|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
Gumbercules posted:Do we just ignore the fact that the legislature of California hasn't overturned a veto, any veto, in 41 years? This isn't necessarily a conspiracy to look like you care when you really don't, it could very plausibly just be I'd imagine the farmers of midland California and the city of Los Angeles to be extremely patient, as it seems the Resnicks have had the ear of their local politicians their entire lives.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
California dems are like the GOP and repealing obamacare, pass dozens and dozens of "messaging" bills when you don't have enough power to fully enact them, conveniently forget all about it once you do
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Just to update the RCV discussion from before, I found FairVote as seemingly the largest national organization devoted to the cause. From their I found the state based partners and signed up to volunteer and make a small monthly donation to the Florida organization, Rank My Vote Florida. Florida allows constitutional amendments via voter referendum so it could presumably be accomplished without the legislature. I'm sure the farther left people here will tell me it's a naive waste of time and I should instead be working towards getting everyone signed up for the SRA or Hewie Newton Gun Club as part of an arm the proletarian strategy but I'm still not entirely ready to abandon electoralism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Just to update the RCV discussion from before, I found FairVote as seemingly the largest national organization devoted to the cause. From their I found the state based partners and signed up to volunteer and make a small monthly donation to the Florida organization, Rank My Vote Florida. Florida allows constitutional amendments via voter referendum so it could presumably be accomplished without the legislature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Paul Krugman being a Nobel laureate and one of the most celebrated economists of the modern era is a bigger indictment of his entire field as astrology for neoliberals than anything else. Even if we put the hilariously blinkered "no mass anti-Muslim sentiment" aside, the ultimate point of that thread, "the GOP exploited 9/11 for political gain, America's problem is with white nationalists" is not exactly a Nobel-quality insight. All Nobel prizes are varying levels of farce these days (and maybe always were?), but it's worth noting that the Nobel Prize of Economics isn't even a real Nobel prize. It was invented by business interests in order to help dismantle social democratic controls on capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Rockit posted:Why not do both? I live abroad but I'm registered to vote in FL. I feel like RCV promotion is something I can do from outside more effectively. Phone calls, donations, letters, etc. Not sure how I'd arm the proletariat from over here. I do think the left needs to arm but I've been yelled at in d&d for suggesting it. That was like two years ago though I wonder if the needle has moved in that in this subforum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:So, what happened here is likely a little bit of both. I can guarantee you that there was no over-arching coordinated conspiracy to engage in political theater-- that is just too difficult to coordinate and of little practical benefit. Arranging a vote on anything is like herding cats, and every legislator loves to leak to the press. There's no need for a conspiracy - only for legislators to have an understanding that the governor is going to veto (which then enables them to vote as political theater). You only really need to be informed about one person's actions and have an understanding that there's no risk of the thing you're voting for actually happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's no need for a conspiracy - only for legislators to have an understanding that the governor is going to veto (which then enables them to vote as political theater). You only really need to be informed about one person's actions and have an understanding that there's no risk of the thing you're voting for actually happening. True enough. There is nothing to suggest that was the case here, though. A veto threat would have leaked. If I had to guess (and its just a guess, admittedly) the decision to veto was not made & communicated until after the vote passed. The smart play to preserve political capital is to stay out of it, let the legislature do their thing, and then veto it quietly. A that point, as you say, you don't need to do much explicitly to get people to fall in line. A veto threat beforehand can get leaked (and likely would have), and potentially galvanize more support against you. Why I am so resistant to the idea of pure political theater is that whipping votes for bills is actually really hard, and takes a lot of work. Its one thing if we are talking about meaningless proclamations or resolutions. But getting a super-majority to agree on and actually vote for language is not something you do just for the theater of it. To what end, anyway? Certainly not to placate anyone, as that obviously doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
People wail about how low voter turnout translates to Republican victories despite their unpopularity, but then they zealously defend a system created to frustrate voter will and discourage voters by making their vote pointless. Q: "why won't you pass voting reform?" A: "We support voting reform, it's all the Republicans' fault that it hasn't passed. You need to vote blue" *Democratic supermajority elected* Q: "Hey we voted you in like you said why didn't you pass voting reform?" A: "Oh we wish we could but the governor vetoed it, it's all his fault" Q: "But he's a Democrat, you said Democrats support voting reform." A: "Oh we do! But our nominee for governor doesn't, nothing we can do." Q: "why don't you override his veto?" A: "defying the governor like that would be bad for our careers, we can't do anything the governor doesn't agree with, like voting reform, which I remind you we totally support." Q: "If you totally support voting reform why don't you nominate a governor who agrees?" A: "We'd love to but you become the nominee by having all the right connections with the state political machine, not by supporting issues the party has decided to support." Q: "okay will you support a primary challenger to take on the machine candidate?" A: "oh gosh no, going against the machine would be the end of our careers. We can't bite the hand that feeds us. We will give some very nice speeches about how we love voting reform so much, then join the anti-reform governor in using every means at our disposal to crush any challenger." Q: "Your support for voting reform doesn't help me if you support the guy blocking it at the same time!" A: "We feel very badly about that, but as long as he's in favor we cannot cross him, even for an issue that we passionately support like voting reform" Q: "ok then I'll vote for a governor who supports voting reform in the general election" A: "you can't do that! A third party vote is a vote for the Republican!" Q: "only because a Democrat vetoed voting reform! which I'm starting to think is the entire point of this little runaround game" A: "you're racist." Is it any wonder most of the country doesn't vote VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
It's poo poo like that that's why I've been in favor of parliamentary systems for a while. Abolish the presidency and the senate, and suddenly whoever's in charge actually has to take a stand for something. Add in a better voting system than FPTP, and we'd be in a much better position as a country for actually doing poo poo for people. Which, of course, is why none of it will ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:It's poo poo like that that's why I've been in favor of parliamentary systems for a while. Abolish the presidency and the senate, and suddenly whoever's in charge actually has to take a stand for something. Add in a better voting system than FPTP, and we'd be in a much better position as a country for actually doing poo poo for people. Yeah, it's important to keep in mind that the system is working exactly as intended. Everything looks hosed because by design we are the ones who are supposed to be hosed. The ones in power are doing just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Everyone in the thread posted:What is the point of your worthless decorum post The point is, I don't understand why you aren't having the "Homer Simpson isn't the brilliant negotiator I thought he was" moment that you should be having. People are suggesting that the entire Dem legislature of California overwhelmingly voted for a proposition only as a calculated showpiece, because they were certain a veto was coming; what about the simpler explanation? That they thought this was a good bill wanted by their voters, but not enough to break  and override the governor, and centrist Dem voters actually do expect ? That's what it looks like to me.I think the Dem party is not some entrenched dark money operation manipulating its oppressed voters, but rather a genuine reflection of a giant chunk of its base - voters who have weak preferences for positive change, but a strong preference that things go "smoothly", for better or worse. I feel that this is easily seen, for example, in the "57% Medicare for all" support that you see bandied about here. Those same polls found that support curtails *significantly* if the chosen option abolishes private insurance, and even further if taxes increase. That doesn't suggest to me an electorate who greatly wants something that they're not getting; rather, it shows me a electorate with a weak preference that gets quickly abandoned the second it has any trade-offs. Its a policy which is liked, but not at all enthusiastically. And you see this in polling across a range of policies, including the other big issue of the day "defund the police". This is ultimately what the left has to change. And they *are* changing, aren't they? While perhaps not enthusiastic yet, all measurable support for universal healthcare is increasing, support for other social policies like UBI is similarly increasing, support for serious action on climate change is at an all time high, support for police reform outside of "defund the police" is up (and support for police unions is down), and all of these trends look to continue over time; whether due to demographic changes or actual persuasion, these numbers are going in the right direction. But, rather than taking this as a positive sign, rather than realizing that the voter base is moving in your direction *but isn't there yet* - doomerism is embraced. It is assumed that electorate either doesn't know how to vote to get what they already want, or they just don't know what they actually want, either way its the result of calculated manipulation (rather than pervasive indifference) and the only thing that will save them is to yank them out of the matrix with a painful collapse of governance. But then I see posts in here actually saying that the difference between a Biden/Obama administration and a Trump administration is aesthetic, that there will be meaningful difference to anyone, and that if you think there is you must have a child's view of the world. What an honest thought that is. My honest thought is that many people in here are living in an echo chamber which has allowed them to rationalize the idea that the obvious pain Trump is causing by being in office is actually just an illusion, and thus they don't have to feel bad about sitting out the election. In fact, they are the only ones taking the moral choice. On the other hand, people like my wife, who is disabled, who was sweating with me when the ACA was one sucker's vote away from being repealed without replacement, I suppose she just doesn't realize that the ACA isn't actually helping her and she's just feeding the beast. Or my trans friend and co-worker, who advocates hard against Trump, who looks back the previous administration extending hate crime protection to gender choice, overturning "don't ask don't tell", arguing successfully that DOMA was unconstitutional, and then looks at this administration's behavior and at the MAGA movement in general wanting to see her as a mental patient - what a rube she is, to think she's making a good choice. Or hell, just in practical terms I thought that Kagan and especially Sotomayor were extraordinarily better justices than Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but I guess they must just be agents of the same secret government, my mistake. It is, by all appearance, the exact same brand of rationalization I see from my libertarian acquaintances, who appear to honestly believe that by advocating for the end of any welfare state whatsoever that *they* are taking the most moral and helpful position in the long run. It absolves them from having to deal with obvious moral dilemmas sitting in front of them. Gumbercules fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Didn't several of the Founding Fathers realize that the system would fall apart if there arose a political party that was primarily concerned with keeping itself in power, and their solution was to leave an entreaty to future generations to never form a political party?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:The point is, I don't understand why you aren't having the "Homer Simpson isn't the brilliant negotiator I thought he was" moment that you should be having. People are suggesting that the entire Dem legislature of California overwhelmingly voted for a proposition only as a calculated showpiece, because they were certain a veto was coming; what about the simpler explanation? That they thought this was a good bill wanted by their voters, but not enough to break Why do you think Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare 40 times under Obama then some of them switched sides and voted against repeal under Trump after which they promptly gave up repeal forever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
It’s not the 19th century anymore, no one gives a gently caress about vetos being overridden. It was just an excuse to avoid doing something they didn’t want to do
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Its not an illusion I haven't had reliable health care/living wage my whole life and if people who are in a position to fix it (while running on fixing that) don't because of whatever excuse then they no longer deserve my vote. Its also not an illusion that the party is endorsing a rapist for the highest position in the land so gently caress em Edit; also the planet is dying and we are not going to address it in a worthwile manner from either party
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
That's a lot of words to basically accuse NoJoes of "privilege". The fact that a lot of us stand to lose just as much from a second Trump term as you and your wife should tell you where we're coming from. Because many of us stand to be hurt a lot from Trump, we think that things need to change beyond tinkering at the margins with bullshit like "access" to health care. "Normalcy" is no longer acceptable. If we were truly as "privileged" as many pro-Joes seem to think we are, we wouldn't give a single poo poo who won in November. To be quite frank with you, the only people I would regard as privileged are the people (not necessarily you) who think they can scold people into voting for a lovely candidate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:I think the Dem party is not some entrenched dark money operation manipulating its oppressed voters, but rather a genuine reflection of a giant chunk of its base - voters who have weak preferences for positive change, but a strong preference that things go "smoothly", for better or worse. Funny how the "democratic base" is a constantly moving goalpost that surely includes all minorities, youth, and people of color, when it comes to optics, but instead is reduced to reasonably well off, middle aged, white people and whichever minorities that will parrot what those well off white people say, when it comes times to set an agenda. Reverend Dr fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Didn't several of the Founding Fathers realize that the system would fall apart if there arose a political party that was primarily concerned with keeping itself in power, and their solution was to leave an entreaty to future generations to never form a political party? no they were more worried a political party would use whatever power it won to rob the nation blind
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
Does anyone think that we're in for the most crazy end of October bullshit ever, this year? I assume that trump will release a campaign video of Biden's hair-sniffing, while about 50 journalists will come forward with credible recordings/etc of Trump saying "Nuke California" and "kill the poor" and "I laugh when our troops die", and then there'll be some weird Florida-gore thing too and all of the swing states will have militias outside polling booths, with police standing next to them, not letting POC in to vote. The Democrats will complain that it wasn't fair, the supreme court will say "lol no it's fine really", Trump will win extremely hard, and that'll be that. Anyway, I'm going to vote but I'm expecting some extremely bonkers poo poo in October. It'll be full-force bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:And they *are* changing, aren't they? While perhaps not enthusiastic yet, all measurable support for universal healthcare is increasing, support for other social policies like UBI is similarly increasing, support for serious action on climate change is at an all time high, support for police reform outside of "defund the police" is up (and support for police unions is down), and all of these trends look to continue over time; whether due to demographic changes or actual persuasion, these numbers are going in the right direction. But, rather than taking this as a positive sign, rather than realizing that the voter base is moving in your direction *but isn't there yet* - doomerism is embraced. It is assumed that electorate either doesn't know how to vote to get what they already want, or they just don't know what they actually want, either way its the result of calculated manipulation (rather than pervasive indifference) and the only thing that will save them is to yank them out of the matrix with a painful collapse of governance. If all of this support made any sort of loving difference we'd have universal healthcare right now. There's a reason it doesn't. I want you to think through what that reason is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
redreader posted:Does anyone think that we're in for the most crazy end of October bullshit ever, this year? I assume that trump will release a campaign video of Biden's hair-sniffing, while about 50 journalists will come forward with credible recordings/etc of Trump saying "Nuke California" and "kill the poor" and "I laugh when our troops die", and then there'll be some weird Florida-gore thing too and all of the swing states will have militias outside polling booths, with police standing next to them, not letting POC in to vote. Oh, indeed. I expect nothing less than increasing insanity between now and November.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1304548797645811715 legit a good thing, if somewhat dependent on the margin in the senate Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:I feel that this is easily seen, for example, in the "57% Medicare for all" support that you see bandied about here. Those same polls found that support curtails *significantly* if the chosen option abolishes private insurance, and even further if taxes increase. That doesn't suggest to me an electorate who greatly wants something that they're not getting; rather, it shows me a electorate with a weak preference that gets quickly abandoned the second it has any trade-offs. Its a policy which is liked, but not at all enthusiastically. And you see this in polling across a range of policies, including the other big issue of the day "defund the police". This is ultimately what the left has to change. Ignoring the rest of your post for just being part of the same argument that’s had every day in this thread, this isn’t what the left has to change. For one thing, most people don’t have strong opinions about basically anything of consequence, and if they think that an obviously good thing is good but then a professional on the phone says “well what if it does this bad thing that you’ve been told is bad your entire life?” Or “what if I use these negative words to describe something without actually explaining it in full?” Well, you didn’t feel that strongly about it and an authority figure is saying it wasn’t true. Especially when it plays on this very deep-seated American myth poo poo like “taxes are bad” or “choice is freedom.” Which leads to the other thing. The left doesn’t have to change its core message, really; if it’s not being attacked in a push poll or at a debate where all the moderators treat it with scorn and skepticism, the platform we’ve got is popular, full stop. What it has to change is the means of communication in an environment where the media blasts out those negative narratives about leftist policies constantly. It sure is weird how none of these polls seem interested in finding messages that increases support for leftist policy, for example!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Just to update the RCV discussion from before, I found FairVote as seemingly the largest national organization devoted to the cause. From their I found the state based partners and signed up to volunteer and make a small monthly donation to the Florida organization, Rank My Vote Florida. Florida allows constitutional amendments via voter referendum so it could presumably be accomplished without the legislature. I was doing a write up on amendment 4 and its current status in Florida, but it got absolutely massive so let me instead just say: when an amendment is being implemented by the people whose power it is trying to curtail, it will not succeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
I had cancer as a kid and my family's insurance, Blue Cross, dropped my coverage immediately. This put my family in massive medical debt (then bankruptcy) and left me with multiple chronic conditions that would've been resolved or made easier to live with had my parents been able to take me to a doctor more often as a child. We were poor but not poor enough for means-tested state insurance. I couldn't get insurance pre-ACA and I couldn't afford insurance after ACA until I got a full-time job with public union benefits, something under attack by high-profile endorsers of the Biden campaign. I lived in Michigan for the 2017 gubernatorial race and was told I was privileged because I had no interest in voting for Gretchen Whitmer whose dad is a Blue Cross exec and whose entire family profited off Blue Cross decisions like the one that hosed me and my family. You can write that story for a lot of people on a lot of issues when it comes to Joe Biden and most Democrats. Can you write it worse with Republicans? Sure. But why should people vote for anyone who has routinely made their lives worse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1304548797645811715 I hope big progressive bills doesn't mean extending trumps tax cuts and sending Netanyahu 5 trillion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:lots of words All of the 12th dimensional chess moves and the pulse of the spirit of the voter and the pain'd struggle of the well-intentioned democrat politicians against the vile republicans is just kayfabe. The merest scraps that the system allows to be doled out are always under direct and immediate threat, you have to vote for the side that's going to allow you to keep your scraps, so please ignore whatever else they're taking from you. It's pretty obvious that you assume everyone who isn't going to vote for Joe Biden is safe, wealthy, comfortable, and stands to lose nothing under a Trump administration (despite it being pointed out over and over again in this thread that this couldn't be further from the truth), that we're all big mad little baby cranks upset at the world because It Was Bernie's Turn. None of our arguments make any sense to you and none of them can make any sense to you without at least some sort of class-first analysis of the political landscape. If I didn't have any sort of class consciousness I couldn't make heads or tails of the NoJoe position, either. But it can't be that capitalists seek to accrue capital by any means necessary, and it can't be that they can only do it at the expense and immiseration of the working class. It has to be either a cabal of Jewish globalist bankers that control a shadow government if you're a conservative, or a layer cake of demographics and voter preferences and west wing speeches and literacy levels and economic incentives and whatever else if you're a liberal
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
I would like an incrementalist to explain why UBI, paid college, wealth taxes, and a governmental health program havent passed after being proposed 90 loving years ago
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Any integrity the democrats had died with Henry Wallace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Obama passed a healthcare act so good that the Republicans couldn't repeal it https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6146333/. So good that even a lot of people who hated Obamacare because it had Obama in it knew that they couldn't do without the Affordable Care Act. so good that 80,000 americans are dying each year because they're uninsured or underinsured so good that tens of millions more are declaring medical-related bankruptcies each year so good that the percentage of healthcare dollars as part of the gnp is now close to 20 percent; it was an "astronomical" 16 percent of gnp when the act passed so good that insurance premiums have doubled? tripled? quintupled? since it was passed so good that it penalized near-poors who couldn't afford to purchase it so good that the average family deductible is now around $12,000/year; don't forget to not get sick in December lest it turns into $24,000 of deductibles so good that it incentivized corporate hospitals, corporate insurers & corporate mergers between insurers and pharma providers so good that it continued linking insurance & employment unless whoops! suddenly tens of millions of people are out of work so good that it was touted to be "the first step toward single payer" but instead turned into "the best we can do" and an excuse to make sure single payer never, ever happens Biden wants to bring back the financial penalty for the mandate that Trump got rid of, and make it even more financially punitive. If Trump's campaign is smart (it isn't) it'd be running ads 24/7 on this bc I guarantee that that's a vote-loser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:True enough. There is nothing to suggest that was the case here, though. A veto threat would have leaked. If I had to guess (and its just a guess, admittedly) the decision to veto was not made & communicated until after the vote passed. The smart play to preserve political capital is to stay out of it, let the legislature do their thing, and then veto it quietly. A that point, as you say, you don't need to do much explicitly to get people to fall in line. A veto threat beforehand can get leaked (and likely would have), and potentially galvanize more support against you. There's no necessity to actively communicate "I'm going to veto this"; only to have a mutual understanding of the ideology of the people involved. You can know "(person) will veto this" without (person) explicitly communicating their plan to veto. Gumbercules posted:I feel that this is easily seen, for example, in the "57% Medicare for all" support that you see bandied about here. Those same polls found that support curtails *significantly* if the chosen option abolishes private insurance, and even further if taxes increase. That doesn't suggest to me an electorate who greatly wants something that they're not getting; rather, it shows me a electorate with a weak preference that gets quickly abandoned the second it has any trade-offs. Its a policy which is liked, but not at all enthusiastically. And you see this in polling across a range of policies, including the other big issue of the day "defund the police". This is ultimately what the left has to change. Why? No, seriously, why? Most people supporting something is more than good enough, and if you think the idea is actually good and important why in the gently caress should you give a poo poo about this? It has literally no relevance to anything. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Sep 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:Or my trans friend and co-worker, who advocates hard against Trump, who looks back the previous administration extending hate crime protection to gender choice, I'd say you should talk to your friend more, but it isn't her job to educate you. Also you probably shouldn't use her as a prop (or your wife for that matter).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1304548797645811715 lolol: quote:Biden, who has said in the past he doesn’t support eliminating the filibuster, opened the door to the idea slightly in July, telling a group of journalists it would “depend on how obstreperous” Republicans are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:lolol: Hopefully, Chris Coons never gets a chance to poo poo the bed in the senate because it looks like he's making GBS threads the bed in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:The point is, I don't understand why you aren't having the "Homer Simpson isn't the brilliant negotiator I thought he was" moment that you should be having. People are suggesting that the entire Dem legislature of California overwhelmingly voted for a proposition only as a calculated showpiece, because they were certain a veto was coming; what about the simpler explanation? That they thought this was a good bill wanted by their voters, but not enough to break This is, once again, confusing minutia for an argument. At the end of the day, democrats killed RCV in California. Discussing what is in their heart of hearts is a waste of time. quote:
Things indeed are changing. In 1976 there was a coup in Argentina. When the military came to power, they informed Henry Kissinger that they intended to use the "Chilean method" to to terrorize the opposition - even killing priests and nuns and others. Now, even the Ford administration was surprised by the brutality, but Kissinger was there to encourage the Argentinean junta to keep killing. It wasn't uncommon for the junta to torture pregnant women up till the moment they gave birth, give the kid to some officer who wanted to have kids, and then take the mother on an air plane where she would be dropped off, chained to other mothers, in the middle of the ocean. By October of 1976, it looked like Carter might win, and democrats in congress were getting a little anxious about how loving brutal the Argentinean dictatorship had been. So The Secretary… had urged Argentina 'to be careful' and had said that if the terrorist problem was over by December or January, he (the Secretary) believed serious problems could be avoided in the U.S. Now, don't get me wrong. It's not as if the democrats had a sterling human rights record at the time. Vietnam, Brazil, Indonesia had all happened under Democratic leadership. But at least then Henry Kissinger was too sociopathic even for democrats, to the point that Kissinger was warning dictatorships to do "do what has to be done" before December and January. And then things changed, and now we have a candidate that calls Kissinger a genuine friend, the "reality check" he relies on And just in case that is not enough, Biden also has the guy who helped organize death squads in central america in the 80s, the guy who helped cover up My Lai, the guy who lied about WMDs to start the Iraq war. So if we're going to talk about privilege, maybe we should talk about the most extreme form of privilege of all: that of thinking that American imperialism and foreign policy is just some minor detail. I lost an uncle the first time the US decided to support a coup in my country of birth. My family now has to be careful about wearing red in public after the latest coup supported by the democrats. Things that you will probably never have to worry about, so you can keep proselytizing about Biden without a care in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:so good that the percentage of healthcare dollars as part of the gnp is now close to 20 percent; it was an "astronomical" 16 percent of gnp when the act passed One of the most illustrative charts I've seen is one that shows out-of-pocket spending on healthcare per household over the last few decades. It's increases consistently throughout, no change at all after the ACA was implemented. Edit: Actually I think it was this graph of premiums, just with an arrow superimposed pointing to 2010 (the year the ACA was passed) 
Euphoriaphone fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Sep 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 02:36
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Why? Dem ideology is basically just about finding a million reasons why doing things isn't possible.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:I feel that this is easily seen, for example, in the "57% Medicare for all" support that you see bandied about here. Those same polls found that support curtails *significantly* if the chosen option abolishes private insurance, and even further if taxes increase. You can do this with literally anything. They're called leading questions and push polls; where the query is tailored to nudge the person towards the desired opinion. The current % is 69% support for Medicare for All, but I'll use an older poll closer to the figure you've given, 3 years ago: Data Note: Modestly Strong but Malleable Support for Single-Payer Health Care You have the base support of 55%, and when You lead those questioned with Negative statements, opposition to M4A rises to 53-62%. You lead those questioned with Positive statements, support for M4A rises to 65-72%. So the question can be framed in a way that can shift support negatively by 13-21 points, or positively 9-17 points. All this really means is that a large portion of the public are extremely reactionary to the most recent persuasion thrown their way. Just like with any policy. With that in mind, that people are extremely impressionable to what has most recently been said to them, note that M4A support has risen to 69% in spite of Trump, his primary opponent, and 20 democratic primary challengers including the final nominee deriding the plan. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all E: Dont do math at 2:30 AM, just copy the website figures. Fixed some numbers. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Sep 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:You can do this with literally anything. They're called leading questions and push polls; where the query is tailored to nudge the person towards the desired opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA Yes, Minister still has one of the best explanations of this I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 07:39
|
|