|
Luna Was Here posted:So what's the deal with the cost of pretty essential medical treatment items (epipens, insulin, certain medicines) suddenly surging over the last two weeks? Haven't been keeping up much. Is it just a Shkreli thing where outside people are coming in, buying the rights to this stuff and jacking the price up because Congress allows them too? It hasn't been over the last two weeks, it's just gotten press attention the last two weeks. Like the EpiPen and insulin rises have been over the course of years. I didn't notice what set off the EpiPen frenzy, but the insulin one was a result of piggybacking off the press the EpiPen one got. Eifert Posting posted:The biggest surprise for me is how small the sample size is for some of these polls. I thought a small poll was about 10k, not 100. A small poll is 400-600 generally, with polls normally being in the 800-1000 range.
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
max4me posted:I know I am just being cynical. But It's not about giving themselves deniability w/r/t Trump going forward, it's the fact that this is 20, 30, 40 percent of the Republican Party and that's not gonna be materially different in 2020. The 25% of the party who heard Trump's "Mexicans are Rapists" speech and immediately jumped on board are still gonna be Republicans, and they're still gonna vote in the primaries, occasionally win House seats, and just generally make a lot of noise. Mr Hootington posted:Do I blame Obamacare for the prices going up or thank obamacare for prices not increasing even more? One of the common criticisms of Obamacare was that there wasn't enough cost-control on the provider-side (because it's politically unpopular if it looks like you're going after the family doctor).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:The most obvious signs of this were revealed by Wikileaks in a massive document dump. I realize you're new here, but D&D is not a new forum. A lot of this information was already discussed at length, when it actually happened. Like we've already been through "hey guys, I didn't read this email, but someone posted a misleading headline about it, so I'll share it with you" several times. NathanScottPhillips posted:Some of these emails prove that the DNC leaked letters from Sanders that were sent in confidence under the guise of DNC neutrality. The letter was on Bernie's website, publicly viewable just slightly out of sight. And as the email points out, Bernie planted it in some parts of the press simultaneously with sending it to the DNC. So it was hardly a good-faith effort from the Bernie camp sent top-secret or anything. If it was none of us would've heard about it back in May. Which brings up the second issue - Bernie was pretty far behind in early May. No, he hadn't been mathematically eliminated, but the contest was wrapping up. Even if we buy the premise that leaking this memo materially hurt Sanders, it was too late in the contest to have thrown things to Hillary, unless one also claims Bernie was secretly going to massively overperform the polls in May and this prevented that. NathanScottPhillips posted:The DNC also tried to smear Sanders' religious beliefs by spreading rumors that he was atheist. Try reading the things you cite. "even floating bringing up" is not "tried to smear". It's more like "joked about smearing" or at worst "debated the merits of smearing". There's no evidence any actual smearing took place (or if there is, you haven't linked to it). Plus, again, we're talking May of 2016, the tail end of the campaign. Same here: "The idea was nixed, though." So nothing actually happened. Also, again, May 21st. NathanScottPhillips posted:And finally the DNC's new chairperson apologized to Sanders over the controversy This is politics. An apology proves gently caress-all except that folks were pissed. Also there was a large group within the Party that hated DWS and wanted to oust her for years, including supposedly President Obama. This proved to be a good opportunity. NathanScottPhillips posted:After Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned from her position for corruption she was immediately hired by the Clinton campaign. Soft landings are pretty normal in both politics and business. Rather than blatantly fire someone and ride them out of town on a rail, you horizontally transfer them. Going from being DNC Chair to "Honorary Co-Chair of <WHATEVER> Initiative" is a huge step down you can play off as a lateral move. NathanScottPhillips posted:None of this is enough to prove guilt in the courtroom, but it is in the court of public opinion. Remember what I said about everyone trying to be a lawyer these days? If this is your best evidence you should probably plead out. Like you're actually arguing "stuff that could've happened (but didn't actually happen) in May impacted election results in March".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
greatn posted:That was 25-30 years ago though, those people don't even with at those outlets anymore. Kilroy posted:the new people are generally worse The "new people" are people whose formative media experience was the Clinton Years. Like they were little kids and they saw that fuckcluster of a media circus and said "I wanna be that when I grow up".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The thing to remember is that Autism Speaks was started from the merger of two or three support groups for the parents with really hosed up kids, like the kind who can't talk or communicate in a meaningful way. It's just that that happened at the same time that they really widened what got diagnosed as autism. Yeah, this is broadly the problem with a lot of Autism activism. While the merger of autism and Aspergers into the Autism Spectrum might make sense from some points of view, the Spectrum is so wide that you get a ridiculously divergent prognosis depending on where on the spectrum you are. Like a huge chunk of the Spectrum is people who have some difficultly living independently but largely can manage it, while on the other side are people who literally need round-the-clock care from professionals.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/05-physician-letter/HRC_physician_letter.pdf I don't really see the problem since she's a rich old lady who can afford the brand-name, and paying for the brand-name helps fund drug research. Like generics are great for people who need it, but when the $10 difference between name-brand and generic allergy medicine is a rounding error in your $7-8 figure wealth, it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
greatn posted:I mean, we absolutely SHOULD be trying to cure autism, shouldn't we? I think recently there have been some promising results on animal testing. If there's some kind of intervention therapy that can give people normal social functionality if done early enough, it should absolutely be pursued. When it comes to basically non-functional people who need round-the-clock care either with their parents or in an institution, yeah. But the Autism diagnosis scales all the way down to a lot of people who are largely high-functioning (can get jobs and maybe even live alone) but have deficits in some areas like social skills or executive functions or whatever. So people on that end of the Spectrum who are coping with life see a cure as basically an enforced personality change, and thus object.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Yard sign anecdote time: I live in a generally red district of a blue state (US Rep and state Rep have been (R) for a long time). Hillary is spending basically no money or effort on yardsign distribution. This is because (a) it's not like she needs the name recognition that yard signs provide and (b) a $2.50 yard sign costs as much as 3-4 mailers, or 20+ lit pieces for staffers/canvassers to hand out. When you're a Town Council candidate or State Legislature candidate (or even Congressional candidate), it might be worth it to put up some yard signs strategically to raise your name ID. Another factor is that volunteers and slacktivists push REALLY hard for yard signs, because they think yard signs are the only thing that matters. When you're a Presidential campaign and your headquarters is on the other side of the country, that pressure is easy to ignore because it's not like you care if some random off the street bitches out a $12-an-hour staffer for not having yard signs. But when you're a smaller race and the campaign manager's office is about 15 feet from the front door, that pressure is notable. Cire Arodum posted:It's not like other Republicans weren't trying to hold his feet to the fire in their debates. I think it's just going to come down to demographics. There were enough people voting in Republican primaries that actually like Trump's bluster, combined with his opponents splitting the sane people vote. I just don't think general election voters will get behind him in big enough numbers, when it's (mostly) one on one. They were still in some ways limited by the fact that (a) they basically agreed with Trump on half of his policy positions and (b) beating up on him was only a win if it allowed them to take supporters from him. There are a whole range of attacks you can't make when you have to also appeal to the Deplorables. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:No one has doubted Hillary's performance, they have doubted the media's ability to actually report what happened accurately. A lot of people will be directly watching the debate though. Like obviously the media analysis matters, but the debate viewership will be off the charts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Yeah I'm confused why he (read: his campaign) thought this was a good idea. Are they really all this clueless? There was no way they were going to be able to run out the clock until Nov. 8th with "I don't talk about that anymore". Like they had to try to address it at some point, if only to avoid a question on it in the first debate. Really, what you should be asking is "why not do this in June or early July?" That would've gotten it out of the way and any new questions could be referred back to the old comments, and trying to bring it up again looks like relitigating a settled issue. More immediately, it came up last night and Trump whiffed a bit so they did a damage-control press release. Folks then pointed out that Trump has disowned his campaign press releases before, and only stuff from Trump's mouth counts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:NoVA Labor Fed has a strict Sunday off policy for that very reason. Most people just want to watch the football. And it means I get a break too, since this is a stressful election. So University of Maryland Soccer became a welcome respite. Yeah, canvassing/phonebanking during football sucks, but it's just really tough to lose those 7 or 8 weekend days for canvassing. WampaLord posted:National recognition is a thing. Almost no senator has it outside of their own state except for a few high profile ones, and most of the ones you listed do not fall into that category. Yeah, and national recognition is (a) increased through the active efforts of candidates in the run-up to a Presidential campaign and/or (b) increased as a by-product of running a Presidential campaign. visceril posted:Tim Kaine is sentient jar of mayonnaise he would be doing far worse among minorities than Clinton. It would be Kerry/Bush all over again. Tim Kaine was the Mayor of Richmond, which is majority-Black, and speaks Spanish. He would probably do OK among minorities on his own. greatn posted:The party didn't anoint Clinton. She worked very hard to earn the endorsements and donors that she had. When you say she was anointed you are basically ignoring her twenty years of engagement and political work, it's extremely reductive. Not emptyquoting. There's a reason Clinton had all the support she had, and it's because she's been helping elect and support her fellow Democrats for decades.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Even if that is the same person, the FBI certainly knew about it and looked into it and found no evidence of wrongdoing My understanding is that the FBI has only announced no wrongdoing on Clinton's end. Given that this is the dude who is taking the Fifth in front of Congress, it's plausible he did something wrong. But then again, the top posts on the reddit comment are basically "the thing you want to do isn't possible, don't try" and there's no evidence he actually did it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Also the scale of grift and outright theft of donor cash that he's pulled off so far is breahtaking. Just last month like $9 million, and that's just in the stuff he HAS to submit, and it's been like that since he got the nod. To be fair to Trump though, it's not like he's profiting off his campaign overall, since he's still $50M in donations in the hole.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Dead Heat == Clinton +2 The Washington Post posted:Clinton’s two-point edge among likely voters, in both the four-way and two-way ballot tests, is within the survey’s 4.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me. My understanding was that the Margin of Sampling Error was the 95% confidence threshold. So a candidate leading by the MoE has a 97.5% chance of actually leading (95% chance of result within MoE + 2.5% chance of an out-of-MoE result where they're leading by even more). Right? So given an MoE of 4.5% (and thus a z-value of 2.25%) and a 2-point lead, isn't the odds that Clinton's winning something like 80%? How is that a virtual tie? The Glumslinger posted:It also interesting how she is crushing him in questions like "is qualified to be president" and "knows enough about world affairs to serve effectively as president" and "has the kind of personality and temperament it takes to serve effectively as president", but is up by so little Well you've got to figure that all the Johnson and Stein voters think he's a buffoon too. Plus there are a non-trivial number of people who probably think "Trump's bad, but the 90s taught me that Hillary is literally the Anti-Christ". Remember that Trump's only getting 44% of the vote, so if 53% of people say he's unqualified and 55% say he's too ignorant to serve, that's not necessarily contradictory. But that is what folks are talking about when they talk about Trump's ceiling. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:
The Obama ground game strategy (which Clinton is using) emphasizes tightly-targeted contacts. It's not about talking to the whole electorate, it's about talking to the folks at the margins, who are either (a) undecided or (b) not guaranteed to vote, and then bugging the everloving poo poo out of them until we have proof they voted. Also, they tend to focus on volunteer recruitment and voter registration in the early and middle parts of the campaigns, and only step up to the massive amounts of door knocks and calls in the last few months (so right about now).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:That Fahrenthold thing is up Joe Schmoe isn't going to care that Trump had folks pay his charity instead of him because that doesn't sound bad, it sounds like he's cutting out paperwork. It's the "Donald Trump's charity is a slushfund" thing that has actual legs, and we've already heard all that. Also, can someone smart about taxes and stuff tell me why Donald would have to pay taxes if he got it as income and then donated the money to charity himself? Like wouldn't he just be able to deduct the donation on his taxes? I realize that charitable contribution deduction caps out at 30% or 50% of income or something, but there's no risk he's at that cap, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Wherein you posit that because you don't understand it, obviously "normal folks" wouldn't either. Oh, I read and understood the article just fine, I'm just saying the part that's an easy sell to undecideds is "Trump used his charity as a slush fund to buy himself stuff and may have broken tax laws to do it" not "the way Trump had companies pay into his charity might not have been legit", and we already knew about the first part before this latest article. Doctor Butts posted:I thought Gennifer Flowers wasn't actually going to be there. Yeah, but given that Trump tried to get her there before being shot down by his campaign manager, it wouldn't be shocking to have the issue come up, either due to the moderator or due to Trump bringing it up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 23:25
|
|