In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 23 2015 07:09 KwarK wrote: I think this is being massively overthought and engineered. Yeah, special custom tech 5000 ft up in the air anchored solar powered wifi hotspot superballoons will be an issue to create, maintain and operate. But the basic garden variety motion sensitive wildlife cams with a solar cell have been around forever, you can get them on Amazon for less than a hundred bucks.
5000 feet is almost a mile straight up. That is over two times the tallest building built in the world. Your are grossly underestimating the the quality of equipment need for what you want. And the higher it goes. the more the cable weights that you need to pull it down.
I'm not the one who wanted to put them that high. Hell, I'd put them at like 30ft. You wanted to put them at 5000ft and I'm arguing that that's overengineered. Now you're agreeing with me that your plan is dumb and pretending that it's my plan.
30 feet? Why is it even a balloon? Now you're suggesting we use balloons over poles? And the height is want makes things like drones work. Without it, it's a traffic camera.
@xdaunt. That's an interesting article, but it matches some of the things I've been noticing as well- in the debates he has defended single-payer healthcare and graduated income tax- something you don't hear from any Republican candidate in recent memory (or at least from I can recall.) It was an odd experience finding myself agreeing with him on those occasions. I tell you this, were I American and it was Clinton v Trump, and there was a chance I'd get a repealed Obamcare replaced with single-payer healthcare, I'd certainly vote Trump no matter how much I dislike his bombastic nature. They say of Nixon, only a Republican could go to China, maybe the same is true of single-payer healthcare.
On September 23 2015 11:55 Falling wrote: @xdaunt. That's an interesting article, but it matches some of the things I've been noticing as well- in the debates he has defended single-payer healthcare and graduated income tax- something you don't hear from any Republican candidate in recent memory (or at least from I can recall.) It was an odd experience finding myself agreeing with him on those occasions. I tell you this, were I American and it was Clinton v Trump, and there was a chance I'd get a repealed Obamcare replaced with single-payer healthcare, I'd certainly vote Trump no matter how much I dislike his bombastic nature.
Exactly, and it's sentiments like this that make me think that he would do far better than expected in the general election. Trump is a populist first and foremost, and populism isn't bound by party lines. Like I have said previously, he has arrived at potentially the right point in history to preach the message of "fuck the political establishment." The republican base sure as shit is ripe as can be for someone like Trump to swoop in, and I don't think that democrats are too far behind (see Bernie Sanders).
Who'd of thunk it after 50+ votes to repeal/undermine the ACA, we could very well be looking at a Trump vs Sanders election with both candidates supporting single payer...
trump's populism is very dangerous, and that's why i've sort of moved off the hillary bandwagon. someone like biden is probably better up against trump.
On September 23 2015 12:49 oneofthem wrote: sanders has no shot.
trump's populism is very dangerous, and that's why i've sort of moved off the hillary bandwagon. someone like biden is probably better up against trump.
if only bloomberg runs.
Lol yeah lets go with the guy with half the support of Sanders he's got a way better shot...Joe will start day one dependent on superPAC money, why support that?
i don't think that's realistic. trump's current style is tailored to the gop base and he'll be able to put on a new face after that is over.
sanders is a true believer type that is inflexible enough to take that on.
the economy in 2016 should be decent to good, at least for the skilled workers. i don't think sander's message would resonate that strongly in that environment
What. Did Jeb Bush just say that we should not have a multicultural society? Do you even America bro? I question his use of wording, his overall understanding of what culture is, and the historical context of the US as it has developed.
I honestly think Biden is the dems best chance this year. America won't elect a self-declared socialist and Hillary has just been a series of implosions. I was anticipating a GOP victory going into 2016, and this weak crop is just going to make it easier for the republicans.
On September 23 2015 13:45 Slaughter wrote: What. Did Jeb Bush just say that we should not have a multicultural society? Do you even America bro? I question his use of wording, his overall understanding of what culture is, and the historical context of the US as it has developed.
Read the actual transcript of his statements if you're curious. He actually stated (in response to a question about refugees) that it it is undesirable to have immigrants create insular pockets for their own people and not integrate. In response to the same question Bush supported the US aiding refugees and immigrants with integration (legally).
On September 23 2015 13:45 Slaughter wrote: What. Did Jeb Bush just say that we should not have a multicultural society? Do you even America bro? I question his use of wording, his overall understanding of what culture is, and the historical context of the US as it has developed.
Read the actual transcript of his statements if you're curious. He actually stated (in response to a question about refugees) that it it is undesirable to have immigrants create insular pockets for their own people and not integrate. In response to the same question Bush supported the US aiding refugees and immigrants with integration (legally).
I did but a lot of what he said isn't the same thing as not having a multicultural society. Some of it was reasonable and some it of sounded a bit like he was telling everyone to be more like white people in a round a bout way.
Health care costs continue to rise, and workers are shouldering more of the burden.
The big reason? Skyrocketing deductibles.
More companies are adding deductibles to the insurance plans they offer their employees. And for those who already had to pay deductibles, the out-of-pocket outlays are growing.
Together that means that the average worker has to pay $1,077 before their health plan will cover any medical expenses, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Health Research and Education Trust. That's a 67 percent increase in five years.
The higher deductibles — combined with more modest but consistent increases in premiums — mean health cost for consumers are growing faster than income, and taking an ever larger bite out of household budgets.
"Deductibles have been going up so much faster than wages, almost seven times faster than wages," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "When out-of-pocket costs are going up at a time when wages are flat, the pain level is still pretty high."
He said higher deductibles are particularly difficult for people with chronic illnesses. "They may not get the health care they need if they have a very big deductible," he said.
Nearly 2,000 employers were surveyed during the first half of 2015 about their health insurance benefits. The survey found that premiums rose about 4 percent. The average premium for family coverage obtained on the job is $17,545 annually, or $1,462 a month, the survey found.
The rise in 2015 continued a decade-long trend of relatively modest premium increases. Prior to 2005, insurance rates were rising at double-digit rates each year.
On September 23 2015 13:11 oneofthem wrote: i don't see sanders winning a general election at all.
If Sanders actually makes it to the general election, he has a fantastic shot at winning.
His problem is getting there. He has almost no realistic shot at beating Hillary. However, if he can, I don't see how he could be beaten.
you don't see how a socialist in america can be beaten? ive got some news for you
The people who fall for the "he's a socialist" wouldn't be voting dem anyway. Everyone on the left is a socialist according to those folks.
Sanders won't get into a back and forth of name calling and most of America is ready for the name calling to end and to get down to real issues.
That Trump has nothing beyond "I'll be the best/ I'm a big ____ guy/They are stupid" only ensures he doesn't have a chance in a real heads up debate where you have to have real substance.
Like we covered, the single most "socialist" thing he wants to do the leading contender for the Republicans supports also.
One thing I've learned about this forum is that they couldn't be much more out of touch with actual voters. Hell Sanders is in second place among Republican voters in Vermont. I've personally read dozens of stories and there are thousands out there of Republicans who see past the "socialist" crap and support Bernie, the rest of America will too eventually.
Provided he made it to the nomination, I think even as a self-declared socialist Sanders would have a decent (> 50%) shot at beating:
Carson (I didn't know you could gaffe more than Biden but this man puts his foot in his mouth about as often as he eats a meal, imagine him getting half the time in a debate) Fiorina (she thrives on conservative crowds and would disintegrate in a debate setting I think, half the things she said in the last debate were rehearsed speeches) Rubio (Hispanic Paul Ryan is going to be just as ineffectual as Paul Ryan, maybe minus forcing his way into soup kitchens for photo ops then leaving)
I would give him between 50% and 40% chances against:
Trump (because if Trump somehow secures the nation we live in a universe where anything can happen and political parties have absolutely zero power over themselves) Cruz (maybe? he's a pretty unknown factor to me) Kasich (also pretty unknown)
I would give him pretty poor chances against:
Bush (there's a reason he is the favorite to secure the Republican nomination on betting sites right now, and it's because he is a pretty efficient politician, he's like Romney but would actually look at polls that don't show him in the lead) Christie (this is a tough one. He might fall in the second category or he might not if he can pull himself together in the general)
Note that these are all contingent on him securing the nomination, which would skyrocket his name recognition and will require him to shore up his support outside the core demo of young white men.
trump may be a troll right now but if he wins the nomination he'll have more organization and material.
some of you guys seem to be wishy washy about the state of politics in order to believe in the legitimacy of a far left candidate.
btw i do like some of sanders' platform particularly the infrastructure and education investment plan. but i don't think pushing for these policy objectives necessarily involves having him as the candidate.
On September 23 2015 13:27 oneofthem wrote: i don't think that's realistic. trump's current style is tailored to the gop base and he'll be able to put on a new face after that is over.
sanders is a true believer type that is inflexible enough to take that on.
the economy in 2016 should be decent to good, at least for the skilled workers. i don't think sander's message would resonate that strongly in that environment
Very real possibility that the economy hits the shitter before elections.
EPT
