|
Seeing this thread made me think that for a brief moment I had awoken in the normal timeline, with a normal president, in a world not being torn apart by weather caused by increasing temporal instability. Thank you.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
At this point I hope whoever runs to the left of center in the next election makes a clean break from clinton and sanders. Theres plenty of less controversal and tribalism inducing names to signal what power bloc you are courting with out drawing the infighting out. More importantly there are a lot more younger politicians to signal with. Like Keith Ellison, who signals left and can nip some poc concerns too. Young dems, socialists, and in general not evil nazis are the future. Lets build them up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:You really think this country is ready to elect a Muslim president in Ellison? I mean, I think we can do a lot, but I don't think that we're there yet. We don't have to elect him, what I mean is, that rather than whatever candidates campaigning as the next Hillary or Bernie, they should ally themselves with people like Keith, who have the chops to appeal to one side or another, without the baggage that will trigger a good portion of the vote to hate them just by association alone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Asimov posted:e: Actually jet fuel may be complicated and not as easy to make less toxic, I am not an expert but unleaded airplane fuel where feasible seems like a good thing to encourage. Jet fuel isnt complicated and it already is unleaded. Av Gas is what has lead, and is used by prop planes, not jets and turbo props. Most passanger planes are turbo or jets, so im not really sure what point your trying to make at all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:100LL has already been slated for replacement for years and they're still working their way towards phasing it out. It'll probably be in the 2020s. And 100LL is already low lead, so it is being phased out. Really though most of the airports out there aren't putting out that much lead. Like I said, jet fuel is lead free, and turboprops are becoming more and more popular for even small utility planes like crop dusters. They're just way more efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Did I miss housing chat? I just wanted to say that every drat apartment complex that goes up should be forced to take 10% subsidised tennants. Normally my solution is massive construction projects, but that doesnt work well for housing. I think we should strive to eliminate low income as a concept all together in housing. Not in the gentrifying poor areas, but in the going forward gently caress you this rich apartment complex will take a portion of people in need of housing. I hate the trend of all subsidised housing going in just certain neighborhoods. Its modern day segregation and it is sick. Also gently caress this year for making it impossible to know if im left or liberal or a cuck.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:a specific social justice policy i would like to see the dems go in hard on is ending the war on drugs. civil asset forfeiture, imprisonment for marijuana, etc are used to suppress minorities, and always have been. I agree 100%. I grew up in a county that constantly got in hot poo poo for basically being racist SOB's and it steams me like nothing else when I read about those counties on the border with LA getting all that money by stealing people's cars as they cross from Louisiana.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
I think my problem is the ways id change things differ in some respects that make people want to make me out to be an entirely different faction. It doesnt help that the definition of leftism has changed so much over the decades of my life. But still, we are definetly all cucks here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Im not sure how pro pro authoritarian is either. I mean, when it comes to somethings I want the (Functional) state to step in. Using soldiers to enforce integration and what not. I dont really think the authority of the state is really something that everyone agrees on. Also there are like 4 waves of feminism with differing views on sex and sex workers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Regardless of when it was put on the website, I think if we learn anything from 2016 it's that check my website doesn't really work for anyone. I remember the questions Bernie flubbed about racism vs class issues. I remember when he called southern primary voters (Many who are black people) as more conservative than in the north. He did had a messaging problem at the least on the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Was low information another time? I seem to recall there specifically being a time when he called southern democrats more conservative as well. I could be mixing things up. All I know is it made me pretty steamed and actually got me to vote in my states mostly useless primary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Truely this is the day we learned that posters itt are something awful.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:And in Chicago at least, almost all of the panhandlers and buskers that I saw were black. Hmm, if the poor whites and black people have it just as bad, then why are all the panhandlers black? Wouldn't it fall along the demographic lines? Maybe there is something about being black that means they have to turn to begging more than their fellow white destitute people?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
While Sanders support shows people are more left its hard to use it as a way to guage the actuall number of socialists out there. Free college and single payer is what he talks about and people go for, not an end to private enterprise. Not that it really matters too much since any end to capitalism will be gradual and come after the establishment of a larger nordic style welfare state. Short of revolution, which Im not sure is the best thing for the us, with its abundance of nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It depends whether someone considers a social democracy to be leftist. I personally prefer to keep it limited to ideologies that actually involve giving workers "ownership over the means of production" in one way or another, so basically as a catch-all for different varieties of socialism, communism, etc. I think some of the people on this forum kinda misuse the term and just act like it refers to everything to the left of the current Democrats, including regular left-liberal stuff. It's definitely true that "leftist" has become a bit of a catchphrase for anyone who dislikes the Democratic Party from the left (the same goes for "centrist" when used to refer to regular liberals sometimes). So the term does have a reasonable meaning, but it's misused so often it can be hard to keep it straight. I mean, Social Democracy only has the same symbol as Socialists as coincidence. It's not like they have some sort of shared heritage at all, or some kind of umbrella organization that takes both. No sir.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Public option is good because it provides a way to demonstrate that government healthcare can work, silencing that particular brand of stupid criticism. That said, the current I support single payer bill isn't single payer anyways. Medicare isn't a single payer system. That said, I'd love single payer. I'd love a public option. I'd love German style multi payer, or something out of the nordic countries. I'd love PUBLIC HEALTHCARE. We can has the details out later, or now, or whatever. I'll take whatever I can claw and grab and get.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Yeah, and even if they do think that, then we should push past that. A public option that's so good it destroys insurance would... greatly symplify a lot of things with instituting other forms of socialized healthcare.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Healthcare should be a right. In addition to housing, food, education, and environmental health.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm confused as to what you're being sarcastic about here. I never said advocates for social democracy did or didn't fall under the umbrella of "leftist," just that I wasn't sure if they did. Social Democracy is a different thing than Socialism (not sure if you're trying to imply otherwise). I'm being sarcastic because Socialism and Social Democracy sprung from the same wellspring that half of the member parties of socialist international are Social Democratic parties. Obviously the details are confusing, and it's changed over the centuries, but jesus, Lenin wrote a loving paper in 1905 on social democracy. It is leftism. Is it the same as socialism? No. But is it the same line of thought that cares about society, workers getting their fair share, and taking care of everyone equally? Of course it loving is don't be an rear end. On to Medicare for all. Section 202 says that the compensating fees will start at what the current ones are: "Initially, the current prevailing fees or reimbursement would be the basis for the fee negotiation for all professional services covered under this Act." Presumably meaning the prevailing medicare reimbursment fees, which is not single payer. However it goes on to say that they can't bill the patient. (F) NO BALANCE BILLING.—Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare For All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service. So who knows who would take it if it became law. Doesn't matter, as it's as much a signalling that won't pass as the repeals were when obama was president. And that's fine. However, one of the ways that medicare isn't single payer is how it deals with medication. The bill has this to say about that: SEC. 205. PAYMENT FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY ASSISTIVE EQUIPMENT. (a) Negotiated Prices.—The prices to be paid each year under this Act for covered pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and medically necessary assistive equipment shall be negotiated annually by the Program. (b) Prescription Drug Formulary.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Program shall establish a prescription drug formulary system, which shall encourage best-practices in prescribing and discourage the use of ineffective, dangerous, or excessively costly medications when better alternatives are available. (2) PROMOTION OF USE OF GENERICS.—The formulary shall promote the use of generic medications but allow the use of brand-name and off-formulary medications. (3) FORMULARY UPDATES AND PETITION RIGHTS.—The formulary shall be updated frequently and clinicians and patients may petition their region or the Director to add new pharmaceuticals or to remove ineffective or dangerous medications from the formulary. So who knows how it will cover it. They'll negotiate, and they'll do some best practices, but will they cover drugs as care? Dunno. it's not in the scope of the bill, which is too short to be an actual health care bill in the first place. Ultimately it doesn't matter. Medicare for all could just be an easy but inaccurate way to say healthcare paid for by the state or actually what it means if it was enacted. I couldn't care either way. I'd prefer if all costs were covered by the state but there's a lot of universal healthcare options out there. Realistically I think following the way of Canada as it converted itself would be best, but I'd like to see us do more, and cover the things canadians need supplemental for. Really, nothing about the bill bothers me. It's obviously not meant to be a... piece of enacted legislation, and on the off chance it became one it has a lot of to be dertermined stuff in it. This thought, makes me laugh: (13) Chiropractic services, not including electrical stimulation. Also in that part it does say it'll cover prescriptions, so probably it would? I dunno. It probably is different enough from medicare that medicare for all is a bad title for it, but well, not really worth arguing over titles I guess? edit: Oh and because I forgot it, you totally did say in your post that you prefer leftism refer only to socialism. Don't backpedal. edit 2: Now I'm doing a deeper read of the bill and it probably could be argued to be single payer, but also kind of not perfect and it hinges on everyone signing aboard but also says that everyone will take it, which really can get worked out and is fine? To be real single payer I'd think it'd need more, I don't know. Teeth? Less oh if they take it then it's all covered but there's not any enforcement that people accept it would need to be changed, or it'd need to be a sweeter deal than insurance for people to take, which medicare reimbursements are not? I guess in conclusion MFA is a land of contrasts? v0v edit 3: And for the record none of this is like me saying I wouldn't vote for the bill if I was on the floor. I absolutely would, and propose amendments if I thought it might pass. I'm just going over my read of it. Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Don't we have like... one centrist?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Sure, there's a lot of centrists in the dems, but I meant like here. You asked for people here, and said there was a lot of centrists, but I only see Chilichimp? As to why they like it, Dunno. As a Social Democrat I think that if we had 90% taxation for the top bracket I'd also have some credits to encourage spending I wanted from individuals? Like good job you cleaned up a river have some tax credit back? I don't know. Is a credit different than an exemption? Would a reverse income tax that pays our poorest members of society money be a credit?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
I think the credit I'm thinking of would be like a check from the government credit that people just get v0v. As for abuse, well, everything's abusable. I think in an idealized society we'd use both law and reward to encourage people to do what we want. If people abuse it for vanity then it's a fault of the law and code not being up to snuff. Ultimately, my biggest issue is getting money out of the upper echelons of society where it is calcifying into dynastic oligarchy families, and back into the people below. If that happens because we put the screws to them, or because we have clever tax credits that gets them to open a million homeless shelters or hire a lot of people, I don't really care. That's down to policy, and I prefer to keep my arsenal of sticks and carrots to enact policy full, rather than just throwing out tax credits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:They would be less dumb if we told HRblock and the like to eat a mile long slab of dick and just let the IRS do automatic ready returns, as well as actual free walkthroighs of the credits and the like. Still a lot better ways to help than credits, but we should do the first part anyway. Yeah, definitely. Most civilized countries don't have the huge tax return industry we have in the US after all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Realtalk, do you guys think the Republicans intend to simplify the tax code enough to destroy that industry? If that isn't the goal, what the gently caress are they up to except tax cuts? I think they're just up to tax cuts. They always are. Usually tax simplification is an excuse to raise the taxes on the poor while cutting them for the upper middle and upper class, at least that's what I've noticed during my life.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Charity exemptions have never materialized enough support for charities to fix whatever's needed fixing. The people most likely to be charitable are the people at the bottom, who coincidentally get the least benefit from charity exemptions. Meanwhile, the rich can avoid a good amount of taxes with them, dump money into wasteful causes, and worst of all use said donations to ingratiate themselves to other rich people and network. In essence, the charity exemption acts as one of many subsidies to the rich! Then lets fix it. Let's make credits work like they should. Let's give credits, lets have programs, lets build things, provide welfare, encourage people with credits and sign laws. Let's push food out the back of airplanes and conscript the army to provide meals to the homeless. Poor implementation isn't something that makes me want to stop something. It makes me want to fix it. It makes me want more, not less.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Works for me. Or only make it available to lower tax bracetes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
The world sucks but it is less violent. Both of those statments are true.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Lawyers are important, I will die defending them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, but I don't think internet leftists blathering about UBI or a 20 hour work week are remotely equipped or prepared to solve it. Antibiotic resistance wont kill us. It can't. It is a self solving problem. Once antibiotics stop working on a population of bacteria then you just stop using them. Since resistance takes more energy from a bacteria than non resistence, evolution steps in and the resistence solves itself. You can do this by antibiotic types, or all at once. Former is preferable, but the latter will still not be long enough for 'everyone to die'.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Calibanibal posted:That's a bad link, it ends up with a new thread with ME as the op Brb, using that link to post a ban me for you. That'll teach ya
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 20:37
|
|