|
sullat posted:Colleges let candidates use their facilities all the time, not sure what law is beong broken here. Unless they are specifically ordering their students to vote for Cruz. They required their students to attend the rally.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Vote Graham 2016! We could go for another deeply rumored, possibly closeted rear end in a top hat who will bring about civil war! Lincoln?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Make It Rain posted:Tune in tomorrow at six, it's coming! "Ok, guys, I think everything's ready for the video. This place here, on some random street with cars passing by in the background, with Rubio in that random button-up-shirt-plus-blazer-without-tie combo, zoomed out just slightly so I can't get a good look at his face. What's that? The sound quality? No, I think the wind crackling will make it sound *legit*!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Dolash posted:Even if Hillary is a strong favorite for this Presidential election, a Republican will win another Presidency again sooner or later. I'm curious whether during the Bush I vs. Clinton race if the fact that the Republicans had held the Presidency for 3 terms in a row was a factor and people were just in the mood for a change already. It probably won't be a factor yet, but it might be if Clinton faces reelection even if the economy holds together. Not if demographics continue to shift to the point where Texas goes blue. I think the Republican and Democratic parties are both going to have to redefine themselves. As Democrats gain a larger majority, I expect them to split along centrist/leftist lines, with the centrists scooping up more right wing votes and eventually becoming the new Republican-like party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:This will not happen by 2020. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/could-latino-voters-turn-deep-red-texas-democratic-by-2020/257738/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:There's no such thing as a permanent majority, and each party is always going to be able to position themselves to appeal to ~50% of the electorate. If Texas eventually goes blue, you could very well find that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have turned red in the meantime. History isn't inevitably and inexorably marching towards Democratic hegemony. I agree, which is why I said in the second sentence of my post that I expect the parties to continue to "triangulate." Even if a Democratic hegemony is achieved, it would fall apart as other interests split the party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
BEHOLD! The counter for the equivalent Hinchliffe's Rule for papers: http://ccdb5fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199007095
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
I would eat at this moderate-to-expensive modern steak restaurant.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Can someone explain to me why Clinton going to a Chipotle is scandalous and breaking news? I feel like I'm out of the loop or missing something. I've read a couple news articles and all they say is what she ordered. It makes me feel confident that if going to Chipotle is the most scandalous thing they can dig up, that Clinton is safe from any surprises.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:But this thread can get real dumb when you see back to back posts stating that Texas will go blue any second but then also all Texans are awful regressive racists. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Texas is currently run by regressive racists. But as the Latino population increases it will gradually (though not instantaneously) blue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The new attempt at outreach this cycle is trying to be the populist party of the poor and downtrodden. They're doing this without changing a single one of their policies, or attacks on their opponents. Its going as well as you'd expect. To be fair, based on Hillary's recent remarks, the democrats might be trying the same thing 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Someone should tell him trade deals don't involve chapter 11 proceedings. Just wait until the next debt limit crisis!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
It's time for Bernie to get a blimp.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:"The 17th century" refers to the years between 1601-1700, hth Which is why he couldn't have been alive to talk about American's gun rights, hth.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:gently caress Electoral Votes are probably the only reason Democrats have any chance anymore. This is very probably wrong. Elections right now are entirely focused on swing states, which are largely away from the major population centers. If campaigns were based on population, the big states like New York, California, and Texas would become more important for ensuring voter turnout in highly concentrated and easy to target population centers. This is where Democrats have a natural advantage--cities.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The thing about a switch to EVs isn't whether there are so many unmotivated Democrats or so many unmotivated Republicans, its that Democratic populations are highly concentrated and there is only a limited amount of time to make your case in person to people. It would be much easier for a Democrat to hit up his base in the major cities by going around and filling up sports stadiums than it would be for a Republican to go around and talk to his more geographically diffuse base. Seeing a candidate in person really does matter for motivating people and thats a big plus for Democrats. Not to mention the increased ease of Democratic GOTV efforts versus GOP ones (think organized busing services and the like.) This is a much better post of what I was trying to describe when I said Democrats have an advantage in population centers. Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:
Yeah those numbers seem to imply that a good third or more of primary voters are still undecided, and that's a lot of room for attack ads and all manner of dirty tactics to gain ground.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 03:16
|
|
Those numbers are setting us up for a pretty drat vicious Republican primary season. Lotsa potential for negative campaigning there. Seems to me that the election might be won by whoever can get the most people voting for them just to spite other candidates.
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Those last two votes are horribly lovely and the first thing that Bernie has legitimately disappointed me on. As left as I am, I have to disagree. No other industry is held to a standard like that. No one sues kitchen knife manufacturers for murder. No one sues car manufacturers for (non-defect-related) car crashes. No one sues oil companies for arsonist fires. It's a third party selling a tool. Suing third parties for selling tools that are used in ways not intended by the manufacturer is unfair, unless the manufacturer is encouraging "off-label" use a la a pharmaceutical company advertising a product for a use not approved by the FDA.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
So will we one day look back fondly on Campaign Hillary the way we do for Campaign Obama? Because I'm really liking Campaign Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
As if dirty Papists counted!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:If your neighbor makes more due to a minimum wage increase, their increased spending will lead to inflation which hurts you. You could only be helped if the world produced more from the increase, which is hardly certain. The NHS objectively leads to better outcomes than our current insurance system, largely due to the large number of uninsured, underinsured, and denied patients in our current system. Where the NHS struggles is due to chronic underfunding, in contrast to the US private healthcare system's waste. Also the U.S. has its own NHS counterpart, the VA, which, despite criticism, still manages to deliver consistently better care at a lower cost than its private counterparts. Inflation is not correlated with increased spending in an economy. It occurs when money is created faster than the economy grows. If the economy grows because more people are able to pay for goods and services due to an increased minimum wage, inflation will not necessarily occur. You should learn how inflation works.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What utility or interest, completely unfettered by emotion or belief, are you trying to improve? Your own cited study shows that consumer spending would increase, it would just be matched by increased consumer debt. Did you even read its conclusion? quote:For these reasons we should be somewhat suspicious of claims that the minimum wage will significantly boost the economy. Nevertheless, our results, as well as the results of other many other papers (a small recent list includes Parker et al 2010, Adams et al 2009, Browning and Crossley 2009, Krueger and Perri 2008), provides compelling evidence that putting money into the hands of consumers, especially low-income consumers, leads to predictable increases in spending. It also literally doesn't even mention the word inflation once. So you may need other evidence to back your claim that the minimum wage would cause inflation.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:That doesn't respond to what I said. You specifically said: Series DD Funding posted:The healthcare part is true to a limited extent, but you're assuming that your own healthcare can only be helped. For example, I have UK friends with the same medical issue I do who are on the NHS. They like the system, but it leads to worse outcomes than my own health insurance. That is what I am responding to with my sources, which are relevant to the discussion, unlike your own. As for the definition of inflation, that is my understanding of the general consensus definition, taught to me long ago in undergrad economics. Is there another definition you would prefer? And does an increase in minimum wage cause inflation under that definition?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Production does not significantly increase. You have a set of workers whos demand increases. What happens to prices, and what happens to other workers? 2 possibilities: If the worker remains profitable at the new increased wage, the company will still employ them, pay them more, and take less in profit. Since corporate profits are currently high and corporations are holding cash in offshore reserves to avoid taxes, I expect them to be able to pay their workers slightly more. The second possibility, of course, is the one you want me to say: that a small increase in the wage for a portion of their workers will send the company spiraling into bankruptcy, leaving them no choice but to fire the workers. Instead of, you know, investing slightly more into their productivity to recoup the higher wages or raising prices very slightly.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Roseo posted:Santorum should obviously be a number 2 seed.  For real, though, have we heard definitively whether Christie is in or out?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:Bush, Walker, Rubio, Paul, Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, and Christie seem like a lock to finish top 10. That leaves 2 spots for Perry, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Kasich, Graham, Pataki, and whoever else is out there. Would you really put Carson in front of [anybody who isn't black]? This is the GOP we're talking about. Also, Cruz and Christie? I'd imagine Perry would come before those two. On the other hand, think if both Carson and Fiorina get excluded from the debates. Those optics would be great for the GOP right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:How bad must it feel, as an established politician, if you're edged out for the debate by Carson, Fiorina, and 'Snake Oil' Huckabee? That reminds me, no one's mentioned Trump yet
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Apollo_Creed posted:10 people seems like too many for it to really be any good (either substance or hilarity), but I'm sure they want to keep Fiorina, who I can't see cracking more than 3-5%. For a 1 hour debate that's only 6 minutes per person. That's maaaybe 10 questions at most, without any rebuttals.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I hinted at this yesterday, but the debate criteria guarantee we'll see a gimmicky July. Choice linked tweet from a 538 guy in the article: https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/601127653714833409 If I'm reading Fox News rules correctly, the 10 are... Jeb Bush Rubio Walker Rand Paul Cruz Huckabee Carson Christie Perry Kasich Lol at Kaisch. Has he even declared?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:A new poll has Walker at 17% in Iowa, a clear lead over Carson and Paul who are tied for second at 10%. Rubio does much better as a second pick, which makes me think he can pick up the mantle once/if Walker flames out. Jeb impresses me less and less every day. Holy poo poo this poll: By 1st choice for prez: Walker (17), Paul (10), Carson (10), Huckabee (9), then Bush (9). By 1st or 2nd choice for prez: Walker (27), Rubio (18), Huckabee (17), Bush (16), then Carson/Paul (15). First, it seems like Walker has a notable lead over Bush, who's just in the middle of the pack. Second, was last primary like this, too? I seem to remember Romney at least leading or tied all the way with whoever the flavor of the month was. Bush isn't looking great.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Her campaign rhetoric would suggest differently--she's gone about as "eat the rich" as I've ever heard Hillary go. The cynic in me says that she's doing it to crowd Bernie and O'Malley out early by co-opting their economic positions, but it's nice to hear. If she does co-opt their economic positions, then Bernie will have accomplished exactly what I wanted him to--push Hillary left.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
quote:As the campaign progresses, it will be fascinating to see how far this effort succeeds. Already, Clinton has shifted her stance on immigration reform and the criminal-justice system. In two recent speeches, she pledged to extend President Obama’s initiatives aimed at undocumented workers and their families, and called for an end to mass incarceration. Good article. Bolded areas echo my own thoughts on the matter. I'll remain hopeful for now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Their sprawling 2016 candidate list is made up of people who are 100% doctrinaire Reaganauts (cut taxes, loosen regulation, cut social spending, etc.). It's funny because even Rand Paul, the most "out there" of the candidates, is doctrinaire Reagan in that sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:eat a dead baby that she cut from Chelsea's womb on live television Hillary is so brave for standing up for a woman's right to choose! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
site posted:To get away from fat shaming for a minute: Hillary is calling for automatic voter registration on your 18th birthday and mandated 20 days of early voting in all elections. Holy poo poo. I'm super in favor of this. Voting access is the number one problem for the Dems, and that would solve it in one fell swoop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Rocks posted:I know it's not the greatest but Bloomberg hosts a show called With All Due Respect that basically shows the highlights of the race every day online. It's hosted by the guys who wrote Game Change. It's not in podcast or YouTube form unfortunately (only via Bloomberg website), but it's worth a gander. Like PTI but for 2016 politics. Thanks for this. Just discovered the show and love it. Pro-click.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I don't know, but my mind reads that as 'doctor pose' for some reasons. Surgeons are insanely careful about their hands. Yeah, the former pose is how you would rest your gloved hands on the operating table, and the latter pose is how you would hold your hands when you have nothing to rest them on. Hands can't go below the waist or above the shoulders, so you tend to get into these weird arrangements. edit: former as in the one with the fingers down, latter as in the one with hands clasped Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Is this something to do with surgery-room practice? Making sure you know where your hands are and where other people's hands are as you're moving around? Obdicut posted:So that your hands don't touch your scrubs, or any thing else around, so as not to contaminate the surfaces. Basically this. Operating room practice is that anything that is not explicitly sterilized (came out of a plastic bag or an autoclave) is contaminated. Anything that touches something contaminated becomes automatically contaminated. You didn't come out of a bag or an autoclave, so we cover you in a gown, but you still have your face and hair up above that aren't sterile. You use a mask and a cap/hairnet, but still not 100%. Also, the gown only really covers the front effectively, so your back isn't sterile. Also you don't keep a close track of what your back touches, so even if your back were completely covered, you'd probably wind up brushing against something contaminated. So your back isn't sterile. The only part of you that is sterile is your hands and forearms and the part of your gown in the front. So you can't bring your hands up too high lest 1) you touch your face/hair/whatever or 2) your elbows--which aren't sterile--touch the field. Also, the operating table isn't sterile, either. It just gets draped with sterile covers. So bringing your hands too low might brush against the non-sterile table or whatever. So the only safe zone for your hands is between your waist and your shoulders. So if you have nothing to do with your hands, they stay clasped together at your belly so that you aren't touching anything or getting outside of the safe zone. And since you can't touch anything contaminated, you have to be really careful and focus on what you're resting your hands on. It's easiest just to rest them on the draped patient or operating field just because that's the one thing you know is sterile. So after a few weeks in the OR, you'll just unconsciously hold your hands like that. edit: if this sounds silly and semi-ritualistic to you, yeah, it kinda is. But no surgeon wants to risk post-op infection--the administrators track each surgeon's individual stats very closely. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:
I actually tend to agree with the comments from the video. Bernie as a first name is approachable, and the typeface, slightly lighter blue color, and curved underlining add to the friendliness. If the candidate were like Romney--conservative, business-focused, and utterly lacking in charisma--there might be a painful contrast between the logo and the candidate. But I think Bernie has made a great effort to be a candidate of the people, and his logo reflects that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Or people actually look at a real single payer system like the VHA and figure the self-interest scales aren't quite so close to tipping yet. Actually, it's been pretty conclusively shown that the VA delivers equal or better healthcare on nearly every metric across the board at a lower cost than the private system. What you're saying is an unfortunately common belief, but it is provably false.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:03
|
|