polls a demographic, it is dumb and wrong to assume that the under polling happened in a purely random fashion that lets you just multiply your bad data to create good data. The crosstabs exist, man. You can look at them with your own eyes. Verify they're reasonable enough. Do you know how hard it is to recruit a perfectly representative sample within subgroups across 4-5 attributes with a sample size of 350-400 like many small polls? That's why polls should be aggregated such that the rough edges of any single poll are washed out. twodot posted:Like it may be the case that despite having objective evidence the poll is garbage, the problems don't extend past the demographics we already know that exist, but you still have to assume the problems affect the whole study There can't be objective evidence the poll is garbage based on the sample selection. No primary elections have occurred yet. There isn't anything to draw percentage error from. MSDOS KAPITAL posted:That often does not happen. Some examples? From good pollsters? MOE is shockingly insensitive. Most aggregate polls work within the 400-1000 sample size range. Subgroups are typically limited to 3 or so. The difference in MOE at 95% CI between 133 and 150 or 333 and 367 (1/3 sample, difference of +10%) is meaningless. The statistical significance of data within the subgroup at the lower number is little different than if they had the higher number at the "right" sample. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sanders has to pick one of two narratives 1) I spent 28 years shouting into the abyss earning 6 figures from tax payer dollars to accomplish nothing or 2) I spent 28 years advocating for good things while also carefully working with entrenched power to achieve limited goals wherever possible. On the contrary, no he doesn't have to pick between the two of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
https://www.gothamgazette.com/opinion/8801-i-was-andrew-yangs-first-freedom-dividend-recipient-he-fired-me Sorry about your sexist candidate. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:The only difference between market research and political polling is that political polls are communicated externally while market research is often not. If you do market research to understand preference of various potential Doritos flavors and intent to purchase you aren't influencing demand in any way. First, you wouldn't design market research to bias any single option if your goal was to arrive at the option that would maximize sales. You can manipulate research methodology to arrive at the wrong answer, but there's no motivation to do so for a for-profit company. Second, the sample size necessary for the data to be statistically significant is inconsequential relative to total potential consumers. The idea that MSNBC et Al are basing their coverage of Bernie off of polling is hysterical
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:You can only do this if you also think that the under 30 group was correctly polled. Which you can't because the premise behind unskewing is that there was a problem polling the people you are unskewing. You can't start from a premise of "These polls are wrong" and wind up with "If I arbitrarily multiply the wrong polls by a good number I will end up with good numbers". I really don't understand what you're even trying to say here. What does weightings have to do with whether or not the poll itself is good? They are based on different unrelated things. Edit: I missed there being more posts where this was pointed out repeatedly whooos GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:The idea that MSNBC et Al are basing their coverage of Bernie off of polling is hysterical Was this still in doubt? They refuse to give Sanders any meaningful air time or any poll that shows him winning. They learned their lesson from Trump: don't give the guy you don't like free air time. Trump is good for ratings 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:I can’t believe Warren said all goats should go to hell. Just go play on your panpipes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
I can also summarize a lot of the history of Bad Moves by liberals that started with honest intent include things like the Antitrust Act... which busted way more unions than corporations. Maybe it was worth it against AT&T? Uh... gently caress, maybe not. If we are destined for half-assed solutions that blows off our left leg to save our right fingers and another political or legislation technicality mistake blows off those fingers perhaps law itself needs a big shake-up to write better legislation before we can even try.nearly killed em! posted:I only briefly skimmed that because there is no way I'm reading more than one paragraph about the bad gimmick candidate but can you address his, to be incredibly polite, stupid as gently caress fascist plan of "move to higher ground" in response to climate change? He's definitely gotten some flack from people with some nitpicking agendas that manage to start by misphrasing / misquoting right off the bat whatever the issue may be. For example, he's said even if we made the whole planet vegetarian that wouldn't fix the damage very fast, so we need both prevention and to strengthen our climate actively like planting a lot of trees. Firstly, making people vegetarian on the planet is not realistic without some fascist+ control, only that if we priced externalities right meat would be more expensive and that we as a society should be aiming to eat less meat. Someone did some math and gave a ball park of $.30 / lb of rib eye and $.05 / lb for chicken to help assuage the former-Trump YangGang, but I think that's too low for the public health risks of excessive red meat consumption by my guess. Meanwhile, my crazy mother in law thinks he wants to ban gas cars and force people to buy electric cars while half the progressives focus on another part that isn't a policy position but a hypothetical position that would still fail to help us. Yang's climate plan is kinda shaky but the math is easier to swallow compared to the other proposals I saw by Sanders (uh... so no nuclear? Don't want that thing that's been well run in Europe but want European living standards at least?) and Warren (not enough at all and shows she has zero idea how corporations really act in her policies, but hey Yang has been implying if he won he'd like her as VP). When almost everything that's released by articles is pretty much not what Yang has ever advocated and there's no one side constantly rooting for him most of YangGang views that as outrage media hit pieces that don't cover anyone left or right fairly. That sounds insane and cultist but I remember a friend from Sweden coming over and commenting that American media all sounds insane and angry constantly. We have normalized incivility and media companies love the clicks just talking about Trump with bite sized pieces that are complete garbage both left and right and it sounds like the Real Housereps of DC 24/7. This was happening before Trump showed up honestly. Thanks for keeping it civil. All I can ask for these days. Wicked Them Beats posted:Hahaha wow stopped reading here. TFA I believe had some shake-ups following about 2009-ish that led to articles like that, but I don't think have proof that it was started with that in mind necessarily but became a magnet for non-educators wanting to add more corporate bureaucracy to academic institutions and act like they're going to fix things. My sister left before that article author started and she was never paid that little and actually made not far from what I did when I graduated as an engineer when she was in LA (similar living costs for us respectively). She is also still a decade later able to get tons of benefits as an ex-California school teacher still, so there are still some benefits for TFA teachers that were probably fought for by unionized teachers and I have a strong suspicion that each teacher's experience varied mostly from their state rather than their TFA status. There's stuff like housing loans for teachers, for example, which is kinda nice but seems shittier than "how about we just pay teachers more?" - I dunno how subsidizing the pretty corrupt real estate syndicate helps teachers long-term and Prop 13 interacts poorly with this IMO (I am kind of in the boat decades ago by activists against the mortgage deduction because it would encourage bigger loans). Yang is not a Betsy DeVos clone at all trying to make everything charter schools to let the Free Market do it all but I can understand why he sounds like her to socialists and educators. Warren did at least appreciate Yang's statement to pay teachers a lot more during the debate not because of rah rah points but because he doesn't believe these critical professionals to society should be struggling on top of the tremendous duties. When he ran Manhattan Prep, he tried hard to offer better benefits and pay than the competition when most of the industry tried to drive wages down and the numbers were hard for him but worked out in the end as a business because he said the outcomes for students were clearly in favor of paying teachers of any kind more. He was directly asked on this issue before in the debates and I fundamentally agree with the spirit of his answer - who cares if it's a charter school or union teaching body school as long as it's a school that teaches students well, isn't run by revisionist administrators corrupting teaching of basic facts for political reasons like in Texas, and is accessible to all people capable of learning from it? Furthermore, the achievement gap starts before grade school and Yang is for government funding pre-K which has measurable impact on student achievement, parental employment outcomes as well and I think this plan is supported by a couple other candidates as well (might have been Cory? Maybe Warren?). A lot of things on his agenda are super socialist or even fascist sounding and other parts so not at all but I think he may do better cutting back the  . I have no concern about what we call a school system or do any system of government or economics as long as it's a system that is realistically sustainable to society (culturally / politically matters, unfortunately because we are pea brained reptiles) and does what we ask of it as people and to keep the negative side effects on society transparent and minimal.If edu administration is so gung ho for TFA, you'd think they would treat them better to get better retention and abuse the remaining unionized teachers, and get their bonus checks to step into / back to corporate work, right? Like how defense contractors get better pay and all that next to the feds so that they could reduce the federal workforce and not pay for pensions / benefits.... uh, that didn't happen for TFA teachers per that article. The other option as a predatory administrator is to try to commoditize teachers by giving up on turn-over and go fast food style labor. In Las Vegas according to another TFA alum, impoverished communities had really different student continuity compared to wealthier schools - it was common for a kid to be in one school and gone within a year because the family had to move for work, and kids didn't really know each other well. He didn't know how to help those kids keep up in school even if he stayed put there permanently, so in the sad reality of reduced budgets do we double down for those kids? I have no answer. In Kentucky with more rural white classrooms, kids usually went to the same school for at least 6 years and when someone moved they threw a small going away party for them and it was a big deal, but with job situations there and the opioid crisis I can imagine that's now changing, too. When teaching as a profession kinda sucks even with unions given these two starkly different student population dynamics, is it appropriate to try to stabilize the lives of your teachers or bite the bullet and move the costs to something else? In desperate budget crunches I'm fine with paying teachers less cash if it means that we move any savings to something that helps students, but that's a fantasy that doesn't happen - the cuts stay, and when budget is ok it goes to.... iPads? Yang does not support spending on things not shown in favor of positive measurable outcomes for education and is super critical of administrator worship, and would prefer teachers teach more critical thinking, exploration, etc. - Bill Gates' education company has been criticized for this by traditional educators since the curriculum is so unorthodox and not determined by those that have studied learning and childhood development. I think Yang's approach is to fix as many things at home before we even get into a classroom and give teachers metrics that encourage creativity, critical thinking, and social connectedness over rote book memorization most STEM-heavy paths take that seems to be obsessed over when there's no evidence it works for everyone even if you do have a STEM degree. If one wants to criticize TFA I think it'd be easier and more of a slam dunk to start with their whole indoctrination program that's all about social justice and literally screaming about being SJWs. It is loving creepy and is the kind of dynamic that makes conservatives think socialists are goddamn cultists every bit as much as I think Jesus Camp is horrible, too. Yang has said in consistency with the teachers I know (not just the aforementioned TFA alum) that teachers are responsible for maybe 35% but accountable for 100% in student achievement (using a lovely measuring stick of test scores) while simultaneously saying that great teachers are worth their weight in gold - these are not contradictions. Even if we gave teachers $150k / yr with big expense accounts it might be better as society to spend the money on things before kids even hit the classroom where teachers may actually be able to teach instead of be therapists, babysitters, and so forth. I saw a post a while back unrelated to politics or anything where a teacher instead of assigning homework assigned her kids to do something that is shown to improve their educational outcome - go home, sit down with your family for dinner, and don't get distracted by phones. Education doesn't have to be expensive for the same reasons that healthcare shouldn't be either if we fix problems at home. A big part of Yang's book is about the societal importance of teachers with his dismay at how traditional capitalist math nor even traditional educators' doesn't add up to results unless we add the externalities of great teachers, better parenting, better nutrition, a better environment, etc. He goes into how we screw up by paying for things that don't even help test scores while cutting teacher's pay so much they're qualifying for food stamps and having to pay for school supplies. VitalSigns posted:You think it would be good if Republicans could repeal any of that simply by doing nothing? King of Solomon posted:https://www.gothamgazette.com/opinion/8801-i-was-andrew-yangs-first-freedom-dividend-recipient-he-fired-me
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Not quite. Nothing has been signed and she probably still has unpaid interns doing work. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/elizabeth-warrens-campaign-unionizes-1507814 Wait. So, they unionized but they're not unionized. I'm literally a cog of the military-industrial complex and the unionization process is entirely foreign to me, so I don't understand how her campaign can be unionized but there's not an actual union going. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Union busting is never an accident
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:I think ex post de facto in the Constitution applies and the laws already on the books are exempt which is why I'd be cautiously ok with it. They couldn't say retroactively cancel Medicare and make old people pay back all their treatment, but they could certainly modify it going forward to require reauthorization every five years. necrobobsledder posted:Of course I'd never want those things to be held hostage and that looks suspiciously like a baiting tactic... Huh? Republicans just did that with CHIP last year to get more border security funding! They just let the Violence Against Women Act lapse! They're refusing to reauthorize the VRA! They held the budget hostage to demand the end to Obamacare risk corridor payments in order to destabilize the insurance market. Why are you skeptical they would do things they have been doing for years? necrobobsledder posted:I think Yang may have been thinking about preventing a GOP-dominated political system from adding new laws / funding for subsidies permanently while keeping things from regressing back and on a repeal system out of sync with the even number of years for political terms. I'm hearing a lot of "I think", and not a lot of citations of Yang's words to back up your interpretations of his positions. I'm not electing you President, I'm electing him. How do I know he means what you say, when the candidate himself won't say exactly what he means. Are you sure you aren't just hearing what you want to hear / telling us what you think we want to hear. I don't have this problem with Bernie. I can read his proposals and know exactly what he intends to do. But with Yang, Warren, Gabbard, etc whenever I ask really basic questions about what the candidate means instead of showing me what the candidate actually supports I just get a bunch of wishing. E: I don't mean to bag on you, you obviously can't be expected to read Yang's mind and tell me what his vague platform really means. But for me, it's a problem with the candidate that the candidate needs to solve by explaining himself. And really it should be a problem for you too. You said you wouldn't support the turbolibertarian government-destroying interpretations of his platform but what if that is exactly what he wants to do. You don't know! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/elizabeth-warrens-campaign-unionizes-1507814 Her staff voted to unionize, they have a union (the IBEW, apparently) lined up to provide representation, but the next step is to negotiate a contract that the membership votes on. Warren's campaign doesn't seem in a hurry to do that last part, though it's possible negotiations are stalled out for some legitimate reason (unlikely). If you're cynical (and you probably should be) you might assume the Warren campaign is intentionally stalling to keep costs down because any contract would probably force them to drop their unpaid interns and start providing better pay or benefits. A few months ago no one was sure the Warren campaign would have enough money to survive, so stalling a contract while getting the good headlines that say you're the same as Bernie was the best of both worlds. Also possible the Warren campaign is stalling with the understanding that they'll fire everyone at the end of campaign season anyways. So just hold out a couple more months, fire your early state staff, and then rehire them for the general election campaign, which is a distinct legal entity from the primary campaign, and boom, no more union woes. Edit: I'm trying to find articles about this but aside from trying to claim that Bernie is actually an evil tyrant who hates his workers no one has been writing about the organizing efforts within the campaigns. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
That is massively hosed up. She's at least providing health care and benefits to her workers, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/elizabeth-warrens-campaign-unionizes-1507814 There's two steps essentially in unionizing. First, the employer recognizes the union, which is essentially the employer saying "I recognize this union as the legitimate representatives of the workers and will negotiate with the union for a contract." The next step is, well, actually negotiating and then signing the contract. Which the Warren campaign hasn't done for almost 3 months, so while her campaign is unionized, they don't have the benefits of unionization. So how you interpret this depends on how much of the benefit of the doubt you want to give Warren. It can be just a 3 month delay because it's a complicated issue and they will have a contract any day now. Or it can be evidence of a broader pattern of doing things that will look good to leftists without having to follow through. Regardless of how it makes you see Warren, it is yet more evidence of how much bad faith there is in the coverage of Bernie. Bernie's union, which has a contract, has used their union status to renegotiate the contract, ask for pay raises, etc. and those have all been extensively covered in the media as evidence of "labor strife" within Bernie's camp, when that is the entire point of have a union. Warren's "you can have a union, but not a union contract or any of the benefits of being in a union yet," meanwhile, has gotten zero coverage. e:fb joepinetree fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:That is massively hosed up. No idea. Presumably some reporter will bother to look into this at some point but when writing about the Sanders Campaign "labor strife" didn't stick the MSM lost interest in covering internal campaign pay issues. Presumably she is, at least for the core staff, but Warren isn't calling attention to it so that should probably be all the answer you need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Lol "we don't know so we will assume it's very bad".
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
How are u posted:Lol "we don't know so we will assume it's very bad". That's...the reasonable skeptical position to take in politics though, because you're dealing with people who want something from you (the most powerful office in the land). We should absolutely expect candidates to prove themselves to us and assume the worst if they refuse to, it's called not being a sucker. E: like, imagine this attitude in your every day life. If a company refuses to permit health inspectors to see their property, do we just say "well since we can't know what's going on, it would be wrong to assume anything is amiss", no we shut them down. ICE won't permit photographs in its detention centers, I guess we should assume everything is fine then since we don't have photos showing otherwise right. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
How are u posted:Lol "we don't know so we will assume it's very bad". Christ even the dopes who took two years to figure out that House leadership is full of poo poo are brighter than you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They certainly are, but there weren't any new voter suppression laws in Michigan, Florida, or Pennsylvania in 2016. The polls were still dramatically off and Hillary famously lost in all three of those high-EV states. Why did you leave out Wisconsin?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
How are u posted:Lol "we don't know so we will assume it's very bad". I guess we could assume it's for good reasons but that would be equally silly. We'll just have to use intuition and history to guide us. There haven't been a whole bunch of reasons, good and bad, that organizations drag their feet in labor negotiations; just bad reasons. necrobobsledder posted:Selective quoting and listening is what may get Yang hosed pretty badly in optics I'm going to just address this. None of Yang's proposal is serious about mitigating climate change; we can argue the particulars of Sanders' GND but Yang is purely a joke. Maybe we can't stop what's coming but we can certainly do a much better job of distributing the resources of society to mitigate and eliminate the worst human effects. Moving to higher ground is part of his climate change platform and that is completely unacceptable. It is a genocidal plan, plain and simple. What is his plan to move the productive capacities of society to higher ground? How are we going to decide who and what gets to move to the limited higher ground in the world?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
How are u posted:Lol "we don't know so we will assume it's very bad". I don't necessarily want to jump to that conclusion yet. But based on what people are telling me in the thread (which I'm taking with several grains of salt because they're obviously Bernie supporters), it seems like Warren is basically getting a pass on everything despite there being obviously questionable things in her campaign, while Bernie is receiving a bunch of scrutiny despite being consistent. I want to give both candidates a fair shake but I guess that's not an option?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It makes sense that Warren would start to attract a number of people who had supported Bernie. I view those voters as coming home to the liberal candidate. Most democrats are liberals, you see. And well they should be, because liberalism is cool and good. lol gently caress no it isn't. Liberalism had to be dragged kicking and screaming to anything even resembling acceptable opinions and it's still utter dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Typo posted:I just had a weird thought that it's possible bernie has more Cherokee blood than warren LOL No, no its not. Bernie Jewish AF (and thanks to Ashkenazi endogamy is 2-4th cousins with Larry David, go watch the Finding Your Roots episode its really interesting)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:There can't be objective evidence the poll is garbage based on the sample selection. No primary elections have occurred yet. There isn't anything to draw percentage error from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
is there public data on the individual don't counts through this point of the 2016 primary?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/YoBenCohen/status/1175755646249164800
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you sure you aren't just hearing what you want to hear / telling us what you think we want to hear. What would be an example of a goal post of policy-level or regime-level trust you'd expect for him that's realistic to prove? What most of us supporters are into is his personal character across decades and his ability to bring positivity to a conversation with some realism right now as a new political figure even though he may make mistakes. We are excited to talk to people we would have cussed out last year alone, and our echo chamber is primarily to avoid negativity and toxic behaviors that drain us mentally. I find the signs of someone like myself that's struggled to make things work in a hostile corporatist system despite him having wielded that power and that behind the scenes his idea of deal-making is to default toward people and not the corporation. His openness is refreshing off the stage at the least and I don't see the usual CEO or politician wordsmithing that doesn't actually answer the question (I have noted several times ITT where I thought he had poo poo answers). As I mentioned some posts ago, if you see him a bit more raw situation you may see more sadness than anger that is familiar to Bernie folks. If someone wants to see evil in him, they will certainly find it for anyone with a corporate background because it rewards sociopathic behavior with an occasional side effect of doing something "good" currently. If he just wanted to make a ton of money and be an rear end in a top hat in neolibertarian paradise or caving constantly to such people, a non-profit during the Great Recession would be one of the last things to do. He is no Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, or whatnot to me besides on maybe a few policies specific to tech. Maybe his Bitcoin / blockchain policy ideas are of help to you here? Like helping secure elections with blockchain technology is something I like on the surface but am worried about tracking people down or enriching assholes that were Wall Street rejects for being worse than Stephen Miller. On the other hand, our opaque voting machines are awful and insanely rife with corruption and paper trails seem to be getting no traction from our elected officials politically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Glad to see someone taking lactose intolerance seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:28
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, but that is yet again another reason to not take polling data and multiply it by made up numbers and think you have done anything worthwhile. Repeatedly stated the primary value in doing so is what-if sensitivity analysis. You could say that pollsters "made up the numbers" when selecting their original sample splits. Everyone is guessing at this point because the future can't be known.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:You have every reason to be skeptical in the same way I was, and I don't take any offense to myself. The man's mind and policies are a fractal that I was checking for baiting, inconsistencies, or misleading people through various podcasts across different hosts. His policies page may be too vague for some more critical people but it's super hard for me to go through all his transcripts and mark where he's supported X or Y and so forth with more details. You don't have to go through transcripts to answer my questions, but if you've heard podcasts where he performed well that made you like him, can you recommend one to me that stood out to you? necrobobsledder posted:What would be an example of a goal post of policy-level or regime-level trust you'd expect for him that's realistic to prove? Or his UBI, why does it penalize poor people by taking away their benefits if they accept UBI? Why is it funded by a regressive sales taxes that make the poor and middle class fund their own basic income rather than wealth taxes on the people who actually have all the money. Why is the UBI not enough to live on, how does that put people first if you still have to have a job to not die (but also jobs aren't guaranteed so you still have to fight all the other unemployed people in a race-to-the-bottom to get a job) necrobobsledder posted:If someone wants to see evil in him, they will certainly find it for anyone with a corporate background because it rewards sociopathic behavior with an occasional side effect of doing something "good" currently. If he just wanted to make a ton of money and be an rear end in a top hat in neolibertarian paradise or caving constantly to such people, a non-profit during the Great Recession would be one of the last things to do. He is no Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, or whatnot to me besides on maybe a few policies specific to tech. Maybe his Bitcoin / blockchain policy ideas are of help to you here? Like helping secure elections with blockchain technology is something I like on the surface but am worried about tracking people down or enriching assholes that were Wall Street rejects for being worse than Stephen Miller. On the other hand, our opaque voting machines are awful and insanely rife with corruption and paper trails seem to be getting no traction from our elected officials politically. We know how to secure voting machines and make them auditable. There's no will to do it because Republicans want to cheat, which is why they give the contracts to people who fundraise for their campaign. Bitcoin is a scam, and 'blockchain technology' is not how you secure elections. A tech millionaire trying to sell me on scam internet money is not of help to me no. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:lol gently caress no it isn't. Liberalism had to be dragged kicking and screaming to anything even resembling acceptable opinions and it's still utter dogshit. Perhaps the most defining feature of modern liberalism, at least in the US, is that anything that happens outside of American borders (or to people from outside American borders) is utterly unimportant, because Latin Americans and Muslims are subhuman. In the list of current liberal concerns, "are randos being mean on twitter?" scores much higher than "Does this person think Palestinian babies are threats to be eradicated?," "Will this person continue the policy of supporting bloodthirsty fascists in Latin America to undermine leftists?" or "Does this person think baby cages, are good, actually?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
It's no surprise that Warren doesn't believe in rent control. Her stances on housing policy make more sense when you realize she personally was involved in flipping houses in OK in the 90s when a bunch of foreclosures happened in OKC. She flipped about a dozen houses and made several hundred k. Then again this was before she discovered a moral compass at 46 so whether or not this is held against her may be up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Yang is a tech bro dumbfuck taking "disruption" to vital national services. His ideas are, at best, half baked and exploitable by bad actors
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:It's no surprise that Warren doesn't believe in rent control. Her stances on housing policy make more sense when you realize she personally was involved in flipping houses in OK in the 90s when a bunch of foreclosures happened in OKC. She flipped about a dozen houses and made several hundred k. Can you provide a source for this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:No idea. Presumably some reporter will bother to look into this at some point but when writing about the Sanders Campaign "labor strife" didn't stick the MSM lost interest in covering internal campaign pay issues. Presumably she is, at least for the core staff, but Warren isn't calling attention to it so that should probably be all the answer you need. Well, keep in mind that the details of ongoing negotiations are usually private, so the media doesn't usually get much insight into them. The Sanders campaign "labor strife" story was anonymously leaked to the Washington Post. Unless someone inside the Warren campaign union starts dumping documents to reporters, we likely won't hear anything about it until a contract is signed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:Can you provide a source for this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/06/trumps-claim-that-elizabeth-warren-made-a-quick-killing-in-foreclosures/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Most American politicians are/were slumlords.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't have to go through transcripts to answer my questions, but if you've heard podcasts where he performed well that made you like him, can you recommend one to me that stood out to you? I think he's saying that if we make room for him on the left he'll move left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:16
|
|