|
JeffersonClay posted:And this is exactly the dumb poo poo I'm talking about. Yes, embracing the Russian interference narrative will in some ways validate Hillary Clinton and imply that everything bad is not all her fault. Get over it. It validates what she thought about Russia. It in no way invalidates her hideous mistakes nor does it allow us to continue making them with impunity.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Condiv posted:and? the banks knew the law before they committed their crimes and they flouted the law for a decade. it sucks for the unions if they liked those orgs, but they don't have a right to do business with criminal institutions I linked the exemption upthread. The relevant section for your question is quoted below. For context, "Section I(g) of PTE 84-14" is the "don't be a criminal" rule that the unions sought a waiver for. So (a) can be rephrased as "Were it not for this specific conviction [that (b)-(e) make clear we were uninvolved in and did not profit from, we would not need this waiver" http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=27931&AgencyId=8&DocumentType=3 posted:(a) Any failure of the Credit Suisse Affiliated QPAMs or the Credit So: the company (and its staff) that the union wants to manage their money did not commit, participate in, or directly benefit from the crime that requires a waiver being sought. The crime did not directly or indirectly involve any pension or IRA money. CS-AG (the convicted organization) did not provide any fiduciary services for the pensions or IRAs outside of the essentially being a transactional courier-a role in which they did not engage in any wrongdoing. If you feel that CS (and all subsidiaries and any companies in which they own at least 5% of a stake) should be punished for actions outside of the conviction in question, I can see how you get there, but casting Perez as the bank-friendly shill for not denying the waiver based on actions outside his jurisdiction (whose prosecution he has/had zero control over) is wrong. JeffersonClay posted:"I'm not ratfucked, I'm not ratfucked" I continue to insist as I slowly transform into a matryoshka doll. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I linked the exemption upthread. The relevant section for your question: if it doesn't require a waiver to be sought then there was no reason for perez to give one. perez should not have given a criminal org a waiver even though that particular branch didn't commit a crime today. sorry, that's being buddy buddy with the banks when you let them weasel out of consequences they knew were a possibility
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Nobody is claiming Hillary did nothing wrong. But suggesting Wikileaks was some minor issue this election is nuts. "I'm not ratfucked, I'm not ratfucked" I continue to insist as I slowly transform into a matryoshka doll. It was entirely loving irrelevant in comparison to Hillary Clinton's campaign losing all contact with reality in favour of the word of Friend Computer, and the fact that you seem unable to comprehend this is in itself reason enough why you ought to be ignored when you opine on anything remotely related to politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You do that part after you win. Sorry was tiedying a shirt for a rally 'cause my job owns, but idk, i know what you mean -- campaigning is marketing, i just do not want us to promise things that are very different from what they actually will be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Sorry was tiedying a shirt for a rally 'cause my job owns, but idk, i know what you mean -- campaigning is marketing, i just do not want us to promise things that are very different from what they actually will be. That's what every campaign has ever done. The goals you accomplish in office are never the exact same as the ones you promise, but the spirit behind them is similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Also the voting public isn't going to be inspired by you rattling off some super-complex proposal. You say something that builds enthusiasm, and then you follow through on the intent behind said slogan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It was entirely loving irrelevant in comparison to Hillary Clinton's campaign losing all contact with reality in favour of the word of Friend Computer, and the fact that you seem unable to comprehend this is in itself reason enough why you ought to be ignored when you opine on anything remotely related to politics. 1. Get better loving cyber security 2. Don't put poo poo in emails you don't want public Do even if Putin himself set up the phishing link for Pedesta with Trump and Assange in a Google hangout, the Democrats still come out looking bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That's what every campaign has ever done. The goals you accomplish in office are never the exact same as the ones you promise, but the spirit behind them is similar. But like making something really specific like Medicare For All, when people generally understand what medicare is, and then proposing a very different kind of idea seems like it's a little further afield than that, if that makes sense. Like, maybe I am just too deep into the specifics of healthcare policy, but like universal single payer is very, very different from Medicare on a conceptual level. Cerebral Bore posted:Also the voting public isn't going to be inspired by you rattling off some super-complex proposal. You say something that builds enthusiasm, and then you follow through on the intent behind said slogan. I am aware of that, I am arguing that Medicare For All is conceptually different from Universal Single Payer in a meaningful enough way that you're misleading them as to what you're actually promising and that you can say, nationalized, single-payer healthcare and not mislead them as to what they're getting. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But like making something really specific like Medicare For All, when people generally understand what medicare is, and then proposing a very different kind of idea seems like it's a little further afield than that, if that makes sense. Like, maybe I am just too deep into the specifics of healthcare policy, but like universal single payer is very, very different from Medicare on a conceptual level. That's super silly. Are car manufacturers misleading the customer when they revise the design of a car model from one year to another but keep the name?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like, maybe I am just too deep into the specifics of healthcare policy It's this. The rubes only absorb soundbites. "Medicare for all" is something a rube can comprehend. The high minded policy wonky stuff is on the website for the nerds to read, not on the campaign signs. Everyone here is guilty of vastly overestimating the intelligence of the average voter. You have to wow them with flash. Trump understood this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That's super silly. Are car manufacturers misleading the customer when they revise the design of a car model from one year to another but keep the name? That's not even close to the same loving thing; but if you want to use this analogy -- it's not the same model car. Like medicare isn't single payer healthcare. WampaLord posted:It's this. The rubes only absorb soundbites. "Medicare for all" is something a rube can comprehend. Maybe? I feel like when they see the sticker price and it doesn't work the same way that they'll be pretty annoyed, especially when the billions of dollars the healthcare trifecta of death move into action during the campaign, that you're better of just selling it correctly to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Maybe? I feel like when they see the sticker price and it doesn't work the same way that they'll be pretty annoyed, especially when the billions of dollars the healthcare trifecta of death move into action during the campaign, that you're better of just selling it correctly to begin with. Oh my god you are way too far in. We're taking about how to campaign here, ease off on the whole "healthcare trifecta of death" stuff, you are thinking TOO HARD about this. $15/hour, free college, Medicare for all, these are short sweet sexy ideas. Use them!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Oh my god you are way too far in. Yeah sorry, I just can't, conceptually get aboard with "medicare for all" when I can just say what I actually want: universal single payer healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yeah sorry, I just can't, conceptually get aboard with "medicare for all" when I can just say what I actually want: universal single payer healthcare. But Grandma doesn't know what "universal single payer healthcare" means! And in the time you take explaining it to her, you've lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:But Grandma doesn't know what "universal single payer healthcare" means! Grandma already has Medicare, but what I am promising her is not going to look anything like Medicare. Like, that's my argument. You're not giving them medicare. It's nothing like universal, single-payer (and I think most people can concept that, btw.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It was entirely loving irrelevant in comparison to Hillary Clinton's campaign losing all contact with reality in favour of the word of Friend Computer, and the fact that you seem unable to comprehend this is in itself reason enough why you ought to be ignored when you opine on anything remotely related to politics. Clinton's campaign made many mistakes. But those don't make the Russian/GOP ratfucking campaign irrelevant, although given that you fell for it I understand why you'd want to minimize and deflect. snyprmag posted:In addition, the lessons that should be taken from the "Russia Hacks" are: 3. Don't fall for obvious ratfucking. And if you think the democrats are going to be the ones who end up looking bad by tying Trump to Putin I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You can use Russian hacking as a good talking point but as for factors that actually influenced the election it's pretty drat far down on the list, which is why using it to claim that Dear Abuela Did Nothing Wrong is loving idiotic. Aside from Podesta and Brock, I don't think anyone's claimed that. The Russian hacking thing keeps getting brought up because the Republicans used to make a big deal about Russia, and the Democrats loving love to steal issues from the Republicans so they can turn them around and point to the Republicans being hypocrites. Of course, the problem there is that it's stupid and counterproductive and doesn't work, since taking the Republican side and then pointing at the Republicans to say "you're not the real Republicans" is actually really dumb and no one really cares that the Dems are calling them out for hypocrisy. But it's got nothing to do with relitigating the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Grandma already has Medicare, but what I am promising her is not going to look anything like Medicare. Like, that's my argument. You're not giving them medicare. It's nothing like universal, single-payer (and I think most people can concept that, btw.) Now you're taking away Grandma's Medicare. You've hosed up at step 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Now you're taking away Grandma's Medicare. Because you are taking away grandma's medicare, and Republicans will burn you on that in a heart beat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Because you are taking away grandma's medicare, and Republicans will burn you on that in a heart beat.  I'm done, man. You just don't get this stuff. 2016 was a lesson in marketing/campaigning failure because instead of "Fight for $15!" it was "Well, we'll push for $12 and maybe $15 in some place, it depends on cost of living..." and you've already lost the people. You seem intent on making your response the "Well, actually..." one every time. You can't nerd your way to victory, you need flash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:3. Don't fall for obvious ratfucking. And even if they pull this all off, at best they take back the white house. How do you keep it and how do you win back all the other parts of the government? Also you have a weird thing for rodent sex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Clinton's campaign made many mistakes. But those don't make the Russian/GOP ratfucking campaign irrelevant, although given that you fell for it I understand why you'd want to minimize and deflect. The only one trying to deflect here is you, since I don't think that even you can be dumb enough to put a third party stealing and leaking information even close to the same level of relevancy as the campaign losing touch with reality in favour of their computer model when it comes to failure. Also I'm not even American, which makes your accusations even dumber. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Grandma already has Medicare, but what I am promising her is not going to look anything like Medicare. Like, that's my argument. You're not giving them medicare. It's nothing like universal, single-payer (and I think most people can concept that, btw.) Medicare is a non-universal single-payer program that provides partial health insurance coverage. Medicare For All would be a universal single-payer program that provides health insurance, presumablu with full coverage. The latter sells, and people like you who give a poo poo about the details are electorally irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
I don't like the idea on campaigning on a very specific thing, knowing it's not deliverable. Cerebral Bore posted:Medicare is a non-universal single-payer program that provides partial health insurance coverage. Medicare For All would be a universal single-payer program that provides health insurance, presumablu with full coverage, and people like you who give a poo poo about the details are electorally irrelevant. Medicare is not single payer. It's, full stop, not single-payer. It's a complex morass of private, public multi and no-payer insurance. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't like the idea on campaigning on a very specific thing, knowing it's not deliverable. Have fun with your Honesty in Campaigning Committee, I'm sure it'll win a ton of seats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't like the idea on campaigning on a very specific thing, knowing it's not deliverable. So I guess FDR shouldn't have promised to take America out of the Great Depression in 32' because it would likely be impossible in a single term?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Have fun with your Honesty in Campaigning Committee, I'm sure it'll win a ton of seats. Fine, call it whatever y'all want. I give the gently caress up. Medicare* For All! Cerebral Bore posted:So I guess FDR shouldn't have promised to take America out of the Great Depression in 32' because it would likely be impossible in a single term? He didn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't like the idea on campaigning on a very specific thing, knowing it's not deliverable. That's cool but now that everyone understands your argument and disagrees with it in a fundamental way you can stop bringing it up because it's not relevant to the fact that medicare for all is a great soundbite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Fiction posted:It validates what she thought about Russia. It in no way invalidates her hideous mistakes nor does it allow us to continue making them with impunity. One of the mistakes that portions of the left made was reflexively diminishing and opposing Clinton's argument that Trump was a Russian puppet. Some of them still are. Main Paineframe posted:The Russian hacking thing keeps getting brought up because the Republicans used to make a big deal about Russia, and the Democrats loving love to steal issues from the Republicans so they can turn them around and point to the Republicans being hypocrites. Of course, the problem there is that it's stupid and counterproductive and doesn't work, No it keeps getting brought up because it's potentially the biggest political scandal in US history. Democrats are not honor bound to ignore this just because republicans fearmongered about the Soviet Union 30 years ago. Obama spent eight years opposed to Putin and his bullshit, the suggestion this is now an attempt to steal a republican argument is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's cool but now that everyone understands your argument and disagrees with it in a fundamental way you can stop bringing it up because it's not relevant to the fact that medicare for all is a great soundbite. I too think we should all run off a cliff together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Now you're taking away Grandma's Medicare. look at how well "you'll be able to keep your current insurance under Obamacare" and "everyone will pay less for health insurance under Obamacare" worked out. lying too much does eventually backfire the problem with the ACA wasn't the marketing or the messaging, it was the fact that Democrats didn't have the will to engage in real healthcare reform or even meaningfully change the private healthcare industry. they passed a poo poo law and no amount of saying "Medicare Medicare Medicare" was gonna cover that up. single-payer didn't fail because of public opposition, it failed because Dems came into the fight ready to throw things overboard at the slightest sign of trouble and let the biggest recipients of healthcare industry donations write the bills messaging is nice, but it's not going to make up for poo poo policy. and the reason Dems aren't doing single-payer isn't because they can't find the right messaging, it's because they're shitheads who don't plan to meaningfully upend the current healthcare industry
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Just popping in to say that Obama ran on implementing a brand new healthcare program for America. He did not run entirely on fixing Bush's fuckups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:look at how well "you'll be able to keep your current insurance under Obamacare" and "everyone will pay less for health insurance under Obamacare" worked out. lying too much does eventually backfire It's because upending the current healthcare industry is incredibly difficult and requires a political will that has virtually never existed in this country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:One of the mistakes that portions of the left made was reflexively diminishing and opposing Clinton's argument that Trump was a Russian puppet. Some of them still are. No it's not. No one really cares. It's not the first time foreigners have tried to influence elections, and it's not the first time Americans have elected a president who took a different course in foreign policy from their predecessors. There was plenty of evidence that Trump was cozy with the Russians before the elections. no one cared then, no one really cares now. the only reason Dems are still bringing it up is to try to delegitimize Trump and make the Republicans look like hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
But fine, we'll run on that. I don't give a poo poo anymore, I just want us back in power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:One of the mistakes that portions of the left made was reflexively diminishing and opposing Clinton's argument that Trump was a Russian puppet. How did that in any way affect the election results? Your preferred narrative wasn't strong enough, so it's our fault for not going along with it more?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
its going to be difficult to build a winning coalition without the centrist chaff, but all things worth doing are difficult. the sooner we excise the perezs and clintons of the party the better
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:What does that even mean? the only person who fell for something is Pedesta thinking he needed to re-set his password. It means that when our opponents hack us and release documents intended to inflame tensions in our coalition and depress turnout (ratfucking), we should call it out as ratfucking and refuse to let the hacked material diminish our chances in the election, rather than using the ratfucking to fuel counterproductive infighting about the primary process. Cerebral Bore posted:The only one trying to deflect here is you, since I don't think that even you can be dumb enough to put a third party stealing and leaking information even close to the same level of relevancy as the campaign losing touch with reality in favour of their computer model when it comes to failure. Also I'm not even American, which makes your accusations even dumber. The European left has the same problem with useful idiots defending putin as the American left, and plenty of the "Clinton is red baiting and trying to start world war 3!!!" Idiocy came from exactly those idiots. It's clear why you feel a need to deflect from that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It means that when our opponents hack us and release documents intended to inflame tensions in our coalition and depress turnout (ratfucking), we should call it out as ratfucking and refuse to let the hacked material diminish our chances in the election, rather than using the ratfucking to fuel counterproductive infighting about the primary process. If our politicians are not perfectly behaved at all times they deserve to lose!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No it's not. 87% of democrats, 66% of independents and 41% of republicans disagree. Fiction posted:How did that in any way affect the election results? Your preferred narrative wasn't strong enough, so it's our fault for not going along with it more? Our preferred narrative was right, your reflexive opposition to that narrative was dumb. between that and chugging wikileaks ratfucking to fuel your Bernie was backstabbed narrative, yes, the outcome of the election could easily have been affected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:47
|
|