|
Ruzihm posted:That implication is a strawman you created in your brain Feedback: undo the threadbans
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Killer robot posted:I think the parts of my post that you selected and deleted in making the reply are relevant there. To put it another way, why did you repeatedly frame aid to children as being aid to breeders or whatever, This is a pretty gross mischaracterizaton. Killer robot posted:if your argument was actually that a program that helps both children and adults could be better? It still sounds by your "it could be argued" that you only even picked up on that possibility after doubling down on the "why shouldn't a couple without kids get the same help as one with" sort of talk? I'm not asking you to love the CTC and kiss it and marry it or anything. It just feels really weird and unclear what you even think it is, or alternatively what you think "means testing" is at least in any negative sense. The free pre-K is also means-tested based on whether you are at any point in your life a child, I suppose. I think the point being made is that universal programs - such as benefits to the entire populace - are always better than targeted benefits, like the CTC, which only affect a specific portion of the populace. It also breeds on some level a certain amount of contempt in people who are struggling but are not granted the same general benefits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
^^^^^ Also literally the part of my post that got selectively deleted from the quote!lobster shirt posted:Do you mean regular kindergarten? Free pre-k is absolutely means tested, at least in some parts of the country. Here are the requirements for the school district I live in, for free pre-k. If you are not eligible, it's $5,675. I mean the universal pre-k in reconciliation that somehow doesn't get name-dropped as "means testing" every time someone calls for universal college too. But sure, can say the kindergarten we already have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I think the parts of my post that you selected and deleted in making the reply are relevant there. To put it another way, why did you repeatedly frame aid to children as being aid to breeders or whatever, if your argument was actually that a program that helps both children and adults could be better? It still sounds by your "it could be argued" that you only even picked up on that possibility after doubling down on the "why shouldn't a couple without kids get the same help as one with" sort of talk? I'm not asking you to love the CTC and kiss it and marry it or anything. It just feels really weird and unclear what you even think it is, or alternatively what you think "means testing" is at least in any negative sense. The free pre-K is also means-tested based on whether you are at any point in your life a child, I suppose. It seems like you're doing an awful lot of typing to justify your initial, maybe intentional, maybe not, worst possible interpretation of my position that the child tax credit isn't doing enough to help everyone. This is, again, a sidebar to the criticism itself that's unhealthy to the thread's signal:noise ratio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:^^^^^ Also literally the part of my post that got selectively deleted from the quote! Universal Pre-K and universal college wouldn't be means tested and also don't currently exist in the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Universal Pre-K and universal college wouldn't be means tested and also don't currently exist in the US. Universal Pre-K and the CTC are both currently part of the reconciliation bill and yet only one of the two gets called out on "Meh, why this thing that's means-tested based on reproductive status, doesn't help me none." And it's the less focused one that benefits more people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Universal Pre-K and the CTC are both currently part of the reconciliation bill and yet only one of the two gets called out on "Meh, why this thing that's means-tested based on reproductive status, doesn't help me none." And it's the less focused one that benefits more people. People without kids don't need Pre-K. People without kids do need help crawling out of debt (eta: people with kids can also need both!). If the Pre-K is means tested, that's even more of a disappointment - I haven't probed the particulars of the UPK part of the bill (since it's not relevant to my situation) so "actually, that part is means tested, too!" isn't doing it any favors in my evaluation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:That implication is a strawman you created in your brain @greyjoy, i thought you said we were discarding the thread and forumbans? e: https://twitter.com/merica/status/1455275809464152065 getting some real "oh my god, he admit it!" vibes from this statement, gotta say. maybe try running on your own loving policies and plans for governance next time, you freaking moron A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Universal Pre-K and the CTC are both currently part of the reconciliation bill and yet only one of the two gets called out on "Meh, why this thing that's means-tested based on reproductive status, doesn't help me none." And it's the less focused one that benefits more people. You brought up Pre-K and Pre-K support is currently means tested. If universal pre-K passed it wouldn't be means tested. I'm sorry you're stuck in an argument in your head with someone who doesn't know what means tested is. Edit: also sorry that the person you're arguing with said breeders. Super gross, glad it didn't happen here. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:@greyjoy, i thought you said we were discarding the thread and forumbans? "Next time?" Not again! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:@greyjoy, i thought you said we were discarding the thread and forumbans? Just lmao that the guy who can't stop talking about Trump is complaining about Trump fatigue among voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's worth comparing the story to others, because yes, it's pretty straightforward to arrange and contextualize (or in this case, decontextualize) quotes to change the impact. NR leads with ta paraphrase and moves the actual quote downward past a framing section that establishes Youngkin's misrepresentation of the relevant legislation as fact. It also provides no other material from the debate, to make it seem like a massive own of McAuliffe and the dominant element of the event. Here are a few non-right-wing newspapers debate coverage: To follow up on what Vox said, as a reminder we should all be very careful who we trust as sources and believe blindly. It's easy to fall into a trap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Just lmao that the guy who can't stop talking about Trump is complaining about Trump fatigue among voters. To be fair, the actual Youngkin flyers I've seen around here have ENDORSED BY DONALD J TRUMP in big bold letters on the front so it isn't just McAuliffe making it a referendum on the man who still controls the Republican Party's policies and message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
Once we get Vasily Sanders to run the revolutionary council we can deal with the likes of manchin. Literally why does he even care about America's debts other than it's an old gently caress worrying point. The masters that are bagging his 30 silver will be dead long before the debt goes off the rails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:People without kids don't need Pre-K. People without kids do need help crawling out of debt (eta: people with kids can also need both!). If the Pre-K is means tested, that's even more of a disappointment - I haven't probed the particulars of the UPK part of the bill (since it's not relevant to my situation) so "actually, that part is means tested, too!" isn't doing it any favors in my evaluation. That last part was added in by someone who wasn't following the conversation/reconciliation bill context closely and got confused, as far as I can tell. But it's not parents of young children that get to go to pre-K, it's kids. It's also kids that get the juice boxes and school clothes and extra bedroom or whatever they personally need that wouldn't have been purchased in a childless household, and that's what the CTC is. Both parents and non-parents equally might have crushing medical debts, or remaining college debts or whatever else too. Likewise, if nothing else changes, the kids who benefit from these programs might one day become adults without children who are in need, and yet they'll still have gotten the same benefit from these things. The new generation will get better than the older generation, and that sounds like an unalloyed good. It's also true even if all the additional benefits you've proposed for adults come to pass, presuming you're not planning to take from the child-focused programs to do so. If anyone proposed retroactively paying for my childhood expenses I missed it I mean. As an adult with no children that's paid off all my college debts I'm not "left behind" in any meaningful sense by universal pre-K, child tax credits, or other proposed ideas like free college or educational loan forgiveness, even though I would have materially benefited from all of those in the past. I would not be left behind by those things even if tomorrow I ended up jobless and with massive medical debts. I would want help with those things, yes! But in asking for that help I I can't see a reason I should bring up aid programs for children unless I wanted a cut of that specifically. The core of what I'm getting is that government aid to children isn't for the benefit of people raising children any more than child support is for the benefit of the custodial parent, and in all but the accounting sense you don't get it from having children but from growing up as a child. Sure, it doesn't apply to us olds but if college debt forgiveness passes tomorrow I won't benefit from that either. I'll still cheer it the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Once we get Vasily Sanders to run the revolutionary council we can deal with the likes of manchin. Yeah he doesn't. That's the whole point, nobody cares about the budget, it's just an argument you can use against spending you don't want to see happen. The debt doesn't actually matter and they all know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Once we get Vasily Sanders to run the revolutionary council we can deal with the likes of manchin. I mean, it's no surprise that with both parties running on "the federal budget is just like your household budget" for the last several decades that it'd become a trope that the government "has to live within its means." I'm still waiting on Catfood Commission 2 to rear its head sometime before the end of the year, given the 70 percent or so of senators who've clamored for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:That implication is a strawman you created in your brain
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Do we have a Rittenhouse trial thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:That last part was added in by someone who wasn't following the conversation/reconciliation bill context closely and got confused, as far as I can tell. But it's not parents of young children that get to go to pre-K, it's kids. It's also kids that get the juice boxes and school clothes and extra bedroom or whatever they personally need that wouldn't have been purchased in a childless household, and that's what the CTC is. Both parents and non-parents equally might have crushing medical debts, or remaining college debts or whatever else too. Likewise, if nothing else changes, the kids who benefit from these programs might one day become adults without children who are in need, and yet they'll still have gotten the same benefit from these things. The new generation will get better than the older generation, and that sounds like an unalloyed good. It's also true even if all the additional benefits you've proposed for adults come to pass, presuming you're not planning to take from the child-focused programs to do so. If anyone proposed retroactively paying for my childhood expenses I missed it I mean. Dude instead of trying to understand another person's point you've written all these words to explain that they can't mean what they say and instead must of meant the thing you came up with. I do not know who you think is arguing gently caress them kids because I didn't get anything but they're not in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Let's go Manson
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Let's go Manson *audible gasp*
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:are you seriously trying to say that mcauliffe is blameless if he loses How could you possibly get that from what he said?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Catfood Commission I understand the metaphor, but is catfood even significantly cheaper than people food? I don't have any pets but the people I know with cats constantly complain about the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Hahaha, that's got to be the most dnd post ever, and I say that affectionately. I am not a cat lady so I have no idea of the cost of meow mix these days but I'm sure there will be others weighing in over the next several pages. In any case, I guess there could be alternate nicknames for whatever abortion is generated out of austerity this time, like "Robbing Granny's sugar for their SALT commission."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I understand the metaphor, but is catfood even significantly cheaper than people food? I don't have any pets but the people I know with cats constantly complain about the price. Also the advent of the >=$1 donut has severely damaged the classic "I'll bet you dollars to donuts" saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I understand the metaphor, but is catfood even significantly cheaper than people food? I don't have any pets but the people I know with cats constantly complain about the price. A while back I was eating a $0.33 can of potted meat and was thinking that the $1 same-sized can of cat food the cat was eating looked better that what I was eating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I understand the metaphor, but is catfood even significantly cheaper than people food? I don't have any pets but the people I know with cats constantly complain about the price. yeah per calorie big bags of animal food are dirt cheap compared to people quality food in any event it's largely an old-timey thing because pre-social security it was common that destitute/disabled seniors would have to eat animal food (or non-human quality food), or even roadkill to survive. iirc the 'keep seniors from eating pet food' was one of the major bits of imagery from the campaign to get social security passed and yeah it's quite an image and it's stuck around
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:@greyjoy, i thought you said we were discarding the thread and forumbans? We are reconsidering forumbans, at present they are still in force. We are also, technically, reconsidering threadbans, but I don't mind saying that I think those serve a useful purpose. We might adjust our terms for those but if we abolish them I was probably a voice in favor of keeping them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:yeah per calorie big bags of animal food are dirt cheap compared to people quality food "Help children/seniors afford pet-quality food" would be an interesting modern twist. Or will be. Fun times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:We are reconsidering forumbans, at present they are still in force. We are also, technically, reconsidering threadbans, but I don't mind saying that I think those serve a useful purpose. We might adjust our terms for those but if we abolish them I was probably a voice in favor of keeping them. you or fool of sound mentioned that vital signs was on the verge of being welcomed back into USPOL. do you plan to provide a framework through which posters can be commuted from their threadbans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:you or fool of sound mentioned that vital signs was on the verge of being welcomed back into USPOL. do you plan to provide a framework through which posters can be commuted from their threadbans? We do! ...sometime! I like threadbans more than forumbans, and  please take all my policy statements as me rambling as a mod rather than as Mod Consensus unless I say otherwise , but I'm disinclined for threadbans to be absolutely forever. Maybe someday the people who appear to be totally incapable of posting in covidthread without being assholes and/or melting down can correct their issues.One option is an appeals process. Another option is putting a timeframe on the threadban, although I imagine the person in question (in this case vitalsigns) would be on thin ice afterward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
i mean, we already have an appeals process of sorts, but formalizing it a little more would probably not go amiss
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 08:47
|
|
|
Interesting VA Analysis: https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1454817418786877448 tl;dr - Black turnout is approaching 2020 vote share in early voting, early voting is surging in the days coming up to the election in Dem strongholds that were lagging a few weeks ago. Early vote is older than 2020 and is skewed a bit toward rural precincts compared to 2020. There are some hints of an enthusiasm advantage for GOP in the actual data now, mostly around first time early voters. Poll aggregates are possibly not as big a feather for the GOP as pundits have thought, because the average is being skewed by polls produced by GOP consulting firms, which have been flooding their junk into the info-stream and thereby shifting the aggregate. That absurd badly-sampled +8 Fox poll is the only major Media poll in the last month that showed Youngkin ahead, and according to Nate Cohn there have actually been very few polls at all since the 27th, so a lot of thoughts about the state of the race are predicated on extrapolations of old data, rather than current information. https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1455240706516209668
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 09:00
|
|
|
There were 3 other polls that had the race as a dead heat though. I'm also not quite sure how much momentum you can lose in 6 days without any big developments to push things one way or the other, especially when most of that was Halloween weekend. Guess we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 09:11
|
|
|
There appears to be a solid swing towards Youngkin towards the end, but after the past 5 years of polling I think we just have to assume that any race within 6 points or so is a toss-up. Those two points might be the ones putting him over the top, or maybe he was already winning or losing by 5 points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 09:33
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:There appears to be a solid swing towards Youngkin towards the end, but after the past 5 years of polling I think we just have to assume that any race within 6 points or so is a toss-up. Those two points might be the ones putting him over the top, or maybe he was already winning or losing by 5 points.  This is every poll on 538 since the Fox +8, and frankly this doesn't seem like a "solid swing," towards Youngkin, especially since one of the polls in there is Traflolgar. If anything the most recent data favors MaC. Even today he has a +3 poll with a larger sample right in there with those R-leaning ones,
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
He went from being 5-10 up about 2-4 weeks ago to it being a tight race. That's a swing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 10:32
|
|
|
I still think McAuliffe wins but it’s going to be by 2-3 points
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I still think McAuliffe wins but it’s going to be by 2-3 points Same. I know a few folks who work down there and they feel pretty confident. Could be overconfidents or sunk cost but I trust said folks a lot and I trust folks on the ground more then the pollsters or sign numbers, but again, we will see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 13:13
|
|
