https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Monday, March 7, 2016
j reacts to snapshot polling right before the michigan primary
michigan prediction...
charting polling averages (whether through rcp or 538 or anything else) is a stupid way to try and analyze voting results or make voting predictions. you don't want to chart a trend. you want a good snapshot as close to the date as possible.
i'd like to see a poll taken after the debate last night, as i expect bernie will get a slight bump. not likely to happen. and, apparently, there's another one tonight [at fox. i'm sure that will be great.]. better, the polling released over the last few days is suggesting that it's tightening.
i expect clinton to win. but i don't expect her to get to 55%. and, that's a symbolic victory. what i said was two things:
(1) he needs to at least nearly split the delegates. so, it's gotta be at least close.
(2) the last poll i saw had her at 76% black support and 49% white support (to bernie's 48%). that is still awful - 27%. in fact, it's worse than the previous 84/61 (84-61 = 23%) difference. he needs to get that something closer to 10%.
she will win. but, it will be surprisingly close.
charting polling averages (whether through rcp or 538 or anything else) is a stupid way to try and analyze voting results or make voting predictions. you don't want to chart a trend. you want a good snapshot as close to the date as possible.
i'd like to see a poll taken after the debate last night, as i expect bernie will get a slight bump. not likely to happen. and, apparently, there's another one tonight [at fox. i'm sure that will be great.]. better, the polling released over the last few days is suggesting that it's tightening.
i expect clinton to win. but i don't expect her to get to 55%. and, that's a symbolic victory. what i said was two things:
(1) he needs to at least nearly split the delegates. so, it's gotta be at least close.
(2) the last poll i saw had her at 76% black support and 49% white support (to bernie's 48%). that is still awful - 27%. in fact, it's worse than the previous 84/61 (84-61 = 23%) difference. he needs to get that something closer to 10%.
she will win. but, it will be surprisingly close.
at
11:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the flint, michigan debate (score: sanders 9, clinton 1)
this is the first debate that i'm watching, and i'll remind you i'm a canadian with a sparse interest, so i'll be quickly commenting in point form as i do.
the reality is that the flint water crisis is an entirely local issue. there's a half-dozen levels of government between the ground and the white house: municipal, state, two houses of congress, various agencies around the executive, etc. so, this is all demagoguery, all around. it's arguably even a giant distraction from meaningful issues at the proper level of government that is being run for. but, i guess they have two hours - hopefully it's not the entire focus.
i'll post a new comment for each question.
opening statement.
- sanders' opening statement was nothing much.
- amen to that: the first thing clinton does is remind the audience that she's a christian, and thereby sneakily point out that her opponent is not. slimy tactic. it always makes me very uncomfortable when elected officials cite religion in any haphazard way. i thought this was supposed to be the liberal party? how can she get away with that without a voter revolt? but, see, this might be a canada/america thing. you'd never see that up here - not even the conservatives would be able to get away with something like that! the reverse is probably true in the united states. it's probably a necessary tactic. and i again need to point out that sanders' ethnicity (if not his religious adherence) is an important, if understated, aspect of this race.
clinton immediately set the tone poorly, for me.
sanders 1, clinton 0.
question one
- somebody asks her what can be done to restore trust in government. she basically points out that it's not a presidential issue, and she's right about that, and then panders to her a little. but, she literally points out that she feels her pain. doesn't even stop for it to sink in. just casually states it, like it's nothing. remarkable. then she says she supports obama (because the questioner, and much of the audience, is black).
- sanders also points out that it's a local issue, but argues that the federal government should be able to come in and intervene. interesting. not an advocate of states' rights.
their answers were similar, although sanders draws attention to his infrastructure plan and clinton was a bit more vague.
clinton did not answer this poorly, but sanders came off better on this by referring more to something concrete.
sanders 2, clinton 0.
question two
the question was to promise to remove all lead from pipes.
- sanders said he'll promise to test to see what's safe.
- clinton said she'll promise to move towards removing lead from absolutely everything (pipes, paints, etc)
sanders' response was probably more realistic, and it's likely designed with a certain level of fiscal conservatism in mind - it's meant to seem moderate. but, you have to have a certain faith in science to accept it as valid. clinton's response was probably a lie (removing all lead from the united states is pretty lofty), but it was also the right answer if the person you're asking is concerned about public safety and has a high school education.
while the responses are functionally interchangeable, i would suspect that clinton won that question with the intended audience by focusing more on safety and less on finance. it's hard to see what fiscal conservative is going to be relieved by sanders' decision not to splurge on water safety, in the face of free tuition - but maybe that person is out there, you never know.
sanders 2, clinton 1.
question three
should people go to jail for the flint water crisis?
- comparable answers. no win awarded.
question four
is the focus on flint just opportunism?
- they both draw attention to their histories, but clinton's response comes off as phony and sanders' comes off as legit. clinton seems to suggest that she focused on flint because it was a good opportunity to attack a sitting republican governor.
sanders 3, clinton 1.
question five
what are you going to do to prevent offshoring?
- clinton talks about "carrots" and "sticks". she wants to set up "exit fees".
- sanders responds by pointing out that clinton supported the agreements that caused the offshoring. he's going to "force investment". outside of opposing the tpp, no details are given.
clinton then changes the topic by pointing out that sanders opposed the auto bailout, which is a red herring built on top of a strawman - but the crowd seemed to like it.
one of the things i disagree with sanders on (it's unrealistic to think i'd agree with him on everything) is the necessity of the bailouts. sanders surely knows that the bailouts are not bailouts, but loans. he surely knows that the creation of a lender-of-last-resort was a part of the new deal. it's broadly contradictory for him to attack the bailout system, and it makes little sense to think he'll carry through with any of it. it's just some populist rhetoric - again, designed to appeal to the kind of fiscal conservative that may support a ron paul. this is a part of sanders that i don't like, but i take it for what it is. it is not any more likely that sanders will stop the bailouts than it is that clinton will stop the tpp.
but, did the auto companies require the bailouts? well, i think you might want to look into that. all evidence i've seen suggests that they took advantage of the situation.
the discussion spirals out to nowhere, from there. sanders might be less wrong, but i'm not awarding a point here - they're both deflecting, obfuscating and lying.
in fact, i'm going to take away a point from both.
sanders 2, clinton 0.
question six
gun control - background checks don't work, skip it.
- clinton repeated the democratic party line on background checks, appealing immunity for gun sellers, cultural discussion...
- sanders suggested you can't stop it, and repeated the same party line.
no points awarded.
question seven
should gun sellers be held liable for the behaviour of their customers?
- sanders: no.
- clinton: yes.
the crowd seemed almost shocked. but, sanders is absolutely correct from the perspective of any theory of legal liberalism. the court would have to set some kind of "reasonable person" test. would it be reasonably foreseeable for a gun store owner to know what a customer will do? in limited, specific cases. but, that's the point of the system of legal checks - to transfer responsibility to a system that can handle it. how would a gun seller be able to determine this? again: in some specific, limited circumstances, maybe. not generally....
i'm a canadian. i'd be happy if they banned the sale of guns altogether. i don't care much for the american constitution. i'm not taking sanders' side out of any love for guns. i hate guns.
the reality is simply that he's legally correct.
the crowd might protest, but i'm giving this point to sanders.
sanders 3, clinton 0.
question eight
the crime bill
- clinton: solved some problems, created others.
- sanders: same answer, although there's a difference - sanders was vocally opposed to parts of it, and wasn't involved with writing it.
it's less that sanders won points on the force of his response, and more that he won points based on the phrasing of the question.
sanders 4, clinton 0.
question nine
you're both old and white - how can you understand people that aren't old and white?
- sanders: explained his history as a civil rights activist, and breaking school-->prison pipeline.
- clinton: something about faith.
bringing up religion in any context is an instant fail, and it wasn't really placed in context. it just came off as an attempt to show the black guy that she's the more christian of the two.
sanders 5, clinton 0.
question ten
what racial blindspots do you have?
clinton: used it as an excuse to throw around some buzz words and drop some endorsements.
sanders: provided some anecdotes
no points awarded.
sanders 5, clinton 0.
question eleven
q for sanders:
things to do to be more effective in racial issues
- sanders: standard laundry list
q for clinton:
superpredator?!?!?
- clinton: taken out of context. right.
sanders 6, clinton 0.
question twelve
schools.
sanders: change priorities.
clinton: more specific answers.
functionally the same, but clinton was more specific and gets the point on that.
sanders 6, clinton 1.
question thirteen
infrastructure
clinton: start a bank, leverage more
sanders: tax & spend
see, now it's flipped over. clinton is trying to appeal to the fiscal conservatives.
i think the experiences we've had over the last several decades suggest that these wonky market schemes tend not to work. the moderator prefaced the question with the idea that sanders' plan is less realistic. i see it the other way: sanders is presenting a method that has been used in the past and will work (so long as the congress allows for it).
i have to wonder where clinton is getting her idea, though. if it was canada, an infrastructure bank could produce interest-free stimulus. that is, we could just print the money. i don't think that's possible in the united states. i think it's just another wonky scheme.
so, i'm rejecting the framing of the question and giving the point to sanders on the premise that it is more realistic to tax & spend then set up some kind of wonky bank scheme.
sanders 7, clinton 1.
question fourteen
do you support fracking?
clinton: claims to oppose fracking.
sanders: no, and credibly.
sanders gets the point on the terseness of his responses.
sanders 8, clinton 1.
question fifteen
q for sanders: is god relevant?
(asked matter-of-factly)
a: twisted to a question about morals.
he handled that well.
anderson drew explicit attention to it. holy shit.
he handled it well, again.
q for clinton: who do you pray for?
(asked sarcastically.)
a: she struggled to get the right talking points.
again: clinton came off very phony. sanders being an atheist jew is a hurdle. but, clinton is maybe not convincing many christians?
even if clinton was being honest, i would have disliked her answer.
sanders 9, clinton 1.
no points awarded for the closing statement.
so, that's my final score and my reasoning for it. sanders 9, clinton 1. i think he smoked her. if i lived across the river, i'd think it was a no-brainer.
but, remember: i'm a liberal from canada and not an american democrat. hopefully my reasoning is clear, and perhaps some of the cultural differences that exist between canadian liberals and american democrats are also apparent.
the reality is that the flint water crisis is an entirely local issue. there's a half-dozen levels of government between the ground and the white house: municipal, state, two houses of congress, various agencies around the executive, etc. so, this is all demagoguery, all around. it's arguably even a giant distraction from meaningful issues at the proper level of government that is being run for. but, i guess they have two hours - hopefully it's not the entire focus.
i'll post a new comment for each question.
opening statement.
- sanders' opening statement was nothing much.
- amen to that: the first thing clinton does is remind the audience that she's a christian, and thereby sneakily point out that her opponent is not. slimy tactic. it always makes me very uncomfortable when elected officials cite religion in any haphazard way. i thought this was supposed to be the liberal party? how can she get away with that without a voter revolt? but, see, this might be a canada/america thing. you'd never see that up here - not even the conservatives would be able to get away with something like that! the reverse is probably true in the united states. it's probably a necessary tactic. and i again need to point out that sanders' ethnicity (if not his religious adherence) is an important, if understated, aspect of this race.
clinton immediately set the tone poorly, for me.
sanders 1, clinton 0.
question one
- somebody asks her what can be done to restore trust in government. she basically points out that it's not a presidential issue, and she's right about that, and then panders to her a little. but, she literally points out that she feels her pain. doesn't even stop for it to sink in. just casually states it, like it's nothing. remarkable. then she says she supports obama (because the questioner, and much of the audience, is black).
- sanders also points out that it's a local issue, but argues that the federal government should be able to come in and intervene. interesting. not an advocate of states' rights.
their answers were similar, although sanders draws attention to his infrastructure plan and clinton was a bit more vague.
clinton did not answer this poorly, but sanders came off better on this by referring more to something concrete.
sanders 2, clinton 0.
question two
the question was to promise to remove all lead from pipes.
- sanders said he'll promise to test to see what's safe.
- clinton said she'll promise to move towards removing lead from absolutely everything (pipes, paints, etc)
sanders' response was probably more realistic, and it's likely designed with a certain level of fiscal conservatism in mind - it's meant to seem moderate. but, you have to have a certain faith in science to accept it as valid. clinton's response was probably a lie (removing all lead from the united states is pretty lofty), but it was also the right answer if the person you're asking is concerned about public safety and has a high school education.
while the responses are functionally interchangeable, i would suspect that clinton won that question with the intended audience by focusing more on safety and less on finance. it's hard to see what fiscal conservative is going to be relieved by sanders' decision not to splurge on water safety, in the face of free tuition - but maybe that person is out there, you never know.
sanders 2, clinton 1.
question three
should people go to jail for the flint water crisis?
- comparable answers. no win awarded.
question four
is the focus on flint just opportunism?
- they both draw attention to their histories, but clinton's response comes off as phony and sanders' comes off as legit. clinton seems to suggest that she focused on flint because it was a good opportunity to attack a sitting republican governor.
sanders 3, clinton 1.
question five
what are you going to do to prevent offshoring?
- clinton talks about "carrots" and "sticks". she wants to set up "exit fees".
- sanders responds by pointing out that clinton supported the agreements that caused the offshoring. he's going to "force investment". outside of opposing the tpp, no details are given.
clinton then changes the topic by pointing out that sanders opposed the auto bailout, which is a red herring built on top of a strawman - but the crowd seemed to like it.
one of the things i disagree with sanders on (it's unrealistic to think i'd agree with him on everything) is the necessity of the bailouts. sanders surely knows that the bailouts are not bailouts, but loans. he surely knows that the creation of a lender-of-last-resort was a part of the new deal. it's broadly contradictory for him to attack the bailout system, and it makes little sense to think he'll carry through with any of it. it's just some populist rhetoric - again, designed to appeal to the kind of fiscal conservative that may support a ron paul. this is a part of sanders that i don't like, but i take it for what it is. it is not any more likely that sanders will stop the bailouts than it is that clinton will stop the tpp.
but, did the auto companies require the bailouts? well, i think you might want to look into that. all evidence i've seen suggests that they took advantage of the situation.
the discussion spirals out to nowhere, from there. sanders might be less wrong, but i'm not awarding a point here - they're both deflecting, obfuscating and lying.
in fact, i'm going to take away a point from both.
sanders 2, clinton 0.
question six
gun control - background checks don't work, skip it.
- clinton repeated the democratic party line on background checks, appealing immunity for gun sellers, cultural discussion...
- sanders suggested you can't stop it, and repeated the same party line.
no points awarded.
question seven
should gun sellers be held liable for the behaviour of their customers?
- sanders: no.
- clinton: yes.
the crowd seemed almost shocked. but, sanders is absolutely correct from the perspective of any theory of legal liberalism. the court would have to set some kind of "reasonable person" test. would it be reasonably foreseeable for a gun store owner to know what a customer will do? in limited, specific cases. but, that's the point of the system of legal checks - to transfer responsibility to a system that can handle it. how would a gun seller be able to determine this? again: in some specific, limited circumstances, maybe. not generally....
i'm a canadian. i'd be happy if they banned the sale of guns altogether. i don't care much for the american constitution. i'm not taking sanders' side out of any love for guns. i hate guns.
the reality is simply that he's legally correct.
the crowd might protest, but i'm giving this point to sanders.
sanders 3, clinton 0.
question eight
the crime bill
- clinton: solved some problems, created others.
- sanders: same answer, although there's a difference - sanders was vocally opposed to parts of it, and wasn't involved with writing it.
it's less that sanders won points on the force of his response, and more that he won points based on the phrasing of the question.
sanders 4, clinton 0.
question nine
you're both old and white - how can you understand people that aren't old and white?
- sanders: explained his history as a civil rights activist, and breaking school-->prison pipeline.
- clinton: something about faith.
bringing up religion in any context is an instant fail, and it wasn't really placed in context. it just came off as an attempt to show the black guy that she's the more christian of the two.
sanders 5, clinton 0.
question ten
what racial blindspots do you have?
clinton: used it as an excuse to throw around some buzz words and drop some endorsements.
sanders: provided some anecdotes
no points awarded.
sanders 5, clinton 0.
question eleven
q for sanders:
things to do to be more effective in racial issues
- sanders: standard laundry list
q for clinton:
superpredator?!?!?
- clinton: taken out of context. right.
sanders 6, clinton 0.
question twelve
schools.
sanders: change priorities.
clinton: more specific answers.
functionally the same, but clinton was more specific and gets the point on that.
sanders 6, clinton 1.
question thirteen
infrastructure
clinton: start a bank, leverage more
sanders: tax & spend
see, now it's flipped over. clinton is trying to appeal to the fiscal conservatives.
i think the experiences we've had over the last several decades suggest that these wonky market schemes tend not to work. the moderator prefaced the question with the idea that sanders' plan is less realistic. i see it the other way: sanders is presenting a method that has been used in the past and will work (so long as the congress allows for it).
i have to wonder where clinton is getting her idea, though. if it was canada, an infrastructure bank could produce interest-free stimulus. that is, we could just print the money. i don't think that's possible in the united states. i think it's just another wonky scheme.
so, i'm rejecting the framing of the question and giving the point to sanders on the premise that it is more realistic to tax & spend then set up some kind of wonky bank scheme.
sanders 7, clinton 1.
question fourteen
do you support fracking?
clinton: claims to oppose fracking.
sanders: no, and credibly.
sanders gets the point on the terseness of his responses.
sanders 8, clinton 1.
question fifteen
q for sanders: is god relevant?
(asked matter-of-factly)
a: twisted to a question about morals.
he handled that well.
anderson drew explicit attention to it. holy shit.
he handled it well, again.
q for clinton: who do you pray for?
(asked sarcastically.)
a: she struggled to get the right talking points.
again: clinton came off very phony. sanders being an atheist jew is a hurdle. but, clinton is maybe not convincing many christians?
even if clinton was being honest, i would have disliked her answer.
sanders 9, clinton 1.
no points awarded for the closing statement.
so, that's my final score and my reasoning for it. sanders 9, clinton 1. i think he smoked her. if i lived across the river, i'd think it was a no-brainer.
but, remember: i'm a liberal from canada and not an american democrat. hopefully my reasoning is clear, and perhaps some of the cultural differences that exist between canadian liberals and american democrats are also apparent.
at
10:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to obamacare as a weapon of the status quo
but, if you want a real health care system in place, you will need to eventually abolish obamacare - which, remember, was brought in so that you wouldn't get single payer.
if you want single payer, you will need to call them at their bluff on it at some point. and, i dare them to do it.
no, really. mr. trump: i dare you to tear down obamacare and give this back to the democrats as an election issue, with the possibility that they might get it done properly this time.
if you're standing up for obamacare, and arguing it's a reason to vote democrat, they've got you exactly where they wanted to get you.
i'm not advocating campaigning against obamacare. i'm arguing that you're better off letting it die than fighting to hold on to it. you can do much better - and you will need to jettison it before you can rebuild the political capital to do it with. if you keep holding to this "obamacare is better than nothing" position, it's all you're ever going to get.
....which is what they wanted.
i mean, think it through. do you think the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals would have pumped so much money into obamacare if they weren't behind it? and, so, do you really think the republicans are going to bite that hand off?
it's political theatre. they won't touch it. but, you're being beaten into line pretty well, aren't you?
look at what they've engineered, here.
self-identifying liberal democrats grovelling to congress to please not abolish the heritage foundation's health care plan.
fuck this. call them on their bluff. i dare you to do it, trump! dare you to...
if you want single payer, you will need to call them at their bluff on it at some point. and, i dare them to do it.
no, really. mr. trump: i dare you to tear down obamacare and give this back to the democrats as an election issue, with the possibility that they might get it done properly this time.
if you're standing up for obamacare, and arguing it's a reason to vote democrat, they've got you exactly where they wanted to get you.
i'm not advocating campaigning against obamacare. i'm arguing that you're better off letting it die than fighting to hold on to it. you can do much better - and you will need to jettison it before you can rebuild the political capital to do it with. if you keep holding to this "obamacare is better than nothing" position, it's all you're ever going to get.
....which is what they wanted.
i mean, think it through. do you think the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals would have pumped so much money into obamacare if they weren't behind it? and, so, do you really think the republicans are going to bite that hand off?
it's political theatre. they won't touch it. but, you're being beaten into line pretty well, aren't you?
look at what they've engineered, here.
self-identifying liberal democrats grovelling to congress to please not abolish the heritage foundation's health care plan.
fuck this. call them on their bluff. i dare you to do it, trump! dare you to...
at
05:02
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the nature of debates as about herding sheep, not intellectual discourse
i am still being censored this morning.
he's not trying to swing detail-oriented voters. you don't swing detail-oriented voters: they look at data and decide. the people you swing at a debate like this are people that think with their gut. the more you get into facts, the more you come off like a talking head. which is to say he'd be doing himself some good if he really did sound a little more like trump (the difference, of course, being that sanders actually has a platform for people to go look up, should they choose to).
i'm going to actually watch this debate. i haven't watched any yet. hey - i'm a canadian. and a data analyst, not a politician. i watched the canadian debates in the fall. but, i'm just doing other things...
but i'll watch this one. and i'll get back to you on it. hopefully i'm not censored anymore by the time it's done.
he's not trying to swing detail-oriented voters. you don't swing detail-oriented voters: they look at data and decide. the people you swing at a debate like this are people that think with their gut. the more you get into facts, the more you come off like a talking head. which is to say he'd be doing himself some good if he really did sound a little more like trump (the difference, of course, being that sanders actually has a platform for people to go look up, should they choose to).
i'm going to actually watch this debate. i haven't watched any yet. hey - i'm a canadian. and a data analyst, not a politician. i watched the canadian debates in the fall. but, i'm just doing other things...
but i'll watch this one. and i'll get back to you on it. hopefully i'm not censored anymore by the time it's done.
at
04:36
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the confusing/contradictory maine primary results
i'll admit that everything i know about maine comes out of a stephen king novel, and that i read those novels 25 years ago. but, a very hard to understand trend is emerging.
1) polling suggests that hillary is doing better amongst registered democrats, and bernie is doing better amongst independents.
2) hillary is consistently losing caucuses in blue states.
that is a contradiction that suggests the necessity of bad data or vote rigging. i've been through this before: you can explain bernie's strong showing in red states by concluding there aren't any centrist democrats in the heartland, because there's nothing in it for them. but, maine and minnesota (specifically) are blue states and hillary's supposed dominance amongst registered democrats should have given her an overwhelming advantage in the caucus, where independents are not allowed to participate.
it is past curious - and is now suspicious - that hillary is doing disproportionately well in contests where you can rig the vote, and inexplicably poorly (relative to the polling of democrats v independents) in states where it is impossible to rig the vote.
i think bernie should drop out immediately and run as an independent.
1) polling suggests that hillary is doing better amongst registered democrats, and bernie is doing better amongst independents.
2) hillary is consistently losing caucuses in blue states.
that is a contradiction that suggests the necessity of bad data or vote rigging. i've been through this before: you can explain bernie's strong showing in red states by concluding there aren't any centrist democrats in the heartland, because there's nothing in it for them. but, maine and minnesota (specifically) are blue states and hillary's supposed dominance amongst registered democrats should have given her an overwhelming advantage in the caucus, where independents are not allowed to participate.
it is past curious - and is now suspicious - that hillary is doing disproportionately well in contests where you can rig the vote, and inexplicably poorly (relative to the polling of democrats v independents) in states where it is impossible to rig the vote.
i think bernie should drop out immediately and run as an independent.
at
04:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Mike Stavenes
The Donald's Plan:
Step 1) Dismantle Obamacare.
Step 2) Don't worry about it...we'll take care of everyone.
Step 3) We'll think of something...everyone will be fine.
Step 4) We'll do great things...you'll see. ;-)
ThePsych0Dog
+Mike Stavenes
Step 6) ???
Step 7) Profit!
It's so bad, he can't even think of a "Step 5"
gee jep
+ThePsych0Dog
lol classic south park. nice one pat on the back for you.
nargargole
+Mike Stavenes
8) Bankcuptcy.
jessica
+Mike Stavenes
but, if you want a real health care system in place, you will need to eventually abolish obamacare - which, remember, was brought in so that you wouldn't get single payer.
if you want single payer, you will need to call them at their bluff on it at some point. and, i dare them to do it.
no, really. mr. trump: i dare you to tear down obamacare and give this back to the democrats as an election issue, with the possibility that they might get it done properly this time.
if you're standing up for obamacare, and arguing it's a reason to vote democrat, they've got you exactly where they wanted to get you.
i'm not advocating campaigning against obamacare. i'm arguing that you're better off letting it die than fighting to hold on to it. you can do much better - and you will need to jettison it before you can rebuild the political capital to do it with. if you keep holding to this "obamacare is better than nothing" position, it's all you're ever going to get.
....which is what they wanted.
i mean, think it through. do you think the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals would have pumped so much money into obamacare if they weren't behind it? and, so, do you really think the republicans are going to bite that hand off?
it's political theatre. they won't touch it. but, you're being beaten into line pretty well, aren't you?
look at what they've engineered, here.
self-identifying liberal democrats grovelling to congress to please not abolish the heritage foundation's health care plan.
fuck this. call them on their bluff. i dare you to do it, trump! dare you to...
===
arsenalfanrichi
You've gotta feel for Obama. The most honourable achievement in his tenure, other than stemming the fiscal haemorrhage left by Bush is Obama care. Although severely compromised by subhuman lizards masquerading as politicians, even that could be taken away from the bloke.
jessica
+arsenalfanrichi
he won't return your empathy - unless you send him a donation for it. he was a fraud, and you fell for it. people are still falling for it. you're not getting anywhere pretending that he was ever anything other than a bought and paid for lobbyist. so, it's wrong to even say it was a failed presidency. it was a spectacular presidency, if you were one of his financial backers.
he passed a lot of austerity measures in balancing the budget. that's his real legacy.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
So you want Trumpcare which allows insurers to refuse to give you any healthcare if you have any illness before and after signing up. Oh I hope everypne who gets this health plan gets cancer, that would solve so many problems. Cause you have to be really fucking stupid to allowed insurers to have that kind of power.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
i want you to have single payer. in order for you to get single payer, you will need to abolish romneycare first, and start over. you will never get from romneycare to single payer. you'll be stuck in this "protect romneycare from the republicans" narrative forever. which is why the republicans won't actually touch the status quo
if you don't like romneycare, you could always call it gingrichcare.
it has to be the most outrageous flip-flop in history. obamacare is basically the plan that newt gingrich proposed as an alternative to hillarycare, back in the 90s.
today, she's become the single biggest supporter of the opponents of her own ideas. it's remarkable, really.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
anything's better than Trump's pay for nothing certificate.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
that's the right attitude, if you want to maintain the status quo. and, maybe you do. but if you're still uninsured, or you simply can't afford anything offered to you, you might have a different perspective.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
I don't give a shit if it is status quo or not a steal is a steal, so you would prefer that they rip you off if it means a change for the absolute worst. This idiot would promote people to boycott a factory if it moves to mexico, that is by far the stupidist way you could handle that, if you want a factory to stop leaving you negotiate with it, boycoting would just made their decision of leaving easier hell they might as well take wallmart with them. Talk about been a terrible business man this is capitalism even employes are part of the competition and cheeper workers are always the best answer unless the gov. offers something else that can allowed them to benefit with a higher paid work force, like lowering taxes, free promotion, or making their products more affordable, etc... But then again the factories that make his products are in china and yet he complains about others leaving america, he without a doubt has the right initiative to make america great again which is selling it to China, what a dumbass.
arsenalfanrichi
+Rafael Lopez
How does lowering taxes on companies help really? If they go out of business cos they can't afford to pay taxes, then they deserve to go out of business. If it's in a competitive sector, then someone else will pop up in their place. Decreasing tax on companies means either more tax on workforce, or, smaller governmental spending. Which means less protection for the workforce & subsequently the companies lowering wages and no the products, or failing to meet rising living costs. This is Exactly what has been happening.
Instead of listening to what you're told, try using some logic.
Rafael Lopez
+arsenalfanrichi
Idiot the whole point is to avoid making them leave and that's just one of the three options I gave (and I could have given more) that are better than a boycot which would leave hundreds unemployed and living under wealthcare which would mean the gov. will have to tax the work force more that would make then beg for a better salary that would make compannies leave, leaving even more people unemployed and repeating the cycle that only gets worst. I am not saying it is the best options but clearly your stupid little anti big compannies brain only concentrated on that point and only that point. Of course the government could tax the compannies making them leave even faster than a boycot, this is capitalism which is all about making the most profit with the less expences. We have to appeal to them or turn to socialism.
Mike Stavenes
+Rafael Lopez
You make it sound like they have all the control. No company is going to leave the US because of taxes. If the cost of doing business in the US goes up...leaving, means doing no business in the US, instead. No company like Walmart, or McDonalds is going to boycott an entire country, throwing away all that profit, just to prove a point. That would be like turning down a billion dollars in order to save a million. The US economy is too large to just walk away from, without getting your ass fired by your shareholders.
jessica
this discussion is terrible from every direction.
asia does have a comparative advantage, it's just that you have to change the way you think about it to see it. their comparative advantage comes in the size of their population, which allows them to decrease wages. remember that for every asian job that exists, there are hundreds or thousands of unemployed people. a few cents an hour is better than sorting through the trash.
the only way to solve the issue, in the context of global trade, is consequently to reduce the population in asia. even if we had the ability to do this, we wouldn't want to.
so, we must conclude that global free trade, as we'd like to envision it, is impossible so long as the population imbalance is so great. that is, if we were ever naive enough to take the idea as what it is claimed.
so, if you want to hold to the industrial era, then you need tariffs and you need other trade restrictions. sanders & trump agree on this point, to varying levels. clinton, however, is very soft on corporations.
changing the tax rates will accomplish nothing.
but, let us ask a different question: might we be better off moving beyond a job-based industrial society and instead working together to automate the factories, for local production, distribution and consumption?
Rafael Lopez
+Mike Stavenes
the problem is not them boycoting us (which would be ridiculous and yet funny at the same time) and yes they have a certain amount of control, who do you think sponsors presidential campaings. Not forgeting that it is private compannies that manage almost all of the production jobs in america, which don't depend on consumers to be here so they can still easily move to any country and still keep selling as much as they want in america. While most of us have no jobs, but can still buy thanks to wealthcare. I am not saying that all of them would leave but just a handful of factories leaving can cause a dent in the economy of a state, boycotting will serve as nothing more than anti promotion which would make them lose profit making more of their factories having to leave because they can't "afford" the work force here,(example: if people stop buying oreos, the oreo companny would lower production and with lowering the production they will start lowering the pay of the employes because they had a x number of employes ready to supply a high demand of oreos which they would split the profit to pay that x number of employes with, but because the demand has now lower and so did the profit....well in most cases employes would be fired or pay way less or factories would just move to a country were the work force is cheeper.) A companny that pays more for employes than the profit they actually make is shooting itself in the leg, that's why if the demand lowers so does the pay that goes into their work force, until it eventually closes down factories.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
but, trump has articulated support for tariffs - which increase the price of imported goods, thereby acting as a disincentive to offshore. that's what america needs to rebuild it's economy.
the issue with boycotting imported goods is that it's not likely to actually work. it's requesting that people ignore issues like prices. it's the kind of thing you hear from clueless hippies.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
Obama has been doing that and everyone hates him. What we need is to promote foreign trade, almost all of what we produce should be leaving and not staying. But in order to produce enough to compete even against China we need more factories, of course we are not going to treat our work force just as bad as the Chinese gov. treats theirs, so we need to at least offer cheaper promotion accross the globe and cheaper transportation of goods like our cargo ships, unfortunately ours charges a ton of money almost everyone avoids transport from us because of it. We even force our colonies to buy from them in order to keep it alive. I think we need to turn most of our navy ships into cargo ships so we can save up and deliver more goods to Europe, South America and China. Or we can negotiate with China so they can help us trade, a big world wide trading companny build by China and US would be unstopable, but then again that's just blind wishfull thinking.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
obama is a "free trade" zealot. his major legacy is the tpp, which is even worse than what exists right now.
you seem to be articulating a return to tory mercantilism. well, i'm not sure america, exactly, ever carried out that kind of economy - although it fought a revolution against it. the british built (and lost) an empire on it, though.
it's nineteenth century thinking. we need to get out of this game, where everybody loses, and just abolish private control of the means of production, already.
The Donald's Plan:
Step 1) Dismantle Obamacare.
Step 2) Don't worry about it...we'll take care of everyone.
Step 3) We'll think of something...everyone will be fine.
Step 4) We'll do great things...you'll see. ;-)
ThePsych0Dog
+Mike Stavenes
Step 6) ???
Step 7) Profit!
It's so bad, he can't even think of a "Step 5"
gee jep
+ThePsych0Dog
lol classic south park. nice one pat on the back for you.
nargargole
+Mike Stavenes
8) Bankcuptcy.
jessica
+Mike Stavenes
but, if you want a real health care system in place, you will need to eventually abolish obamacare - which, remember, was brought in so that you wouldn't get single payer.
if you want single payer, you will need to call them at their bluff on it at some point. and, i dare them to do it.
no, really. mr. trump: i dare you to tear down obamacare and give this back to the democrats as an election issue, with the possibility that they might get it done properly this time.
if you're standing up for obamacare, and arguing it's a reason to vote democrat, they've got you exactly where they wanted to get you.
i'm not advocating campaigning against obamacare. i'm arguing that you're better off letting it die than fighting to hold on to it. you can do much better - and you will need to jettison it before you can rebuild the political capital to do it with. if you keep holding to this "obamacare is better than nothing" position, it's all you're ever going to get.
....which is what they wanted.
i mean, think it through. do you think the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals would have pumped so much money into obamacare if they weren't behind it? and, so, do you really think the republicans are going to bite that hand off?
it's political theatre. they won't touch it. but, you're being beaten into line pretty well, aren't you?
look at what they've engineered, here.
self-identifying liberal democrats grovelling to congress to please not abolish the heritage foundation's health care plan.
fuck this. call them on their bluff. i dare you to do it, trump! dare you to...
===
arsenalfanrichi
You've gotta feel for Obama. The most honourable achievement in his tenure, other than stemming the fiscal haemorrhage left by Bush is Obama care. Although severely compromised by subhuman lizards masquerading as politicians, even that could be taken away from the bloke.
jessica
+arsenalfanrichi
he won't return your empathy - unless you send him a donation for it. he was a fraud, and you fell for it. people are still falling for it. you're not getting anywhere pretending that he was ever anything other than a bought and paid for lobbyist. so, it's wrong to even say it was a failed presidency. it was a spectacular presidency, if you were one of his financial backers.
he passed a lot of austerity measures in balancing the budget. that's his real legacy.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
So you want Trumpcare which allows insurers to refuse to give you any healthcare if you have any illness before and after signing up. Oh I hope everypne who gets this health plan gets cancer, that would solve so many problems. Cause you have to be really fucking stupid to allowed insurers to have that kind of power.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
i want you to have single payer. in order for you to get single payer, you will need to abolish romneycare first, and start over. you will never get from romneycare to single payer. you'll be stuck in this "protect romneycare from the republicans" narrative forever. which is why the republicans won't actually touch the status quo
if you don't like romneycare, you could always call it gingrichcare.
it has to be the most outrageous flip-flop in history. obamacare is basically the plan that newt gingrich proposed as an alternative to hillarycare, back in the 90s.
today, she's become the single biggest supporter of the opponents of her own ideas. it's remarkable, really.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
anything's better than Trump's pay for nothing certificate.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
that's the right attitude, if you want to maintain the status quo. and, maybe you do. but if you're still uninsured, or you simply can't afford anything offered to you, you might have a different perspective.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
I don't give a shit if it is status quo or not a steal is a steal, so you would prefer that they rip you off if it means a change for the absolute worst. This idiot would promote people to boycott a factory if it moves to mexico, that is by far the stupidist way you could handle that, if you want a factory to stop leaving you negotiate with it, boycoting would just made their decision of leaving easier hell they might as well take wallmart with them. Talk about been a terrible business man this is capitalism even employes are part of the competition and cheeper workers are always the best answer unless the gov. offers something else that can allowed them to benefit with a higher paid work force, like lowering taxes, free promotion, or making their products more affordable, etc... But then again the factories that make his products are in china and yet he complains about others leaving america, he without a doubt has the right initiative to make america great again which is selling it to China, what a dumbass.
arsenalfanrichi
+Rafael Lopez
How does lowering taxes on companies help really? If they go out of business cos they can't afford to pay taxes, then they deserve to go out of business. If it's in a competitive sector, then someone else will pop up in their place. Decreasing tax on companies means either more tax on workforce, or, smaller governmental spending. Which means less protection for the workforce & subsequently the companies lowering wages and no the products, or failing to meet rising living costs. This is Exactly what has been happening.
Instead of listening to what you're told, try using some logic.
Rafael Lopez
+arsenalfanrichi
Idiot the whole point is to avoid making them leave and that's just one of the three options I gave (and I could have given more) that are better than a boycot which would leave hundreds unemployed and living under wealthcare which would mean the gov. will have to tax the work force more that would make then beg for a better salary that would make compannies leave, leaving even more people unemployed and repeating the cycle that only gets worst. I am not saying it is the best options but clearly your stupid little anti big compannies brain only concentrated on that point and only that point. Of course the government could tax the compannies making them leave even faster than a boycot, this is capitalism which is all about making the most profit with the less expences. We have to appeal to them or turn to socialism.
Mike Stavenes
+Rafael Lopez
You make it sound like they have all the control. No company is going to leave the US because of taxes. If the cost of doing business in the US goes up...leaving, means doing no business in the US, instead. No company like Walmart, or McDonalds is going to boycott an entire country, throwing away all that profit, just to prove a point. That would be like turning down a billion dollars in order to save a million. The US economy is too large to just walk away from, without getting your ass fired by your shareholders.
jessica
this discussion is terrible from every direction.
asia does have a comparative advantage, it's just that you have to change the way you think about it to see it. their comparative advantage comes in the size of their population, which allows them to decrease wages. remember that for every asian job that exists, there are hundreds or thousands of unemployed people. a few cents an hour is better than sorting through the trash.
the only way to solve the issue, in the context of global trade, is consequently to reduce the population in asia. even if we had the ability to do this, we wouldn't want to.
so, we must conclude that global free trade, as we'd like to envision it, is impossible so long as the population imbalance is so great. that is, if we were ever naive enough to take the idea as what it is claimed.
so, if you want to hold to the industrial era, then you need tariffs and you need other trade restrictions. sanders & trump agree on this point, to varying levels. clinton, however, is very soft on corporations.
changing the tax rates will accomplish nothing.
but, let us ask a different question: might we be better off moving beyond a job-based industrial society and instead working together to automate the factories, for local production, distribution and consumption?
Rafael Lopez
+Mike Stavenes
the problem is not them boycoting us (which would be ridiculous and yet funny at the same time) and yes they have a certain amount of control, who do you think sponsors presidential campaings. Not forgeting that it is private compannies that manage almost all of the production jobs in america, which don't depend on consumers to be here so they can still easily move to any country and still keep selling as much as they want in america. While most of us have no jobs, but can still buy thanks to wealthcare. I am not saying that all of them would leave but just a handful of factories leaving can cause a dent in the economy of a state, boycotting will serve as nothing more than anti promotion which would make them lose profit making more of their factories having to leave because they can't "afford" the work force here,(example: if people stop buying oreos, the oreo companny would lower production and with lowering the production they will start lowering the pay of the employes because they had a x number of employes ready to supply a high demand of oreos which they would split the profit to pay that x number of employes with, but because the demand has now lower and so did the profit....well in most cases employes would be fired or pay way less or factories would just move to a country were the work force is cheeper.) A companny that pays more for employes than the profit they actually make is shooting itself in the leg, that's why if the demand lowers so does the pay that goes into their work force, until it eventually closes down factories.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
but, trump has articulated support for tariffs - which increase the price of imported goods, thereby acting as a disincentive to offshore. that's what america needs to rebuild it's economy.
the issue with boycotting imported goods is that it's not likely to actually work. it's requesting that people ignore issues like prices. it's the kind of thing you hear from clueless hippies.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
Obama has been doing that and everyone hates him. What we need is to promote foreign trade, almost all of what we produce should be leaving and not staying. But in order to produce enough to compete even against China we need more factories, of course we are not going to treat our work force just as bad as the Chinese gov. treats theirs, so we need to at least offer cheaper promotion accross the globe and cheaper transportation of goods like our cargo ships, unfortunately ours charges a ton of money almost everyone avoids transport from us because of it. We even force our colonies to buy from them in order to keep it alive. I think we need to turn most of our navy ships into cargo ships so we can save up and deliver more goods to Europe, South America and China. Or we can negotiate with China so they can help us trade, a big world wide trading companny build by China and US would be unstopable, but then again that's just blind wishfull thinking.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
obama is a "free trade" zealot. his major legacy is the tpp, which is even worse than what exists right now.
you seem to be articulating a return to tory mercantilism. well, i'm not sure america, exactly, ever carried out that kind of economy - although it fought a revolution against it. the british built (and lost) an empire on it, though.
it's nineteenth century thinking. we need to get out of this game, where everybody loses, and just abolish private control of the means of production, already.
at
03:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
my impression of it is that it was essentially scrawled out on a napkin as a pr gimmick, and that you're not doing anybody any favours in implying it will mean a damned thing if he manages to win.
at
03:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)