EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3439
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote: If the American people were politically open to the idea of the NHS then there is absolutely no reason why it could not be implemented and be very effective. By far the biggest problem with America is that it's full of fucking Americans. This sums up a lot of problems in the US. We have a large section of voters who will oppose something simply because the EU does it or they believe it is "unAmerican". We also have an obsession with the Free Market to solve problems that it could never really solve. Americans have the natural fear of goverment, but for some reason do not extend that fear to large buisnesses. Case and point. We fear surveillance, but love Iphones. We are against the government regulating the internet, but all hate Comcast. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13910 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:45 puerk wrote: Time for explorers with unknown pathogens and plagues to arrive at their coasts again? A German is probably the last person who should be making a joke about genocide. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote: If the American people were politically open to the idea of the NHS then there is absolutely no reason why it could not be implemented and be very effective. By far the biggest problem with America is that it's full of fucking Americans. If we were all British, we would be British not American. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The idea of the NHS in the US requires so many hypotheticals that I'm not sure where to even begin. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote: If the American people were politically open to the idea of the NHS then there is absolutely no reason why it could not be implemented and be very effective. By far the biggest problem with America is that it's full of fucking Americans. Because there's no such thing as laws that protect reasonable expectations of companies that have made investments into the health market. But, hey, if you swear loud enough, maybe they'll magically disappear. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:51 Sermokala wrote: A German is probably the last person who should be making a joke about genocide. Nah, I think we are tied. What Germany has in quality, we have in consistency over an extended period of time. We both suck pretty bad. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote: Nah, I think we are tied. What Germany has in quality, we have in consistency over an extended period of time. We both suck pretty bad. At least Israel exists. All native americans have is alcoholism. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10696 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
But clearly the maths have been screwy in AZ... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wRwP5b9.jpg) Some sites saying 99%+ in and others saying ~79% Plus, as I said last night, they floated at 71% for hours before adding more than 30k votes and reducing the "vote in" from 71% to 70% | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 23 2016 19:50 Soularion wrote: Hmm. Well. Across the entire week - therefor including Democrats Abroad - Sanders actually holds onto about a ~55% delegate lead as of right now. That's not quite what he wanted, but if he were to significantly overperform in Washington to the degree that he did in Idaho/Utah then this race is going to New York quite evenly. If he would've won Arizona, it would've been a /huge/ night for him. This post, and your other following messages, left me a bit puzzled. Here are 538's numbers for the delegates Bernie won this week compared to his targets Democrats Abroad 9/6.5 Arizona 29/41 Idaho 18/14 Utah 27/19 If you add all four, you get: 83/80,5, or a net gain of 2,5 delegates above his target. If the race was starting today, that'd be great! The problem is that the race started a while ago, and that even taking these numbers into account, Bernie is 120 delegates below his target to win the nomination, while Hillary is 119 delegates above her target (this is a more meaningful number than the 304 delegates separating the two overall, because it takes into account who's favored in the contests still remaining). This week was therefore not a good week for Bernie if his objective is to get the nomination, since netting barely more delegates than his original targets is terribly insufficient to catch up in time (since he was already considerably below his target). He's actually in a worse position now than he was last week, since he now has to catch up by even bigger margins than last week. With regards to the long lines, another poster addressed why it's utterly ridiculous to try to pin this on Hillary. The situation was the same for both parties, and if someone lost votes because of it there's a good chance it was Hillary due to the age of their respective supporters and the fact that it got called for Hillary early. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15677 Posts
On March 24 2016 02:00 Naracs_Duc wrote: At least Israel exists. All native americans have is alcoholism. This got dark pretty quick. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 24 2016 02:00 Naracs_Duc wrote: At least Israel exists. All native americans have is alcoholism. The sooner we accept that all our nations are garbage, the sooner we can move on to better, more productive topics. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:17 IgnE wrote: Wait so TPP is going to rein in international capital? Let's get this down for posterity. for your lack of reading ability? im talking about international taxation. no nation state can tax international capital on its own, even the u.s. it requires cooperative structure by eu and us mostly. tpp is going to help with regulation arbitrage. it will bring environmental and labor rights into places that do not recognize them. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 24 2016 02:04 kwizach wrote: This post, and your other following messages, left me a bit puzzled. Here are 538's numbers for the delegates Bernie won this week compared to his targets Democrats Abroad 9/6.5 Arizona 29/41 Idaho 18/14 Utah 27/19 If you add all four, you get: 83/80,5, or a net gain of 2,5 delegates above his target. If the race was starting today, that'd be great! The problem is that the race started a while ago, and that even taking these numbers into account, Bernie is 120 delegates below his target to win the nomination, while Hillary is 119 delegates above her target (this is a more meaningful number than the 304 delegates separating the two overall, because it takes into account who's favored in the contests still remaining). This week was therefore not a good week for Bernie if his objective is to get the nomination, since netting barely more delegates than his original targets is terribly insufficient to catch up in time (since he was already considerably below his target). He's actually in a worse position now than he was last week, since he now has to catch up by even bigger margins than last week. With regards to the long lines, another poster addressed why it's utterly ridiculous to try to pin this on Hillary. The situation was the same for both parties, and if someone lost votes because of it there's a good chance it was Hillary due to the age of their respective supporters and the fact that it got called for Hillary early. I think he's right though, Sanders needs to get around 58% of the remaining delegates (538 figure). So far, he's roughly on target. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
With regards to the long lines, another poster addressed why it's utterly ridiculous to try to pin this on Hillary. The situation was the same for both parties, and if someone lost votes because of it there's a good chance it was Hillary due to the age of their respective supporters and the fact that it got called for Hillary early. Yet it didn't even strike her as something that should be mentioned as a problem... As for those thinking delegates in AZ are settled...Might want to wait until the votes are counted... + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XGDdZr1.jpg) | ||
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Because there's no such thing as laws that protect reasonable expectations of companies that have made investments into the health market. But, hey, if you swear loud enough, maybe they'll magically disappear. There is no law that mandates that a company must make a profit. If your fear is the nationalization of private assets through forced purchases then you should have no fear, I'm certain that the current owners will be generously compensated. If your fear is that private businesses will be driven under by competition from a subsidized public option, well, who the hell cares. Nobody has a right to a protected market share. Either way, private hospitals and schools do well enough working in parallel with public options where they exist. When you invest money you do so with an awareness that you operate in a world outside your control, that investments carry risk and that you should take that risk into account when planning your investment. Political risk is absolutely already taken into account by anyone investing in the healthcare sector and you'd be naive not to think so. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10696 Posts
You see problems, that aren't really problems. Profits would probably shrink, but "Healthcare" is a giant market were you still can earn tons just by being more effective than others (and have guaranteed pay when it comes to treatments covered by the mandatory insurance, a bonus not many other industries have). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the fairly rich baby boomers can have the bloated private options. but looking at healthcare as a public good with positive health impact, that impact can be delivered by a better run va style system. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Soularion
Canada2764 Posts
On March 24 2016 02:04 kwizach wrote: This post, and your other following messages, left me a bit puzzled. Here are 538's numbers for the delegates Bernie won this week compared to his targets Democrats Abroad 9/6.5 Arizona 29/41 Idaho 18/14 Utah 27/19 If you add all four, you get: 83/80,5, or a net gain of 2,5 delegates above his target. If the race was starting today, that'd be great! The problem is that the race started a while ago, and that even taking these numbers into account, Bernie is 120 delegates below his target to win the nomination, while Hillary is 119 delegates above her target (this is a more meaningful number than the 304 delegates separating the two overall, because it takes into account who's favored in the contests still remaining). This week was therefore not a good week for Bernie if his objective is to get the nomination, since netting barely more delegates than his original targets is terribly insufficient to catch up in time (since he was already considerably below his target). He's actually in a worse position now than he was last week, since he now has to catch up by even bigger margins than last week. With regards to the long lines, another poster addressed why it's utterly ridiculous to try to pin this on Hillary. The situation was the same for both parties, and if someone lost votes because of it there's a good chance it was Hillary due to the age of their respective supporters and the fact that it got called for Hillary early. Okay, I think we have the same overall opinion but you don't quite understand. What point are you making? What I got from your post is the following. - Bernie is very, very behind. (Understood, and not contradictory to any of my points because this is the context they're made in.) - Bernie 'lost' the day. (Agreed- if you look at the point of my post, it's that he won about ~55% of the delegates this week when the general thought is that he had to win ~58% from March 16 until after California in order to secure the nomination. Although he did well relative to the polls it still wasn't quite what he wanted as he continued to fall short, albeit not in a big enough way that he's in major danger of being eliminated before NY). - Bernie did not have a good week. (Agreed, although I'd say he had an above average week. It's just that the 'average' here is bad, so it fell into a mediocre-meh week instead of something he actually needed. A point I made in my post is that if he would've won Arizona that would've been a gigantic and important win for him and made this week immensely huge- which I believe is supported by facts as he would've been something like ~10 points above his target depending on how hard of a victory, plus the momentum from outperforming polls so hard.) - Long lines being pinned on Hillary. (Entirely agreed, that's what my post was based on, I just found the situation's suspicion to be worthy of investigation no matter who benefits because that's what democracy is.) So, what point are you trying to make? Because the points I've consistently made is that today and the general state of the election over March points to Bernie continuing to be around where he should be although not quite *good* until NY, at which point if he wins he's in a good spot going forward with a ton of momentum and if he loses sizeably he's dead in the water. Of course NY is a very likely loss for him, which isn't something I've ever denied. | ||
| ||
