|
PleasingFungus posted:I'm already seeing reports that many provisions of the TPP have changed from the draft versions; for example: Wasn't pelosi pushing for better environmental stuff in the TPP? I think I remember Clinton saying she stood by pelosi on it right after pelosi issued statements about it not being good enough for environmental stuff. Yeah - here it is: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/12/3669269/pelosi-bashes-fast-track/
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:So if every person who attempts suicide with a gun instead uses a restricted availability pesticide, the survival rate will only more than double? Sounds great! We don't need to look at other countries. We have a natural experiment in the U.S. already. MRA's make a big deal that the male suicide rate is significantly higher than the female in the U.S. They do not make a big deal of the fact that this statistic is because even though women are vastly more likely to attempt suicide we are conditioned socially to use ineffective methods like overdose and slitting ones wrists. Men, however, are vastly more likely to use guns to kill themselves. And guns are really effective, so they lead the body count even though they trail the attempts. I attempted suicide at 15 and slitting your wrists first of all is hard to do and secondly you've got to just sit there for an extended time not binding them while your adrenaline spikes and releases happy cutting endorphins that make you feel like things aren't that bad. If I'd had a gun I'd be dead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:First Bad Bernie position I've seen. The AWB was a bad law and doesn't need to be brough back. There are other better ways to improve gun control, including better funding for the instant background check system. Really? Bernie opposing nuclear power: http://atomicinsights.com/senator-bernie-sanders-i-vt-thinks-nuclear-is-too-expensive-and-produces-waste-that-no-one-wants-i-disagree/ Bernie evangelizing alternatives to medicine: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-remarks-on-complementary-and-alternative-health-care More interesting is how Bernie used opposing gun control to get into the senate after losing senate bids over and over. Bernie and support from the NRA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8059_story.html Really significant in the NRA piece is the Bernie quote about technically running a clean campaign while letting others ( the NRA ) go negative against his opponent and be attack dogs for him. Bernie sanders aide from the first senate race he won posted:
You don't need a pac to do that. You don't even need $$$. The NRA did it for free then and Redditors/etc are doing it for free now. Just find someone who doesn't like your opponent and reach out the hand of friendship to them. Then sit back and watch the poo fly. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/reddit-ama Edit: formatting. McAlister fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:He's defended his vote on the immunity act on the campaign trail more than once. "Manufacturers should be held responsible if their poo poo malfunctions, and pulling the trigger on a gun and a bullet coming out isn't malfunctioning regardless of the target" is pretty simple. Part of the shield is protecting vendors from lawsuits if they sell a firearm to people not legally able to obtain one. It does that thing where you can't just look at the fact that they sold the gun to a felon but must instead prove the dealer knew they were a felon and sold it while cackling evilly and twirling their mustaches. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf So if billy bob at the gun show sells a gun to a guy with prior convictions sans background check and he uses that gun to shoot your kid ... you can't sue billy bob for negligence. Note, please, that filing a suit an winning it are completely different things and the odds of plaintiffs winning a case against the manufacturer are non-existent but the odds of winning a suit against billy Bob are decent. If you ammended it to remove the vendor protections Bernie's argument would fly. He could also argue that the other thing was a poison pill forcing him to support the bill even though suits against negligent venders are reasonable but he isn't. Understandably. If your image is built on a mythology of refusing to compromise then you don't want to highlight situations where people would rather you compromise. Edit : oppose should have been support. Edit 2: I'm generally against all bills that deny people the right to sue or that cap damages. Usually this comes up in terms of medical torte reform debates. Harassment lawsuits should be dealt with by making the people who bring them give the target lots of money when they lose. Not by slamming court doors in their faces. McAlister fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Because, going over this for like the 4th time to mcallister, it is not being pro-alternative medicine, its allowing people to use their insurance to pay for it. The last half the press release is about building more of these. Ignoring the internal contradiction in the section I bolded ... You are not changing my mind because you aren't addressing my concerns. My main concern is that his lobbying for alternative medicine makes him an ineffective figurehead for a push toward a public option or other steps towards national health care as compared to Clinton. I don't think progress will be easy, but I believe it is possible. Fighting to get health insurance to cover acupuncture/yoga/etc is a fun thing to do AFTER we have a national health care system. I actually support some of his initiatives, esp the yoga aka stealth exercise. Hell, If we had a solid national health care system in place I'd be lobbying for it to cover once monthly massages - other countries have found doing so reduces the occurrence of repetitive stress injuries so it both reduces overall costs and improves quality of life. But we don't have a real national health care system yet. We are "before", not "after". Now is not the time to bang that drum. . So I don't bring up that position while talking to conservative relatives because it would completely turn them off to anything I might ever have to say on the topic. Bernie not realizing that he shouldn't ask for dessert when we haven't even gotten dinner taken care of is a problem. His heart may be in the right place but his head doesn't appear to be in the game. Just as Ted Cruz's face begs to be punched, so to does Bernie's history advocating alternative medicine beg to be the subject of attack adds. Think of the damage that completely imaginary death panels did to the ACA efforts. Imagine if instead of conspiracy nonsense they'd had Obama insisting on the amendments Bernie proposed making insurance cover things that broad swathes of the population - bipartisan swathes! - consider to be luxuries at best and utter nonsense at worst. That he goes past support for reasonable things like oriental themed exercise programs and into support for bunk like naturopathy is a separate issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Something Else posted:Sanders has repeatedly called for demilitarizing the police. Links? The first I saw him address it was in his response to ferguson where he point blank was asked if the problem was the arms or the way the police were using them and answered that the weapons were just fine. No need to disarm. The video in which he says this is still hosted by him on his senate web site. So I'm inclined to assume he still holds this stance. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/ferguson At 2:15 he is asked "is it the equipment or the use of the equipment that is the problem?" And answered unequivocally that the equipment is peachy keen but the police shouldn't be deploying it this way. Several people on the Internet have assured me that their head-cannon Bernie is just as far left as Reality-Clinton is in terms of demilitarizing the police but all I've seen from reality-Bernie is the opposite. Has Clinton and/or BLM "dragged" him to the left on this topic since I last checked it? Oh and someone asked about debates. First one is coming up on the 13th.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Clinton hasn't release a criminal justice position paper yet while Bernie has, but don't let that get in the way of claiming she has firm positions on it and he doesn't Clinton had given speeches focusing on the topic. Since not personally seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist I can't say betnie hasn't, just that what I have seen of him speaking on the subject were terrible positions. Something Else posted:In that video, he says police departments should have SWAT-caliber weaponry to combat drug dealers, presumably he means people who can fight back with automatic weapons and the like. He also says the equipment should not be used against protestors as it was in Ferguson. He supports cutting the budgets for that kind of equipment and putting the money into a jobs program instead. Exactly. He said it's ok for them to have the weapons, just they shouldn't use them that way, I say they shouldn't have the weapons. Clinton also says they shouldn't have the weapons. This is a clear policy difference. We all agree they shouldn't use the weapons the way they are using them. Just some of us also think that they shouldn't even have them in the first place as having them is the temptation to mis-use them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Clinton will be more liberal than Sanders supports think she will be and less liberal than Clinton supports hope she'll be able to be. Well, duh? Clinton has spent her entire political life with gentle rhetoric and hard-left actions limited only by the scope of the politically possible. Her biggest fails have been misjudging where the line is and going to far left. Like when she tried to get universal health care passed in 1993. I'd love it if Bernie pulled the American public/media far enough to the left to give her more room to work. I stand by my assertion that he makes a good Malcolm X to her Martin Luther King.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:
I'm still unclear on what significant policy changes Bernie is supposed to have made in her platform. I mean, for example, she was a big part of the last min wage raise in the 90's, stumped and whipped it big time. And has been trying to raise it again since the mid-aughts. Sponsoring bills to raise it and voting for it as senator. She was running on moving it to $12.00 an hour prior to Bernie and the powers of alliteration making "the fight for fifteen" a slogan. I consider "raise the min wage to a living wage" to be the plank and don't consider the 12 to 15 shift to be a substantive change in her priorities or policy. Likewise taxes. She was running on restoring them to Bill Clinton era levels pre-Bernie and is continuing to do so now. As far as I can tell Bernie didn't change her tax plan any just goosed people into looking for it and realizing it exists. So it wasn't new, just new to them. Her green energy grid/jobs program also predates Bernie by years. They used the Clinton Foundation to work out the kinks in Haiti while doing disaster relief there in 2010 and have since created a generic program to help island countries go green energy ( https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-climate-initiative/programs/islands-energy-program ). This is clearly something the Clinton's have been researching for a long time before trying to scale it up to America. Her police reform planks are stronger and were articulated sooner than Bernie so he's the one playing catch up there. Ferguson appears to be her motivating factor there based on timing and speech topics. I haven't seen her change any foreign policy planks due to Bernie ( and since that's his weak point and she is an ex Secretary of State I doubt he is going to have much to say there ). He's done a ton to change the tone of the debate in good ways. But what "policy change Sanders made Clinton do" can I google and not find that she was already doing it? That claim seems to me like a manufactured narrative. Also, when you strip away rhetoric and look at the plans ... Does Clinton look more socialist than Bernie in some ways? Like Social Security is dripping in capitalist trappings ... Instead of being a proper social insurance plan it pretends to be an investment/savings account and pays out proportional to what was put in rather than proportions to need. So this leads to stupid poo poo like payouts being greatest for the people who need the money least. Meanwhile unpaid work like raising kids gets 0 credits from social security since capitalist systems don't value unpaid work. In the debate Bernie's proposal was to put more money in and lower the retirement age. Not bad ideas but they do nothing to make the program stop fetishizing capitalism. Clinton's suggestion was basically means testing, pay less/nothing to people who don't need it and more to the people who do. Making it into a proper social insurance program rather than treating it like an investment portfolio. She had to tip toe around it some and focused on how moms work hard but that work isn't recognized by the program ... but reading between the lines it sounded like means testing. Which I fully support. We are DINKs and don't need anything from Social Security. Death to the concept that you are owed from SS proportional to what you put in. From each according to their income, to each according to their need. I could also argue that her suggestions could lead to effective nationalization of the banks while splitting them up leads away from that. Etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:The biggest changes are financial reform and campaign finance. Which she really wasn't as focused on prior to this year. There's reasons most pundits were surprised how progressive those polices were when she announced them. Again though I think it's because she's aware that's where her base and probably the overall voter is,. Thank you, I'll dig into that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Republicans posted:It should be noted that conservatives also support means testing because it makes it easier to target social security for cuts when they can paint it as free money for the mooching, undeserving grasshoppers who live off of the backs of hard-working, future-thinking ants such as themselves and their constituents. This attack works if we view social security through a capitalist framework. If we view it as an insurance program rather than a savings account it has less traction. If you tie it emotionally to a family values narrative and make it about recognizing the unpaid work of mothers you defang attacks from the right further because they idolize the concept of a stay at home parent. Conservative women are mobilized against progressive women with propaganda about how important stay at home parenting is and insinuation that career girls look down on them for it - that's why Clinton's 80's quote refusing to "stay at home and bake cookies" was such a gaffe. It made people like me cheer but it "proved" the propaganda to conservative women. Making the dominant narrative about means testing being decrying the way SS-as-savings-account treats their raising kids as worth $0 and that this is wrong uses their own propaganda against them. To attack it under that narrative is to attack stay-at-home motherhood. Also, even if I never use my auto insurance I still want to have it. That's how insurance works. Getting nothing out of it means nothing went wrong. And even I don't expect to need social insurance I still want to have it, just in case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:tpp for one, she was a strong supporter until recently She was a strong supporter years ago when she was part of the team crafting it, got quiet when she left government and was no longer in the know. Then negative after it came out and she read its final form which no longer had provisions she had crafted years ago when she was on the team. Furthermore, in the middle period when Nancy Pelosi was raising issues with it she said she stood with Nancy showing a negative turn prior to Bernie being a thing. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/14/politics/hillary-clinton-trade-tpp-pelosi-obama/ At that point Bernie had just announced his candidacy and there was no polling on him. Do you seriously find it believable to claim that Bernie prompted those statements? That's the power of narrative. When you "know" that Bernie is "pulling Hillary to the left" that becomes your default explanation for any unexpected thing you hear about Hillary. "Oh! I didn't realize she was good there! Bernie must have pulled her to the left!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:(before then her position was that she was somehow unable to comment because she was Secretary of State at a time when it was proposed). If we assume that she is a cautious person who doesn't like taking positions on things without researching them throughly and also assume that being Secretary of State is an extremely time consuming all-hours-of-the-day job and further assume that she is human and needs to sleep occasionally ... For example, she was once upon a time a big proponent of corn ethonal as a gas replacement but then research came out demonstrating that powering cars on corn is worse for the environment than gas and she had to walk that all back ... In Iowa ... An important primary state ... That loves corn. Was there not controversy via a vi whether or not the pipelines were safer than the alternative?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Fantastic_Mr_Fox posted:Bernie doesn't oppose Capitalism, he just runs on a platform of small Capitalism. Please don't mix them up in the future. The contrast between what they are saying and what they are proposing is why this amuses me. For the record I think Hillary is a utilitarian, not a socialist. Which means she will advocate policies that fit in the socialist framework when she thinks they are the best solution. Zoran posted:Means testing has nothing to do with providing more benefits to stay-at-home mothers, though. Which is why her answer in the debate was about how hard working moms get stiffed by SS because their work in the home is not counted. That these moms deserve more from SS and aren't getting it. She defined a problem then indicated we should do something about it but didn't articulate what exactly. I am inferring means testing from that answer. I could be wrong in my inference. But regardless I think it is a positive shift in our cultural narrative about social security.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Moose-Alini posted:Yeah social security is strong because it's for everyone, even people who know they will never need it. Now, getting rid of the payroll tax cap, I'll get behind that. That doesn't change. I hope I'll never need call on my health insurance but I'm happy to have it. By the same token I would have SS insurance whether or not I drew on it. It's only taken away from me if I view it as a mandatory 401k account that is "mine" rather than an insurance program. And I also support getting rid of the payroll cap. My ideal plan would be means testing to lower the costs of the program and make it solvent/near-solvent as is, then determining how much you could lower the contributions in a revenue neutral or revenue increasing way by removing the cap. I'm not naive enough to think that the bump in take home wages for people below cap from doing that would last long term - but it would be an effective bit of stimulus in the short term and no worse than now in the long term. End result, everyone has retirement insurance, low/median income people pay less into the program, high income people pay more into the program. The only possible downside would be if, as you suggest, this led to making SS easier to attack later. I vigorously contest this assertion. I don't think you can compare SS to welfare programs in terms of attack vectors because it is specifically for retirement and there is broad bi-partisan agreement that the elderly should be allowed to retire. We don't have the cultural expectations for a 70 year old that we have for a 25 year old. Also, the elderly vote in record numbers. And far more of them need SS than don't need it so they would defend it tooth and nail while a portion who don't need it would fight along with them. That's "third rail" in a way Medicaid will never be. In addition, one of the largest complaints I hear from the libertarian attack dogs is that SS is bad because if it let them keep their money they could invest it better than SS does and get a better ROI. This line of reasoning stems directly from viewing it as an investment vehicle rather than as paying for insurance. The two nastiest and most virulent attack vectors against SS are that you could invest the money better yourself and that it's not going to be there for you. Changing the framing counters both of them. Continuing the existing framing paints a target on its back the next time we are in an extended boom market. my effective ROI on SS is only 3%, Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! Not that changing the framing would be easy. And I'd want to see strong indications that the new frame was taking hold in the right wing voters' psyches before enacting policy according to it. In terms of how difficult it would be to administer you would add some challenges but remove others. For example, we currently have to keep lifetime tallies of people's contributions to calculate pay outs. Moving to an insurance framing nixes that. We have headaches determining survivors benefits in the cases of divorce and common law marriages. Does the widow get something? Nothing? Why is X years entitled to something and X-1 day gets nothing? Why the gently caress are we talking about this while the widow can't afford groceries?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Edit: doh, was going to post that on her birthday decided not to, didn't see it in the buffer. Yay phones.KingFisher posted:Do you think insurance could be the kind of thing software could manage? Like rates and such given rules kind always pay out claims and with known inputs? Late but I wrote software that did that for three years. E-claims have been a thing for awhile. Doctors can even run trial claims for different prescriptions to see what your copays would be for equivalent drugs. McAlister fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:. Its kind of a trope in our society that a woman seeking money/status/power is evil. A male character seeking these things can be either good or evil. The assumed place of the male as head of household/provider makes ambition obviously morally neutral as it can be cast in terms of generosity/virtue. "I must obtain this power to protect/provide/save the universe!" The ambitious male character only becomes evil if he lets ambition drive him to do evil things. So long as he is a good king after he pulls the sword from the stone he remains the trustworthy embodiment of virtue. By contrast, the modern woman has no social justification for ambition and we select/shape our stories to reflect that. She may look for love ... which may result in a huge boost in social status should her frog turn out to have been a prince all along ... But not for wealth, status, or power. Picking a man based in his wallet, after all, makes her a heartless gold digger who makes a mockery of love. Boooo! Hisssss! I hope he realizes that that bitch doesn't really love him and rejects her for our pure hearted heroine! The destruction of female dominated trades and crafts by mechanization nixes narratives of female invention and ambitious perfectionism in craftsmanship. We typically depict female artistry and craftsmanship as innate rather than the product of striving or practice ( when we portray it at all ). Consider Kaylee on firefly who just "has a knack" with the engines of space ships. "They just talk to me". I love her character to pieces, but there was clearly no studying all night at star fleet academy for her. Consider the movie Butter and how our child hero is an amazing sculptor through no effort on her part while our villain worked her rear end off to be not-as-good. While we do have plenty of "magical boy" stories ( insert chess prodigy here ) they are balanced by a multitude of stories where the young man is portrayed initially as an unskilled novice but he kept trying and eventually get a rocket that launches instead of blowing up. Furthermore, while the married woman supposedly has no need to seek financial success in her own name, the social taboo against single motherhood frowns on depictions of a single mom beating the odds financially. Gotta make sure our girls know that getting knocked up out of wedlock is a road to ruin. So The Pursuit of Happiness could only be about a single father. Consider how unique the movie Erin Bronkovich is in that regard ... Then remember that she is a real person who presumably would not have sold the rights to her story if they'd added a husband or subtracted the children. The social taboos on women participating in sports or participating in physical combat means you have precious few depictions of women driven to achieve in those realms. Can you think of any movies with montages of women pushing themselves to their limits in pursuit of an athletic ambition? Not being pushed by others or in response to a threat ( see the rape-and-revenge trope commonly used to explain a woman seeking to learn to fight. ). But pushing themselves for the sheer joy of accomplishment and/or desire to win. Outside of biographies of female Olympic athletes all I'm coming up with is Flashdance ... And while not strictly biographical that movie is - again - based on an actual person so it's departure from traditional tropes was mandated by reality. Black Swan almost got there till you realize ballet is her mother's ambition, not hers, and then her ambitious mom is the villain - driving her to a mental breakdown. Fictional depictions of ambitious women are overwhelmingly negative. This is not the same thing as depictions of powerful women. Glenda the good witch was quite powerful but she wasn't seeking more power like the Wicked Witch was. Fairy Godmothers use their power to help you selflessly. How they got their powers is a story left untold. Female healers are a storytelling staple - we just don't tell the story of them seeking to master their craft or struggling with the knowledge that their failures harm others. They come in, do their thing, smile comfortingly ( or in the case of 13th Warrior tell the hero to stop whining ), and leave. Virtuous queens come in a variety of personalities but are universally lacking in ambition. There is only one step up from where they are, after all, and they can't get it without taking it away from someone they love ... Which would make them evil. Evil queens now, ambition is their defining trait. Either they off their husbands to rule in the stead of their minor children or they start wars by inciting their spouses to conquer bigger kingdoms to provide them with more riches. Sometimes both at the same time as they send the king into harms way and rule in his absence. They occasionally send assassins and huntsmen after rivals. Ambition in women should be treated culturally the same way it is treated in men. How you choose to act on it can be good or bad but ambition itself is morally neutral. That it isn't treated the same way is particularly problematic to a woman with a high status spouse as our cultural tropes prime people to believe that she is using him rather than loving him and therefore is a bad person. Alternatively that she is riding his coat tails and doesn't really deserve her accolades. So it's trivially easy to attack Clinton along those lines as the tropes lower the burden of evidence. People are primed to accept those stories. Confirmation bias does most of your work for you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Does dancing count? I would think there's a few movies about dancers. Besides Black Swan. Definitely. The good ones I've seen were based on actual people. Reality has a pro-ambitious woman bias. If people can point me to good movies I've missed I'd appreciate it. Trying to find stuff with good messages for nieces and God-daughters. Psychological studies seem to be in agreement that it is better to praise children for trying hard than for being accomplished. The later can actually backfire because if a child is praised for being "smart", for example, they start avoiding situations where they might look dumb. Which are exactly the kind of situations that foster growth. Failing is a normal thing that happens before succeeding.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:Let it goooo.... Elsa wasn't an ambitious woman, her position was handed to her by birth. Although the "girls should want to be normal!" trope does go hand in hand with "ambition + woman = Evil" trope. Hollismason posted:Probably the best film for that would be Possession. Which one? Several films use that title - I haven't seen any of them - and the first few hits don't look promising.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Yowza! Ladies, rev your engines! If Kirk had a chest like that then ripping his shirt off all the time would have made a lot more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 07:57
|
|