|
My Imaginary GF posted:How does your parliament feel about vaccines, new nuclear power plant construction, and GMO's? 1. Majority are all good with it 2. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0086/latest/DLM115116.html 3. It wasnt that long ago it was bfd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Distrust
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
A big part of his support and idealism, In-My-Opinion, is that he's a breath of fresh air for leftists after two terms of Pragmatically Realistically scuttling off progressive ideal irregardless of congress status, and Pragmatically Realistically allowing conservatives to control the public narrative because they might lose an asshair of support for saying otherwise unprompted. Why push back against the idea of a fiscal cliff and explain that debt means literally nothing to America due to the return on investment on stimulus and progressive policies as well as the fact that the interest rate is oft less than the rate of inflation...when you can just roll with it, maintain support, and watch your supporters justify it with "people are stoopid and wouldn't get it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:1. Majority are all good with it ngl I don't get the hate against GMOs, but whatever maybe I'm brainwashed by agricultural scientists and realize that sustaining a giant human population is tough as is and we need every crop advantage we can have, since the only way we'll get bananas in a few years if they make a GMO brand that's resistant against that fungus
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
There are plenty of people who want to support leftist movement in the country and really don't give a flying gently caress about feasibility. I believe this kind of person will emerge more rapidly as the earth disintegrates into a hollow tomb-world inhabited solely by the revenants of capitalism and their thralls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:ngl I don't get the hate against GMOs, but whatever maybe I'm brainwashed by agricultural scientists and realize that sustaining a giant human population is tough as is and we need every crop advantage we can have, since the only way we'll get bananas in a few years if they make a GMO brand that's resistant against that fungus I was basically a pre-teen when it was a huge deal in New Zealand and since it has largely blown over- I now view there is no inherent risk in it and actually much to gain/has much promise to safeguard food supplies. What I do sometimes think is that if it wasn't for the amount of public resistance as it emerged there would not be the kinds of safeguards and focus on testing that we have now. Crazy anti-GMO folks have some unintended benefits in retrospect
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:ngl I don't get the hate against GMOs, but whatever maybe I'm brainwashed by agricultural scientists and realize that sustaining a giant human population is tough as is and we need every crop advantage we can have, since the only way we'll get bananas in a few years if they make a GMO brand that's resistant against that fungus The anti GMO crowd is a weird mix. It's half legitimate concerns over a lack of proper research and reasonable calls for labeling/reforms, and half mouth-breathing hippies completely loosing their poo poo because we changed the DNA of food therefore it WILL ABSOLUTELY KILL YOU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:I was basically a pre-teen when it was a huge deal in New Zealand and since it has largely blown over- I now view there is no inherent risk in it and actually much to gain/has much promise to safeguard food supplies. You just need to reflect now on whether those public safeguards are meaningful in a practical sense or if they are just there to make you feel better. In my experience with regulation of organic foods, it's mostly useless trash regulation that does nothing to improve quality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:A big part of his support and idealism, In-My-Opinion, is that he's a breath of fresh air for leftists after two terms of Pragmatically Realistically scuttling off progressive ideal irregardless of congress status, and Pragmatically Realistically allowing conservatives to control the public narrative because they might lose an asshair of support for saying otherwise unprompted. This is a good point. Injecting leftist ideas into the mainstream discourse has (from my understanding) really blown up lately, and the success of Bernie's campaign is definitely part of that wave. I love that he used the word socialist and it didn't tank him. The success of Bernie Sanders is a really encouraging thing, even if I'm not sure I want him as the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:ngl I don't get the hate against GMOs, but whatever maybe I'm brainwashed by agricultural scientists and realize that sustaining a giant human population is tough as is and we need every crop advantage we can have, since the only way we'll get bananas in a few years if they make a GMO brand that's resistant against that fungus ...and if America had a proportional parliament instead of FPTP, you'd have a strong representation of the anti-nuke, anti-vaxx, and anti-GMO crowd. Fortunately, now ya only have Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:
Don't be a pussy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Don't be a pussy. Quit trying to get folk to support Mondalebot 2.0
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Not trying to derail much more but~Rexicon1 posted:You just need to reflect now on whether those public safeguards are meaningful in a practical sense or if they are just there to make you feel better. In my experience with regulation of organic foods, it's mostly useless trash regulation that does nothing to improve quality. From my understanding - I did study it in a law paper sometime around 2010 - it does put in some pretty solid safeguard stuff about requirements of the kinds of research facilities for GMO research and handling to avoid contamination etc. (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/new-zealand.php) readingatwork posted:The anti GMO crowd is a weird mix. It's half legitimate concerns over a lack of proper research and reasonable calls for labeling/reforms, and half mouth-breathing hippies completely loosing their poo poo because we changed the DNA of food therefore it WILL ABSOLUTELY KILL YOU. In NZ the big thing was a really brutish disgust based reaction rather than danger- the popular tagline was "NO FROGSKIN ON MY SPUDS" i.e. that apparently potatoes were being tested with some kind of GMO component taken from frogs - probably shared with billions of other organisms including humans already but I digress - meant that it was akin to grose slimy frog skin being implanted on your potatoes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:This is a good point. Injecting leftist ideas into the mainstream discourse has (from my understanding) really blown up lately, and the success of Bernie's campaign is definitely part of that wave. I love that he used the word socialist and it didn't tank him. I have mixed feelings about him as nominee (in the interests of disclosure: I have given cash and will give more) but he is saying the things that need to be said. He also walks the walk. With his steady catechisms of Wall Street hate, he is changing public discourse and I hope the democratic party. The sort of poverty that exists in a country as wealthy as the US is inexcusable. Having lived and worked in countries with socialized medicine, I can also say the way America does healthcare is insane. Moreover, voters are fatalistic, cynical and apathetic. Yet here is a frumpy old brooklynite who is challenging political royalty and is saying that the people have to get back into the process. Perhaps his message resonates?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Yudo posted:I have mixed feelings about him as nominee (in the interests of disclosure: I have given cash and will give more) but he is saying the things that need to be said. He also walks the walk. With his steady catechisms of Wall Street hate, he is changing public discourse and I hope the democratic party. Would you have supported Mondale, Yudo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:That's a different issue then - how do you prevent private companies from doing that exactly? You can't really. Employers will always consider their payroll costs, not what the employee takes home. Its something important to take into consideration when talking about payroll taxes as opposed to more progressive marginal income taxes. However payroll taxes do engender a sense of ownership in a way other taxes just don't. People feel they paid for a benefit and are owed it if they see the line item on their pay stub. Its part of why the battle over social security is so fierce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Would you have supported Mondale, Yudo? Over Heart and Jackson? I don't know. Heart had more charisma, but none of them had a chance against Reagan so what does it matter? At least he set up the Gipper for one of the greatest lines in American presidential debate history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc Also, Mondale was the establishment candidate, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yudo has issued a correction as of 07:18 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Hillary got wrecked from the death penalty until the end of the debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Hillary got wrecked from the death penalty until the end of the debate. Supporting the death penalty, even a federal 'terrorists only' death penalty is such a weird stance for a Democrat to take. Does Hillary actually have some beliefs she sticks with no matter how unpopular, or is that a calculated position to appeal to the 'tough on crime' and 'protect our nation!' crowds?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Well you see she is a pragmatic progressive centrist democrat. But seriously there is no way you can call yourself progressive and approve of the death penalty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Supporting the death penalty, even a federal 'terrorists only' death penalty is such a weird stance for a Democrat to take. Does Hillary actually have some beliefs she sticks with no matter how unpopular, or is that a calculated position to appeal to the 'tough on crime' and 'protect our nation!' crowds? It's hyper-calculated. The majority of VOTERS in this country still support the death penalty, and the issue is too black-and-white (ha) to walk back in the general election. Same thing with marijuana prohibition. A slim majority of actual voters still favor prohibition, even though most of the population doesn't. She'll take a halfway stance to hold onto some semblance of a progressive platform but she can't walk back supporting legalization outright, so she won't take that stance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Hillary also never calls for taxes or fees. She's going to make it so "no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state." How? They'll work 10 hours a week.. and their family will help out! OK. That's the status quo. She's promised nothing--and carefully avoided the appearance of inflicting additional costs on any sort of taxpayer. "We will encourage innovators who design imaginative new ways of providing a valuable college education to students—while cracking down on abusive practices that burden students with debt without value." Mealy-mouthed corporate-style empty talk. She's gonna synergize our innovations and add value!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Of course she claims to favor "universal healthcare" as well now (lollllllllllllllllllllllllll) but no plan beyond "defend the Affordable Care Act" actually appears on her website. "Transform our health care system to reward value and quality. Hillary is committed to building on delivery system reforms in the Affordable Care Act that improve value and quality care for Americans." She's gonna expand coverage and reduce costs! No taxes involved! That's basically Trump's healthcare platform: We're gonna take care of everyone, actual ideas TBA. And she has the guts to say that Sanders's plans lack details. It's hilarious; hideous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Quit trying to get folk to support Mondalebot 2.0 Arguing the electability of sanders has the same kind of desperate fygm of the accelerationists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Hillary also never calls for taxes or fees. She's going to make it so "no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state." This is legitimately embarrassing. The abusive practice that saddles students with debt is exploding tuitions for a diminishing education and outcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
lol at clinton criticizing iran for "disrupting governments in the region" mother fucker you were in charge of the state department of the god damned united statesMy Imaginary GF posted:Bernie Sanders wants to force you to rely upon the public sector, yet refuses to take public funding for his campaign. o'malley took public funding. i rest my case
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Hillary also never calls for taxes or fees. She's going to make it so "no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state." It's at the bottom of the page: quote:Fully paid for: This plan will cost around $350 billion over 10 years—and will be fully paid for by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers. I mean who knows if that will actually work, it's vague, but you're misrepresenting the plan by suggesting that it will be funded entirely by 10 hours of work a week and family contributions. It's not the status quo, it sounds like a federal scholarship mixed with expanded student job programs, tighter restrictions on increased tuition, etc. Bass Bottles has issued a correction as of 08:51 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
I was out and now I don't feel like watching this, who won?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:It's at the bottom of the page: Nah, that's exactly what I mean: "Fully paid for: This plan will cost around $350 billion over 10 years—and will be fully paid for by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers. " What that says is "we'll figure something out" not "here are the cost savings, here are the taxes." There is no pledge to specifically pay for or otherwise limit college expenses and similarly no pledge to actually collect revenues for the non-plan, but there is somehow still a promise to "Ensure no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state." It's absolutely hollow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Nah, that's exactly what I mean: "Fully paid for: This plan will cost around $350 billion over 10 years—and will be fully paid for by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers. " You said she was using sleezey corporate speak to dress up the status quo, and made zero mention of taxes or actual funding. But this isn't the status quo, it's a scholarship with a budget of $350 billion. I mean, yeah, it's vague, but is there really precedent for presidential campaigns releasing finalized 80 page documents detailing every line of funding for all of their issue plans? Does Sanders have that? Does anyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
How does the 10 hours stack up to normal student work study?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:It's at the bottom of the page: Those all sound like the kind of details people poo poo on Sanders for leaving out though. I mean 'limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income tax payers'? What tax expenditures? What constitutes high-income? At least Sanders gave us some brackets to work with. Is Hillary just afraid to name a population she'd actually raise taxes on (decreasing deductions is raising effective taxes) because shes afraid of pissing off some of her backers? Also you don't get $35 billion a year for 10 years out of closing a few loopholes, you need to actually raise taxes on someone to get that much income. Does she actually plan to collect any additional revenue from anyone at all? She has even fewer details than Sanders here, but I guess twice as many empty corporate speak platitudes so maybe it *sounds* more like she has a plan? Sanders and Hillary are frequently held to different standards is what Im saying. Bass Bottles posted:You said she was using sleezey corporate speak to dress up the status quo, and made zero mention of taxes or actual funding. But this isn't the status quo, it's a scholarship with a budget of $350 billion. Sanders does frequently get asked for one, especially by some posters on these very forums.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:You said she was using sleezey corporate speak to dress up the status quo, and made zero mention of taxes or actual funding. But this isn't the status quo, it's a scholarship with a budget of $350 billion. I said that because that's exactly what is going on. It's just like her Wall Street pledge to tell 'em to cut it out. People already receive Pell Grants. Who else will get them now? What are these "certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers" which will be "limited"? How does that equate to somehow providing loan-free public education for all? It's the same as her universal healthcare bullshit. She's talking about public education for all and healthcare for all but there are no actual such proposals. Her actual proposals are to refinance student loans and "protect the ACA." They're dressed up in expansive, inclusive language, but there isn't even a skeleton of a proposal, much less even the slightest willingness to support the revenue generation necessary to get anywhere remotely near what the sweeping language implies will happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:If Bernie was a woman or a minority other than jewish and younger Hillary would have no chance at this point. Honestly it's amazing such an unappealing candidate has gotten this far, but hey at least he got me to care about local politics to try and get involved in my local rural town. Actually, being an old white guy is more advantageous to Bernie than anything. A hypothetical Bernice Sanders would be laughed off as a crazy cat lady. If Bernie were black people would say he looked homeless, and if he were younger he would be dismissed as naive and inexperienced. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Bernie, he makes the most of his privilege to advance an egalitarian agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:How does the 10 hours stack up to normal student work study? Currently you get awarded a certain amount of money and then work at a certain hourly rate, usually for something like 10-20 hours/week to get a portion of that money (up to the maximum amount). The federal government essentially pays you for your work via money given to the institution. N Nothing in that portion of the proposal is concretely discrete from the current system. It says "students will contribute THEIR EARNINGS" so presumably it's not a plan to switch from hourly pay to "if you're working, we cover it" or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:How does the 10 hours stack up to normal student work study? I think the current federal work study cap is 10 hours a week. I'm not 100% certain though, because my position in college (TFA) was exempt from the cap. But where I went work study hours were a condition for receiving the massive aid packages they handed out, not a meaningful source of income. When I was in community college back before I decided to join the Navy I did a full 40 hour work week on top of college and still barely made ends meet and needed support from my parents. 10 hours of work study a week would likely be a requirement to qualify for aid, not real income on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:A Sanders presidency would be like Obama pushback x 100. He's not going to be able to accomplish any of this and people will cry about it for years. Congressional Republicans are going to be obstructive no matter who's in office. It's been their strategy for around two decades now and I don't see how a Clinton presidency would change that. Neurolimal posted:A big part of his support and idealism, In-My-Opinion, is that he's a breath of fresh air for leftists after two terms of Pragmatically Realistically scuttling off progressive ideal irregardless of congress status, and Pragmatically Realistically allowing conservatives to control the public narrative because they might lose an asshair of support for saying otherwise unprompted. Exactly. For too long, the right has defined the terms of political discussion in this country. The more Democrats try to be the practical, realistic party, the more the right wing gets their way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
"Never pay more than you can afford. If you take out loans for out-of-state school, you’ll never pay more than 10% of your yearly income. Any remaining debt will be forgiven after 20 years — or 10 years for those in public service jobs." Wowza, this is literally the way things already work! It's called IBR/PAYE and it's actually already somewhat better than how Hillary describes it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Okay so I just looked at Bernie's education plan and it's extremely similar, with some notable differences. Hillary wants a scholarship that stops anyone from needing loans, with free tuition at community colleges. Bernie wants free tuition at all state schools. (BUT, he's only talking about tuition specifically. Hillary's plan considers room and board, books, meal plans, etc). Sooo, either way, most people will still be paying money. The plans are almost identical. Bernie is gonna pay for it by imposing a tiny (<1%) tax on Wall Street speculators. I have no idea what that means but it sounds a little more specific than "cutting loopholes," so I'll give him that one. But it seems dumb to accuse Hillary of mealy-mouthed empty promises without accusing Sanders of the same. It's all essentially identical, except schools could just jack up the prices of meal plans, dorms, and books to screw people under Sanders' plan. Hillary's takes that stuff into consideration??? But ALL of this stuff is really just a vague outline/wishlist. Neither of them will be able to enact all of their plans, and the ones they do will end up looking very different from the proposals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Something something Zizek rubbing his nose talking about authoritarian capitalism in China.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:"Never pay more than you can afford. If you take out loans for out-of-state school, you’ll never pay more than 10% of your yearly income. Any remaining debt will be forgiven after 20 years — or 10 years for those in public service jobs." Yeah, the thing thats super lovely about this is it presumes 18 year olds entering college are going to be shrewd judges of their own ability and future earnings potential. Plus the state of the economy in the year someone enters the work force has a massive effect on their lifetime earnings, so if Wall Street farts in the year someone graduates, their first job may take months/years to find and pay substantially less than they might have hoped. Also lol at 20 years of debt bondage with income based repayment plans. Private market based solutions to universal problems like education are the dumbest thing and people really need to stop masturbating over the power of free markets. Market failures happen all the time and sometimes government is the solution. The free market won't solve education and it won't solve healthcare and if your plan is private for-profit underwriting of public benefits its going to implode. So is this her current actual 'plan'? This can't be her plan! There's no mention of not giving Trump's kid college! Where are the means tests that will certainly never gently caress over kids from families that technically make too much for aid but not enough to actually help pay (or refuses to support the kid)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:32
|
|