|
feedmegin posted:And? This is not Utopia. The NHS in the UK works just fine and it did not cause large scale unemployment when it was introduced. Just, you know, fewer bankrupt people. The NHS didn't cause large scale unemployment in the UK because immediately post-WWII UK did not have any sort of long term build up of a "health care industry" the way America has. If for some reason the UK had had the US system up to 5 years ago and then they implemented the NHS, there'd be a lot of unemployed people in the short term aftermarth, for years on end. Consider also that Canada avoided a large scale unemployment from switching to single payer health care only because they took over 40 goddamn years to do it, starting from the first province scale system which didn't even cover everyone.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How does political spending affect the rest of the economy? Doesn't it all just end up going to other rich people? The media rakes it the gently caress in, a lot of the rest goes to restaurants and hotels and travel companies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
No it isn't. People refusing to vote is what caused that. We have no duty to baby-pamper the petulant doofuses who outright refuse to vote. Anyone who refuses to vote because they were made fun of for refusing to vote is a jackass, and we're right to ignore their opinions - they will never have a say.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:We're specifically talking about people who came out to vote in the primaries/caucuses here, Mr. Reading Comprehension. Ah yes, all 5000 people who bother to vote in primaries but then act like petulant children and refuse to vote in the general because their dumb candidate didn't win. Those people sure are worth paying attention to.  Kilroy posted:Okay so how about not alienating them in the meantime, then. They're not being alienated. They just either can't vote (a decently large amount of them, because of problems getting to vote) or they don't bother. And then some of the latter group get all pissy and whine about being mocked for not bothering to vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's one thing to decide against devoting resources to court a particular demographic because you think those resources would be better spent elsewhere in terms of the number of votes you will pick up for your efforts. It's quite another to go out of your way to piss on their faces because you think they "deserve it" for whatever reason. That isn't how you win elections. gently caress you, dude. I've been working to get young people my age voting since 2007 when i was 18 myself. I don't blame the people who can't vote because of restrictive laws and work schedules, they can't help that. but everyone who can vote and refuses deserves to be mocked. There's no defending that poo poo. No amount of pussy footing around and pretending their behavior is acceptable gets them to vote until they finally turn 37 or whatever and start voting. Cugel the Clever posted:
So yeah, you agree that they're worthless and should not be counted as potential voters to begin with. If they're going to refuse to vote because their latest meme candidate failed, how can they possibly be convinced to vote?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Gods, no wonder the Dems have done terribly in the last few elections. I can only imagine the harm you've caused. They're not not voting as a personal affront to you, you autist. Some may genuinely not care, and others may feel that they can't make a difference, something people like you only reinforce. Ah yes, if only we didn't make fun of morons on online forums, there'd be more votes. You've got a very strange sense of how the world works, dude. Something Awful posts do not control nationwide voting trends. And gently caress the concept that if only everyone ignored them not voting they'd start voting. That's bullshit.The factors are: they're just loving lazy. There's nothing to cater to, because they do not vote. And they all start voting much more as they get older. This pattern has been apparent for decades on end! Kilroy posted:
People who poo poo their pants because their meme candidate lost and vow to never vote for anyone else are not would-be allies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Sigh. I'd believe FishMech's purely a troll had I not seen those exact arguments in real life. Enjoy narrowing your base! The base is not being narrowed by making fun of morons on internet forums. If you truly believe this it's no wonder you have no clue how politics works. Kilroy posted:And when they start voting, who do you think they vote for if their experience with Democrats is "Oh, you are hesitant to vote for this candidate I endorse? Well then gently caress you, gently caress your vote, and gently caress your voice. You probably weren't going to vote, anyway". Oh yes the old "people made fun of me for not voting, so now I guess I have to vote to kill the gays and blacks" argument. Which is total bullshit. And once again you're acting like making fun of people on internet forums magically turns them Republican, even though they'll never ever read the site. Well, those people deserve to be alienated because they're racist, sexist, awful people. Kilroy posted:Bernie Sanders isn't a "meme candidate" you unbelievable dickhead. And even if he were, yes they still are. Hey lil buddy, there's this thing called "other elections besides this one". Every election cycle there's some random candidate that people latch on to and claim they won't vote for whoever wins. That's what I mean by meme candidate. Epic High Five posted:Isn't it the case this campaign that Clinton's biggest donators have been George "Freeper Devil" Soros and pipe fitters? Haven't the Democrats only received like 1/10 of the unlimited donations that the GOP has? Where's this talk about Clinton being a wall Street money sponge coming from? Since she was senator from New York she got a lot of campaign money from the finance industry. Just like if she had been senator for Iowa she'd have gotten a lot of money from big corn, or if in Texas from big oil people. Chomp8645 posted:I like how when people see "young people don't vote much" they conclude that obviously this is because they are lazy and apathetic and don't care and won't vote no matter what you do. Not like the civic minded older crowd! Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that there is basically never a candidate that advocates for youth interests with more than token gestures while older voters are constantly pandered to. No way. They, we, factually are apathetic and lazy about voting, that's why the participation rate is so low even when you factor out people who can't vote due to voting restrictions, working requirements that make it impossible to get to the polls etc. And it's factual that every single cohort that has voted at low rates while young votes more as they get older. This has been consistent for decades on end. If the true reason is "well no one represents exactly what I want!!" then tough titty, democracy never involves everyone having a candidate that matches their issues. Perhaps when people get older they get the gently caress over themselves and realize you will never have a perfect candidate? I suppose that's one reason that could explain why every cohort finally starts voting in high rates when they get older.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
People who refuse to vote should go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 18:31
|
|
I'm not even arguing pro-Bernie, just anti-"gently caress gently caress gently caress THE UNBELIEVERS".
|
Chomp8645 posted:This is a productive attitude. It actually is a productive attitude. You should give up on the petulant whiners who refuse to vote and focus on people who aren't ideologically opposed to voting unless The Perfect Candidate is available. We don't need to give them a reason. The fact that this is a system where voting elects candidates is the reason. They clearly figure this out over time, because most people too lazy to vote at 20 are voting on the regular by 60, after voting pretty often around 40.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Lessail posted:The hatred posters in this thread have for the youth vote is amazing Maybe you whiners should vote for once, instead of waiting til you turn 37.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:"Youth suck they've never vote so gently caress em" It's impossible to listen to people who refuse to make their voices heard. Young people who bother to vote don't get ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Lessail posted:It's cool how this thread will go all "why do republican voters vote the way they do so we can try and get them to cross over" but the second the youth vote is brought up it's all "gently caress them" Why do you keep talking about people who refuse to vote as "the youth vote"? Also you seem to be really confused, thinking this is the headquarters of the DNC and not just a random internet thread that only a few thousand people have ever seen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:So you believe that voters should should elect politicians on zero promises or attention, and then afterwards those politicians should look out for them? Not that politicians should advocate a group's interests, and thereby earn their votes? This doesn't seem backwards to you? Hey buddy, politicians need to appeal much more people than just "the youth vote". If you do that you lose. For an example why this is a losing strategy see Sanders, Bernie. The young are not being "entirely neglected" though, that's a bullshit excuse from people too lazy to vote or even think about politics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Also it's pretty funny that some posters here are apparently dumb enough to think that everyone who's like 35+ is perfectly represented by and happy with the people they vote? It really seems they think that magically when you start balding, the politicians zero in on everything you want and give it to you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:You don't see how this sounds a hell of a lot like a self fulfilling prophecy? You don't get to complain that nobody represents you when you're ideologically committed to not voting unless A Perfect Candidate materializes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Again I don't know why you insist on going straight from "little/no advocacy" straight to "THE PERFECT CANDIDATE". A middle ground would suffice. But no just gently caress the youth I guess they'll never do anything. I don't know why you insist on not voting ever, because you refuse to learn anything about the candidates and thus assume they offer nothing for you. gently caress you if you're a youth who refuses to vote, it's that simple. Note that this does not include the millions of youth who do vote, or the millions more who want to vote but can't. I'm just saying gently caress you to people like you who throw tantrums over your own ignorance of politics. We're not going to vote for your meme candidates so that you can maybe possibly be convinced to vote against Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Is there some specific data or evidence that indicates the youth will only vote if their candidate is totally perfect for them in every way? Why are you guys going straight to that claim every time? Because it sounds like something pulled out of one's rear end. Because you "wah I don't wanna vote" types keep saying all candidates are ignorning your issues when most of them aren't ignoring at all, they're just not meeting whatever arbitrary standard you have. So that's identical to you only voting for your perfect candidate, whiner. Unzip and Attack posted:Man it's almost as if all of these originate when Sanders supporters react to constantly being poo poo on and compared to the Tea Party in this thread. The same 3-4 shitheads just keep doing this schtick and when someone reacts, they act smug/indignant and the process starts all over. It's interesting how the phrasing you use is "supporters" rather than "voters". You can't even bother to vote in your self-description, heh.\ You do understand what happens to candidates when they only have supporters instead of voters, right? fishmech fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I have voted in en every single election since I turned 18. The mid terms too. You are attacking the wrong person. I am a youth who votes, I simply don't blame my fellows who choose not to. You should blame your fellows who choose not to, instead of defending them when they're accomplishing nothing for you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:and let's not kid ourselves, if Clinton came out and said to legalize weed, pro net neutrality, and anti-TPP she'd win the "youth vote" we're talking about in this thread, aka people who post a lot on social media Clinton is already pro net neutrality and anti-TPP. And she's also not against legalized weed she just isn't for forced sate level legalization - Sanders isn't either. Though being anti-TPP is stupid as hell, unless you're invested in Chinese industry. computer parts posted:I do wonder how much of the TPP backlash is people misinterpreting it as a new DMCA. A certain USPOL poster was against it because they thought it would be bad for them getting anime, so you tell me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
None of the candidates are making GBS threads on the youth vote. We however are making GBS threads on the youth non-vote. Please stop calling people ideologically committing to not voting "the youth vote". There is no negative influence coming from the parties or candidates, you people are just being whiny pricks, upset that people rightfully call you out on refusing to vote. You have the power to stop this: just vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 19:54
|
|
/
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Why shouldn't the democratic party poo poo on the youth vote though? Every two years? Hell, in many states there's votes going on every year, because state or local elections or both happen in off-off-years from the midterms and the presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
Actually the refusal to vote is not comprehensible, outside an extremely selfish mindset.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
Not a single person on this side has said we're not voting, nor encourage doing so. We've stated that the lack of desire to vote is comprehensible.
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:This is a legit criticism of the current DNC and it was a big thing Howard Dean tried to do. The problem with Dean's specific strategy for it was that there was a lot of "just find some guy who's basically a republican but will carry a D badge" in his method. While that's marginally useful just for having nominal control of the federal congress, it doesn't help for setting up a Democratic farm system for politicians at the local/state level.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Ha, excuse me for not realizing you weren't defining 'not vote' normally, rather than 'not vote for Clinton'. I'm not voting for Clinton, regardless. Sorry that the only responses I get on my criticism of her resemble that of A Winner is Jew, above. It boggles the mind how party hacks will handwave such blatant corruption as 'just the way the system works'. Voting for the candidate who won the primary isn't corruption. Sorry about your meme preference though? Cugel the Clever posted:Sorry for exercising my right to vote for someone other than one of the dirtiest people in politics? You don't have a right to be grossly incorrect, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:First off: Can you stop whining and start voting? You can pretend all you want that people aren't voting because no one's trying to get them to vote, but I have actively worked to get people registered and voting each election cycle, and most of them still don't do it!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:As if I'm under an obligation to vote for whoever won the Democratic primary Ok, if you love Trump so much go ahead and do it!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Also if you vote for the Greens you're really dumb. Their platform is full of trash, and would be actively much more harmful than beneficial if they were ever to take office.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Keep up that voter outreach You're a perfect example of why voter outreach to the petulant class is impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:So how hosed is the state of Louisiana after hurricane jindal? Extremely hosed. Like if Hurricane Katrina had lasted for 8 years straight hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Or she could have, you know, fought for it. Bill and Hillary fought to completely remove the ban on gays int he military, it was in the 1992 platform. They were also against massive bans on gay marriage. However as a result of how gay hating America was then, the best that could be done was DADT and doma stuff. They would go on to get some of the first top level out gay federal staffers including ambassadors appointed. Rhesus Pieces posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole "gently caress Clinton, if Bernie-San doesn't win I'm taking my ball and going home" pout-fest something Bernie has explicitly argued against? Absolutely. Because he's a smart guy, who understands politics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Pappyland posted:QUILTBAG is far better than whatever the alphabet soup has decided to be today. (Aside, I was always a fan of 'queer' because of its all-inclusive nature and the whole reclamation thing, but apparently that's not ok because of reasons Well queer's not ok because a lot of people are still being called that while they're being assaulted on the street. So when you try to use that, chances are a lot of people in the audience were recently called that while they were being beaten/spit on/etc and they;d really prefer the term doesn't get "reclaimed" just now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:There are many people myself included though that identify as queer and as long as it's not said in a negative way are perfectly fine with it. LGBTQ is a very common acronym. And the point is a lot of others don't want to identify as queer for the aforementioned reasons. Did you even read the post?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
JiUC posted:Is anyone following today's primary returns? Was Cruz expected to win these or is this a major shift away from trump? He was expected to get at least one state, especially after Super Tuesday passed and instead of just winning Texas, he also got Oklahoma and Alaska for a total of 4 states with Iowa.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:I honestly think that you people must live in some sort of alternate reality in which money isn't a corrosive force in politics and the only reason people don't vote for your preferred candidate is out of spite. Believe me, I'm feeling just as You didn't put forward legit concerns, you whined that your preferred candidate couldn't even win the party they're in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Mozi posted:It's dumb to say you can't label your products as GMO-free even if you don't think GMOs are bad. There's literally nothing stopping companies from labeling their products as GMO-free: the USDA Organic logo means that, among other things, and has been officially approved since the 90s
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:Isn't Reagan's son quite left wing? Reagan had multiple sons
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
It was filed back in the start of February, and is not the document you need to actually jump in - it's something you would refile in an election year if you had maybe an outside thought about doing so. You're going to need to see him file a lot more stuff before he can actually get in, basically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Do Ohio or Illinois have the weird 'only landlines may be used for polling' rule Michigan did? I've been hearing that might've been why Michigan's polling was so spectacularly off. That's not that weird really when you remember how cell phones used to work - most people had to pay to receive as well as send calls, so making it very hard to do any sort of unwanted call was a simple idea that'd get votes! McDowell posted:It seems like TPP has enough momentum at this point that it will be at least partially implemented come inauguration, and the next President will determine how things play out within the framework Obama negotiated. It cannot be partially implemented, it's all or nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wait wait wait...are you saying that people who are paid to measure political trends in this country are...behind the times? Uh, they'd be calling everyone's cell phones if they could. But that's, as mentioned,not legal without explicit consent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:I don't forsee total decriminalization or legalization ever happening. Why? Because a sudden influx of a few million prisoners into the economy, with no job prospects and the added difficulty of getting one with a record, it would have severe effects on the economy and crime levels. You don't seem to know this, but neither decriminalization nor legalization means people are going to get let out of long term sentences. By the very mechanisms of the drug war and what it causes, most of the people in for weed crimes are also booked on another crime so even a form of legalization that says "all weed crimes no longer count and you can be let out of jail" would still leave the lion's share of weed-related prisoners behind bars. Some of them might have shortened time to serve past then, but there would never be a few million people left out. Colorado was pretty lenient, and they still didn't release all that many prisoners, they've just been imprisoning fewer new people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 17:42
|
|