|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
That is the reason I checked 3 times after voting to make sure I was not a registered Democrat. I work for those banks and they need to be regulated. Especially pay day lenders, who likely should just be illegal because they are garbage.
|
I wonder if Trump holds steady with ~33-35% of the total votes but due to delegate allocation ekes out a solid 40-45%+ of the delegates what the GOP will do.
|
I'm not very knowledgeable on that issue, but yeah, I'd definitely like to see someone else than Schultz leading the DNC. When is her term ending?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't know why these payday loans are not banned except for fear of worse alternatives.
the 'choice' word in the title of the bill should give a hint but it's just halfway to legalizing the choice of meth addiction.
|
On March 03 2016 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
i don't know why these payday loans are not banned except for fear of worse alternatives.
Freedom (tm)
The freedom to fuck yourself over is included.
|
On March 03 2016 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
i don't know why these payday loans are not banned except for fear of worse alternatives. Freedom (tm) The freedom to fuck yourself over is included.
Legalized usury through unsecuritized loans that are taken out by the lowest information people in the US. Literally praying on the poor and then pushing to be deregulated because “it prevents growth.” Like, no kidding, that is why the regulations exist, so you can’t expect your lending to people who can’t afford it.
This is the same bitching that credit card companies did when they were told they could market directly to college students any more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the popularity of these loans does reflect increased economic stress in meeting obligations incurred in 'wealthier' times or in the face of rising housing cost. florida is one of these economically stressed places so she may just be responding to some lower middle class people but the right way to resolve this issue is to raise the income and whatnot. it's really more efficient to increase housing grants and whatnot.
|
On March 03 2016 00:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 23:09 kwizach wrote:On March 02 2016 16:53 zeo wrote:
Sanders going though better than expected. Looking at those exit polls he is going to have a nice time once they get out of the southern states, he just might pull it off. On March 02 2016 22:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 20:19 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2016 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 17:48 Kipsate wrote:
Not neccesarily politics related but I find it hilarious how Bernie Sanders fanboys on Reddit/internet are now so desperate. I wonder what will happen to Reddit after Bernie Sanders is out, will they keep up their Hilary smear campaign?. Maybe ill finally be able to read something useful on that page.
Either way, who do you guys think theyl pick for VP respectively? Ignoring most of that... "desperate" how? Out of genuine curiosity. How do you think Sanders course for the nomination is looking now? Better or worse then before Super Tuesday. Well we've had a long view before going into super Tuesday. With that in mind, the results were about what was expected for the course. Short answer is that the course hasn't changed really. Mass. would of been nice and made it easier, it being essentially a tie didn't hurt though. Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. Massachusetts clearly hurt for Sanders, since he's overall way below his targets to reach the nomination. See 538 and how he should have performed tonight, taking into account the states where he's favored down the road. It might not be obvious when you look at the states since 4-7 might seem like an OK defeat for Sanders, but overall Clinton has pretty much mounted a delegate lead he has little hope of erasing. See this re-cap on 538. Let not pretend the 2 delegate difference between winning MA and losing by less than 2% is a big deal. As for 538, this hasn't really been their election and Harry has a vested interest in Hillary winning, as that's what he's been saying pretty much the whole time (at least as far back as 2013 really). What leaps out to me is how he marginalizes MN and neglects to mention Sanders did win by a bigger margin than NH. He also doesn't mention that she's lost lots of white voters she had vs Obama. Which doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. He also doesn't mention money or ground game at all which both favor Sanders as his rallies in later states generated large volunteer lists and sparked self-sufficient organizations in states Hillary hasn't even looked at (presuming she would have the nomination by mid March at the latest). Hillary is still the favorite, but folks trying to make Sanders supporters give up seem not to understand what's driving us. It feels eerily similar to Trump except Bernie didn't start with near 100% name recognition, non-stop coverage (people still don't get why this helped Trump) and the dissatisfaction level within the party with "the establishment". Bernie shouldn't have even been able to get this far by any estimate before December, that he has and wasn't a "Ron Paul" is precisely because of the parts of his campaign that folks like Harry don't understand because there isn't a comparable situation with data he can use to predict it and for Hillary supporters because they are relying on people like Harry. He's making an unnecessarily inflated case for Hillary imo. I could speculate on why, but I don't think it matters. The point is that to meet his targets, Sanders should have won Massachusetts by a sizable margin. Not only did he not win it by that kind of margin, but he actually lost the state entirely. That was clearly a blow to his campaign. With regards to Minnesota, Sanders actually fell short of his target again, by one delegate (while Clinton exceeded hers by one delegate). You can look at a detailed table displaying this here (you have to scroll down a bit). You can attack the messenger all you want, but the math is there. The point is not to make you give up, but to tell the truth about the state of the race (also, Sanders does not even remotely have the kind of appeal across demographics that Trump has).
Let's not pretend the messenger doesn't play a role. Nate Silver himself tried to explain away Trump for months before he finally put out the exasperated tweet about being completely wrong. The targets are a nice general guide but it's not the mathematic Rosetta Stone for the election that some may really want it to be.
If Sanders gets 30-40% of Black/Hispanic voters in some states that changes a lot. It's not going to be easy, but it wasn't easy going from 5% to 50% nationally either (folks were just as confident that wouldn't happen too).
He's about 100 behind where it says he should be. That's not as insurmountable as you would like to make it sound, particularly if Hillary continues to lose support with minorities (remember Sanders started in the single digits with black and Hispanic voters).
|
On March 03 2016 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 00:25 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 23:09 kwizach wrote:On March 02 2016 16:53 zeo wrote:
Sanders going though better than expected. Looking at those exit polls he is going to have a nice time once they get out of the southern states, he just might pull it off. On March 02 2016 22:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 20:19 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2016 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 17:48 Kipsate wrote:
Not neccesarily politics related but I find it hilarious how Bernie Sanders fanboys on Reddit/internet are now so desperate. I wonder what will happen to Reddit after Bernie Sanders is out, will they keep up their Hilary smear campaign?. Maybe ill finally be able to read something useful on that page.
Either way, who do you guys think theyl pick for VP respectively? Ignoring most of that... "desperate" how? Out of genuine curiosity. How do you think Sanders course for the nomination is looking now? Better or worse then before Super Tuesday. Well we've had a long view before going into super Tuesday. With that in mind, the results were about what was expected for the course. Short answer is that the course hasn't changed really. Mass. would of been nice and made it easier, it being essentially a tie didn't hurt though. Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. Massachusetts clearly hurt for Sanders, since he's overall way below his targets to reach the nomination. See 538 and how he should have performed tonight, taking into account the states where he's favored down the road. It might not be obvious when you look at the states since 4-7 might seem like an OK defeat for Sanders, but overall Clinton has pretty much mounted a delegate lead he has little hope of erasing. See this re-cap on 538. Let not pretend the 2 delegate difference between winning MA and losing by less than 2% is a big deal. As for 538, this hasn't really been their election and Harry has a vested interest in Hillary winning, as that's what he's been saying pretty much the whole time (at least as far back as 2013 really). What leaps out to me is how he marginalizes MN and neglects to mention Sanders did win by a bigger margin than NH. He also doesn't mention that she's lost lots of white voters she had vs Obama. Which doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. He also doesn't mention money or ground game at all which both favor Sanders as his rallies in later states generated large volunteer lists and sparked self-sufficient organizations in states Hillary hasn't even looked at (presuming she would have the nomination by mid March at the latest). Hillary is still the favorite, but folks trying to make Sanders supporters give up seem not to understand what's driving us. It feels eerily similar to Trump except Bernie didn't start with near 100% name recognition, non-stop coverage (people still don't get why this helped Trump) and the dissatisfaction level within the party with "the establishment". Bernie shouldn't have even been able to get this far by any estimate before December, that he has and wasn't a "Ron Paul" is precisely because of the parts of his campaign that folks like Harry don't understand because there isn't a comparable situation with data he can use to predict it and for Hillary supporters because they are relying on people like Harry. He's making an unnecessarily inflated case for Hillary imo. I could speculate on why, but I don't think it matters. The point is that to meet his targets, Sanders should have won Massachusetts by a sizable margin. Not only did he not win it by that kind of margin, but he actually lost the state entirely. That was clearly a blow to his campaign. With regards to Minnesota, Sanders actually fell short of his target again, by one delegate (while Clinton exceeded hers by one delegate). You can look at a detailed table displaying this here (you have to scroll down a bit). You can attack the messenger all you want, but the math is there. The point is not to make you give up, but to tell the truth about the state of the race (also, Sanders does not even remotely have the kind of appeal across demographics that Trump has). Let's not pretend the messenger doesn't play a role. Nate Silver himself tried to explain away Trump for months before he finally put out the exasperated tweet about being completely wrong. The targets are a nice general guide but it's not the mathematic Rosetta Stone for the election that some may really want it to be. If Sanders gets 30-40% of Black/Hispanic voters in some states that changes a lot. It's not going to be easy, but it wasn't easy going from 5% to 50% nationally either (folks were just as confident that wouldn't happen too). He's about 100 behind where it says he should be. That's not as insurmountable as you would like to make it sound, particularly if Hillary continues to lose support with minorities (remember Sanders started in the single digits with black and Hispanic voters).
Where is he going to make up ground?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's incredibly difficult for sanders unless hillary has some unexpected catastrophe.
moreover, it is instrumental for sanders and hillary to work together to craft a coalition with enthusiasm. if sanders or his followers persists in this 'rather trump than hillary!!' idiocy they are simply what i said, more interested in protest than governance.
regardless of their policy position i'd never feel good handing either a national campaign or the federal government over to people without political common sense. the amount of reckless shit sandernistas could do is seemingly unlimited.
|
On March 03 2016 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 00:25 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 23:09 kwizach wrote:On March 02 2016 16:53 zeo wrote:
Sanders going though better than expected. Looking at those exit polls he is going to have a nice time once they get out of the southern states, he just might pull it off. On March 02 2016 22:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 20:19 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2016 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 17:48 Kipsate wrote:
Not neccesarily politics related but I find it hilarious how Bernie Sanders fanboys on Reddit/internet are now so desperate. I wonder what will happen to Reddit after Bernie Sanders is out, will they keep up their Hilary smear campaign?. Maybe ill finally be able to read something useful on that page.
Either way, who do you guys think theyl pick for VP respectively? Ignoring most of that... "desperate" how? Out of genuine curiosity. How do you think Sanders course for the nomination is looking now? Better or worse then before Super Tuesday. Well we've had a long view before going into super Tuesday. With that in mind, the results were about what was expected for the course. Short answer is that the course hasn't changed really. Mass. would of been nice and made it easier, it being essentially a tie didn't hurt though. Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. Massachusetts clearly hurt for Sanders, since he's overall way below his targets to reach the nomination. See 538 and how he should have performed tonight, taking into account the states where he's favored down the road. It might not be obvious when you look at the states since 4-7 might seem like an OK defeat for Sanders, but overall Clinton has pretty much mounted a delegate lead he has little hope of erasing. See this re-cap on 538. Let not pretend the 2 delegate difference between winning MA and losing by less than 2% is a big deal. As for 538, this hasn't really been their election and Harry has a vested interest in Hillary winning, as that's what he's been saying pretty much the whole time (at least as far back as 2013 really). What leaps out to me is how he marginalizes MN and neglects to mention Sanders did win by a bigger margin than NH. He also doesn't mention that she's lost lots of white voters she had vs Obama. Which doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. He also doesn't mention money or ground game at all which both favor Sanders as his rallies in later states generated large volunteer lists and sparked self-sufficient organizations in states Hillary hasn't even looked at (presuming she would have the nomination by mid March at the latest). Hillary is still the favorite, but folks trying to make Sanders supporters give up seem not to understand what's driving us. It feels eerily similar to Trump except Bernie didn't start with near 100% name recognition, non-stop coverage (people still don't get why this helped Trump) and the dissatisfaction level within the party with "the establishment". Bernie shouldn't have even been able to get this far by any estimate before December, that he has and wasn't a "Ron Paul" is precisely because of the parts of his campaign that folks like Harry don't understand because there isn't a comparable situation with data he can use to predict it and for Hillary supporters because they are relying on people like Harry. He's making an unnecessarily inflated case for Hillary imo. I could speculate on why, but I don't think it matters. The point is that to meet his targets, Sanders should have won Massachusetts by a sizable margin. Not only did he not win it by that kind of margin, but he actually lost the state entirely. That was clearly a blow to his campaign. With regards to Minnesota, Sanders actually fell short of his target again, by one delegate (while Clinton exceeded hers by one delegate). You can look at a detailed table displaying this here (you have to scroll down a bit). You can attack the messenger all you want, but the math is there. The point is not to make you give up, but to tell the truth about the state of the race (also, Sanders does not even remotely have the kind of appeal across demographics that Trump has). Let's not pretend the messenger doesn't play a role. Nate Silver himself tried to explain away Trump for months before he finally put out the exasperated tweet about being completely wrong. The targets are a nice general guide but it's not the mathematic Rosetta Stone for the election that some may really want it to be. If Sanders gets 30-40% of Black/Hispanic voters in some states that changes a lot. It's not going to be easy, but it wasn't easy going from 5% to 50% nationally either (folks were just as confident that wouldn't happen too). He's about 100 behind where it says he should be. That's not as insurmountable as you would like to make it sound, particularly if Hillary continues to lose support with minorities (remember Sanders started in the single digits with black and Hispanic voters).
The messenger is playing no role in that analysis. Sanders is clearly losing more and more ground, and he is not performing well with the demographics he needs to be performing well with beyond his base. Clinton, meanwhile, has decidedly reasserted herself as the frontrunner and is showing great numbers pretty much everywhere she needs them to be good. It is virtually certain she will be the nominee.
I'm still happy Sanders won, for his positive influence on the political dialog. I would have liked him to withdraw now already, but he should wait no longer than the next big Hillary states (Florida at the latest). At that point, by attacking Clinton he will only be hurting the Democrats' chances in November. He should make a deal with her, and support her enthusiastically in the general election.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2016 19:59 zeo wrote:The elephant in the room ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t4Lu5DX.png)
It was just pointed out to me that the context of this is incredibly important. It's meant to show that the GOP is more energized this year.
The context is that in 2008, the Democrat Super Tuesday included California and New York. 2016 did not.
|
On March 03 2016 01:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 00:25 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 23:09 kwizach wrote:On March 02 2016 16:53 zeo wrote:
Sanders going though better than expected. Looking at those exit polls he is going to have a nice time once they get out of the southern states, he just might pull it off. On March 02 2016 22:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 20:19 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2016 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2016 17:48 Kipsate wrote:
Not neccesarily politics related but I find it hilarious how Bernie Sanders fanboys on Reddit/internet are now so desperate. I wonder what will happen to Reddit after Bernie Sanders is out, will they keep up their Hilary smear campaign?. Maybe ill finally be able to read something useful on that page.
Either way, who do you guys think theyl pick for VP respectively? Ignoring most of that... "desperate" how? Out of genuine curiosity. How do you think Sanders course for the nomination is looking now? Better or worse then before Super Tuesday. Well we've had a long view before going into super Tuesday. With that in mind, the results were about what was expected for the course. Short answer is that the course hasn't changed really. Mass. would of been nice and made it easier, it being essentially a tie didn't hurt though. Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. Massachusetts clearly hurt for Sanders, since he's overall way below his targets to reach the nomination. See 538 and how he should have performed tonight, taking into account the states where he's favored down the road. It might not be obvious when you look at the states since 4-7 might seem like an OK defeat for Sanders, but overall Clinton has pretty much mounted a delegate lead he has little hope of erasing. See this re-cap on 538. Let not pretend the 2 delegate difference between winning MA and losing by less than 2% is a big deal. As for 538, this hasn't really been their election and Harry has a vested interest in Hillary winning, as that's what he's been saying pretty much the whole time (at least as far back as 2013 really). What leaps out to me is how he marginalizes MN and neglects to mention Sanders did win by a bigger margin than NH. He also doesn't mention that she's lost lots of white voters she had vs Obama. Which doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. He also doesn't mention money or ground game at all which both favor Sanders as his rallies in later states generated large volunteer lists and sparked self-sufficient organizations in states Hillary hasn't even looked at (presuming she would have the nomination by mid March at the latest). Hillary is still the favorite, but folks trying to make Sanders supporters give up seem not to understand what's driving us. It feels eerily similar to Drumpf except Bernie didn't start with near 100% name recognition, non-stop coverage (people still don't get why this helped Drumpf) and the dissatisfaction level within the party with "the establishment". Bernie shouldn't have even been able to get this far by any estimate before December, that he has and wasn't a "Ron Paul" is precisely because of the parts of his campaign that folks like Harry don't understand because there isn't a comparable situation with data he can use to predict it and for Hillary supporters because they are relying on people like Harry. He's making an unnecessarily inflated case for Hillary imo. I could speculate on why, but I don't think it matters. The point is that to meet his targets, Sanders should have won Massachusetts by a sizable margin. Not only did he not win it by that kind of margin, but he actually lost the state entirely. That was clearly a blow to his campaign. With regards to Minnesota, Sanders actually fell short of his target again, by one delegate (while Clinton exceeded hers by one delegate). You can look at a detailed table displaying this here (you have to scroll down a bit). You can attack the messenger all you want, but the math is there. The point is not to make you give up, but to tell the truth about the state of the race (also, Sanders does not even remotely have the kind of appeal across demographics that Drumpf has). Let's not pretend the messenger doesn't play a role. Nate Silver himself tried to explain away Drumpf for months before he finally put out the exasperated tweet about being completely wrong. The targets are a nice general guide but it's not the mathematic Rosetta Stone for the election that some may really want it to be. If Sanders gets 30-40% of Black/Hispanic voters in some states that changes a lot. It's not going to be easy, but it wasn't easy going from 5% to 50% nationally either (folks were just as confident that wouldn't happen too). He's about 100 behind where it says he should be. That's not as insurmountable as you would like to make it sound, particularly if Hillary continues to lose support with minorities (remember Sanders started in the single digits with black and Hispanic voters). The messenger is playing no role in that analysis. Sanders is clearly losing more and more ground, and he is not performing well with the demographics he needs to be performing well with beyond his base. Clinton, meanwhile, has decidedly reasserted herself as the frontrunner and is showing great numbers pretty much everywhere she needs them to be good. It is virtually certain she will be the nominee. I'm still happy Sanders won, for his positive influence on the political dialog. I would have liked him to withdraw now already, but he should wait no longer than the next big Hillary states (Florida at the latest). At that point, by attacking Clinton he will only be hurting the Democrats' chances in November. He should make a deal with her, and support her enthusiastically in the general election.
I think the biggest issue for Sanders is that turnout has not been especially large.
The best argument for his candidacy was that he would be able to cause a political revolution by bringing unprecedented numbers of new voters to the polls. This simply hasn't been happening.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^exactly right. sanders enthusiasm seems to be rather isolated to a few states and really college towns.
in mass. boston area went for hillary by a wide margin while the more rural places went for sanders. the suburbs were evenly split. seems like the redditors are not going to the polls
|
On March 03 2016 01:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2016 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
i don't know why these payday loans are not banned except for fear of worse alternatives. Freedom (tm) The freedom to fuck yourself over is included. Legalized usury through unsecuritized loans that are taken out by the lowest information people in the US. Literally praying on the poor and then pushing to be deregulated because “it prevents growth.” Like, no kidding, that is why the regulations exist, so you can’t expect your lending to people who can’t afford it. This is the same bitching that credit card companies did when they were told they could market directly to college students any more.
That's one of many reasons why I support the guy who's been openly and consistently against that kind of nonsense for years.
|
Even if all the redditors go to the polls, they are not a large number of people. The Sanders subreddit is 200K subscribers in total. But that is world wide, many of them might not be able to vote. Reddit is not reflective of reality in any way, only of people that use reddit.
On March 03 2016 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 01:06 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2016 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
i don't know why these payday loans are not banned except for fear of worse alternatives. Freedom (tm) The freedom to fuck yourself over is included. Legalized usury through unsecuritized loans that are taken out by the lowest information people in the US. Literally praying on the poor and then pushing to be deregulated because “it prevents growth.” Like, no kidding, that is why the regulations exist, so you can’t expect your lending to people who can’t afford it. This is the same bitching that credit card companies did when they were told they could market directly to college students any more. That's one of many reasons why I support the guy who's been openly and consistently against that kind of nonsense for years.
That is fine. I support him too. My senator is also against this type of lending. But I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face if Hilary is soft on this issue. I have Warren for that.
|
Norway28706 Posts
On March 03 2016 01:25 Jibba wrote:It was just pointed out to me that the context of this is incredibly important. It's meant to show that the GOP is more energized this year. The context is that in 2008, the Democrat Super Tuesday included California and New York. 2016 did not.
That does indeed make a massive difference and probably entirely explains the difference in the democratic vote, thanks for pointing that out. However, is there any similar explanation for the GOP surge, or is that all just them being energized? Edit: noticing that Texas wasn't part of 2008, I assume that could explain quite some of the difference, but not all of it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im having a lot of fun with the mass. exit polls
some choice nuggets,
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 03 2016 01:25 Jibba wrote:It was just pointed out to me that the context of this is incredibly important. It's meant to show that the GOP is more energized this year. The context is that in 2008, the Democrat Super Tuesday included California and New York. 2016 did not.
NBC News is showing otherwise.
But back in 2008, about 8.2 million votes were cast in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the same nine states. On the GOP side, it was just about five million.
The high GOP participation on Tuesday echoes a pattern seen in the first four nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — where Republican turnout has been higher and Democratic turnout lower than past years.
|
This backs ups every interaction with Sanders supporters I have had in the past months. One tried to lecture me on being to pro-establishment, but could name his house rep or his senators. And didn’t know what state Sanders was a senator for.
Edit: Remember that how close the race is has a lot to do with turn out. The Republican race was much closer and people really didn't' know what was going to happen. Clinton and Obama was a full on knife fight right up until the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gD1fDkI.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IVqheeE.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c305j7b.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xvoGLdQ.png)
