|
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. |
On May 03 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote: I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. People like to point to superdelegates, but our goddess is winning even without them. The irony is that Sanders is building his entire strategy around somehow convincing super delegates to defy democracy. Imagine that, he's not the swell guys he memed himself out to be.
The guy his meme talks about is Trump The guy he actually is is the memes his supporters make of hilary.
|
Donald Trump leads his GOP presidential rivals by 34 points in California ahead of the state's primary on June 7, according to a poll released Monday. Trump is at 54 percent support, followed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 20 percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 16 percent, according to the SurveyUSA poll published by ABC7.
All three candidates spoke at the state GOP convention over the weekend, and California is the final major state with delegates needed to secure the GOP nomination up for grabs. Trump and Cruz are campaigning in Indiana on the eve of that state's primary. Trump's rivals look to deny him delegates and hope to force a contested Republican National Convention in July. But should Trump lock up the GOP nomination, he would face an uphill battle against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in California, according to the poll.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sanders evolution into this spiteful negative campaign is entirely expected given the temperament and factual beliefs of the part of the left his campaign represents.
it was discernable from his platform actually. he has no contact with mainstream democrat policy makers and has some particularly punitive minded yet ignorant provisions like a high payroll tax and disruptively high financial transaction tax. to name a few. this kind of platform is obviously not targeted at the least well off and vulnerable but is more of an expressive protest vs a reality that doesnt fit the wishes of the ideal. it shows that these people are true believers at war not merely with reality but with an image of reality that is filled with spooks and shadows, intentionally bad actors instead of bad incentives and natural explanations of concentration. it is really kind of unscientific and a product of the english department school of social science.
|
On May 03 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote: I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. People like to point to superdelegates, but our goddess is winning even without them. The irony is that Sanders is building his entire strategy around somehow convincing super delegates to defy democracy. Imagine that, he's not the swell guys he memed himself out to be.
lol he's telling super delegates from states like Washington to support the will of the people and vote for the candidate the people wanted.
I don't think anyone has claimed that Sanders is a saint, but he is a good guy. Much better than your average politician. There's a reason there hasn't been any "dirt" on him even though he's been in the race for a year. Remember that "rape fantasy" story that was supposed to be the gotcha! moment? Neither does 99% of other people.
You can argue that he's lacking substance or unrealistic, w/e, but he actually is a pretty nice dude.
|
Current Supers are 520 to 39. Under Sanders rules ... it would be 373 Hillary to 147 Bernie. Even his made up rules that reflect the will of the people (as he defines it) wouldn't save him.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChZRSYLWMAExftQ.jpg)
|
On May 03 2016 10:15 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote: I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. People like to point to superdelegates, but our goddess is winning even without them. The irony is that Sanders is building his entire strategy around somehow convincing super delegates to defy democracy. Imagine that, he's not the swell guys he memed himself out to be. lol he's telling super delegates from states like Washington to support the will of the people and vote for the candidate the people wanted. I don't think anyone has claimed that Sanders is a saint, but he is a good guy. Much better than your average politician. There's a reason there hasn't been any "dirt" on him even though he's been in the race for a year. Remember that "rape fantasy" story that was supposed to be the gotcha! moment? Neither does 99% of other people. You can argue that he's lacking substance or unrealistic, w/e, but he actually is a pretty nice dude. He's not only doing that, actually. He's both saying that the superdelegates in the states he won convincingly should follow the "will of the voters" and that other superdelegates should look at general election polls and vote for him, regardless of whether or not Hillary won their states. He's saying that superdelegates should overall overturn the will of the voters, and vote for him at the convention even if Hillary is ahead in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.
I'm left wondering if he actually believes superdelegates will do that if Hillary is ahead (which is simply delusional), or if it's simply a tactic to prevent his electorate from giving up. Probably the latter, since I can't see him being that delusional. This leaves us with him being dishonest by pretending there is a chance of that scenario happening, though.
|
On May 03 2016 10:15 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote: I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. People like to point to superdelegates, but our goddess is winning even without them. The irony is that Sanders is building his entire strategy around somehow convincing super delegates to defy democracy. Imagine that, he's not the swell guys he memed himself out to be. lol he's telling super delegates from states like Washington to support the will of the people and vote for the candidate the people wanted. I don't think anyone has claimed that Sanders is a saint, but he is a good guy. Much better than your average politician. There's a reason there hasn't been any "dirt" on him even though he's been in the race for a year. Remember that "rape fantasy" story that was supposed to be the gotcha! moment? Neither does 99% of other people. You can argue that he's lacking substance or unrealistic, w/e, but he actually is a pretty nice dude.
Would you say kindness is more important than substance or realism in a president?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
being nice doesn't carry it when you are asking to be elected to an office of high responsibility. a lot of ill in this world is caused by selective caring or lack of respect for empirical facts. malarial treatment vs research on cancer, that's selective caring. it requires some deeper commitment to look beyond the concern closest to one's experiences. as it stands, the most vulnerable in society stand to lose in the theoretical bernie regime because of all the diversion of resources to fund programs for middle class whites(e.g. pell grants vs free college), disastrous macroeconomic fallout from his policies, etc etc.
active prejudice is not needed to produce an unbalanced or incomplete view. bernie is a nationalist and populist representing the white working class. contrary to this meme about his youth support, the actual bernie base is rural whites. you can see it in every county level map of this season. the youth are voting positionally for the most exciting/leftist sounding candidate, but it is kind of a strange mix held together by lack of information.
given his lack of concern for achieving legislative results, obtaining concrete policy with maximal impact for the poor and truly needy, and general lack of long term thinking with respect to america's positional advantage in the global economy and the resultant positive influence of american power upon the trajectory of global development, it is really hard to argue that bernie is a nicer person than hillary or obama or bill clinton. to call bernie's parochial perspective morally superior would require either burning passion for Socialism or a white america centric cultural norm that the english department people usually deride.
|
Bernie was such a nice guy he could only get 1 Senate endorsement. Doesn't Cruz have 2?
|
On May 03 2016 10:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Bernie was such a nice guy he could only get 1 Senate endorsement. Doesn't Cruz have 2?
He's had lots of friends in the house and senate, practically everyone likes/respects him.
But rather than earning the frustration and ire of his peers in the vein of other Senate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has managed to be respected — even liked — by much of the chamber, according to members on both sides of the aisle. The Vermont independent actually has much more in common with Sen. Tom Coburn, the now-retired "Dr. No," whose hard-line opposition killed many bills in the Senate but also earned him the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Sanders also has been able to work well with his colleagues. He's passed bipartisan legislation and forged strong relationships with members of both parties in nearly 25 years on Capitol Hill. But most of all, members say, even when Sanders is ideologically an outlier, he lets others know where he stands. He's not the type to suddenly stab a colleague in the back. And that's earned him respect both on and off the Hill.
"A lot of people here talk about what they believe in, but they don't act on it," Sen. Mark Warner said. "He always acts on what he believes. "¦ We can agree or disagree, but you know where he stands."
Article
Love how it's easier for Hillary supporters to think Sanders isn't liked/is a mean campaigner than it is that her campaign fundraising is dishonest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On May 03 2016 10:48 oneofthem wrote: being nice doesn't carry it when you are asking to be elected to an office of high responsibility. a lot of ill in this world is caused by selective caring or lack of respect for empirical facts. malarial treatment vs research on cancer, that's selective caring. it requires some deeper commitment to look beyond the concern closest to one's experiences. as it stands, the most vulnerable in society stand to lose in the theoretical bernie regime because of all the diversion of resources to fund programs for middle class whites(e.g. pell grants vs free college), disastrous macroeconomic fallout from his policies, etc etc.
active prejudice is not needed to produce an unbalanced or incomplete view. bernie is a nationalist and populist representing the white working class. contrary to this meme about his youth support, the actual bernie base is rural whites. you can see it in every county level map of this season. the youth are voting positionally for the most exciting/leftist sounding candidate, but it is kind of a strange mix held together by lack of information.
given his lack of concern for achieving legislative results, obtaining concrete policy with maximal impact for the poor and truly needy, and general lack of long term thinking with respect to america's positional advantage in the global economy and the resultant positive influence of american power upon the trajectory of global development, it is really hard to argue that bernie is a nicer person than hillary or obama or bill clinton. to call bernie's parochial perspective morally superior would require either burning passion for Socialism or a white america centric cultural norm that the english department people usually deride.
need more paternal clinton/gates foundation work in africa solving malaria and hunger. socialism is the parochial solution for rich whites.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not paternal to provide antiviral medication where it is needed. the clinton stuff is pretty heavy on empowering local entrepreneurship and all that, hardly paternalistic. you should look at the policy briefings.
this is not to say the clinton foundation doesn't suffer from too much lobbying by certain interested parties, but it's one of the better efforts by impact.
|
At some hospitals, posters on the wall in the emergency department list the drugs that are in short supply or unavailable, along with recommended alternatives.
The low-tech visual aid can save time with critically ill patients, allowing doctors to focus on caring for them rather than doing research on the fly, said Dr. Jesse Pines, a professor of emergency medicine and director of the Office for Clinical Practice Innovation at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. He has studied the problems created by shortages.
The need for such workarounds probably won't end anytime soon. According to a new study, shortages of many drugs that are essential in emergency care have increased in both number and duration in recent years even as shortages for drugs for non-acute or chronic care have eased somewhat. The shortages have persisted despite a federal law enacted in 2012 that gave the Food and Drug Administration regulatory powers to respond to drug shortages, the study found.
For this report, which was published in the May issue of Health Affairs, researchers analyzed drug shortage data between 2001 and 2014 from the University of Utah's Drug Information Service, which contains all confirmed national drug shortages, according to the study.
They divided the drugs into acute and non-acute categories. Acute-care drugs were those used in the emergency department for many of the urgent and severe conditions handled there and include remedies such as pain medications, heart drugs, saline solution and electrolyte products.
Overall, the study found that 52 percent of the 1,929 shortages during the time period studied were for acute-care drugs. Following passage of the federal law in 2012, the number of active shortages of non-acute care drugs began to decline for the first time since 2004, but there was no corresponding dropoff in shortages of drugs that emergency departments and intensive care units rely on, the researchers reported.
Shortages of the drugs for emergency care lasted longer as well, the study found. Half of the shortages of drugs for acute care lasted longer than 242 days, compared with 173 days for non-acute care drugs.
Source
|
On May 03 2016 12:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not paternal to provide antiviral medication where it is needed. the clinton stuff is pretty heavy on empowering local entrepreneurship and all that, hardly paternalistic. you should look at the policy briefings.
you should look in a dictionary
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no really, you should look at aid economics and politics over the last decade or so. it was paternalistic, but less so now, with effort from the likes of clinton.
anyway what is your point? you like hundred billions in cancer research better?
|
my point is that malarial nets in eastern africa from bill gates has massive symbolic impact that dissipates energies for structural and political change there. its a double violence; once in the accumulation and again in the appropriation of the moral. microloans for entrepreneurial goatherding and charcoal making is potemkin economics.
|
On May 03 2016 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On May 03 2016 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote: I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. People like to point to superdelegates, but our goddess is winning even without them. The irony is that Sanders is building his entire strategy around somehow convincing super delegates to defy democracy. Imagine that, he's not the swell guys he memed himself out to be. lol he's telling super delegates from states like Washington to support the will of the people and vote for the candidate the people wanted. I don't think anyone has claimed that Sanders is a saint, but he is a good guy. Much better than your average politician. There's a reason there hasn't been any "dirt" on him even though he's been in the race for a year. Remember that "rape fantasy" story that was supposed to be the gotcha! moment? Neither does 99% of other people. You can argue that he's lacking substance or unrealistic, w/e, but he actually is a pretty nice dude. Would you say kindness is more important than substance or realism in a president? That wasn't what I was responding to. I was merely stating that the claim that he's somehow this giant douchebag who everyone hates is just simply false
|
link me some aid economics papers bro and ill read them
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well the recent econ nobel was to angus deaton, a guy who supports your view of skepticism on aid. you can look at the lit review section of the paper to see a general overview. http://www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger/courses/574/readings/Deaton_Instruments of development.pdf (notable for nancy cartwright shout out)
as far as dissipating energy for local reform, that's one potential outcome and not the only outcome. it is also at least an outcome that is being taken seriously to avoid. it's all about local rule and individual involvement/empowerment. you can look at the UNHCR's approach in syria for a practical case of it.
https://www.icm2016.org/empowering-refugees-q-a-with-kilian-kleinschmidt
the kind of dynamic you criticize is enabled by corrupt local regimes that turn aid into a political resource and play the middleman to get at the loot. but generally the clinton foundation doesn't rely on the state structure but deal directly with the local people and enterprises to deliver impact. it's actually an improvement over the kind of aid that end up in switzerland we see in the past. it's also heavily focused on health and education, kind of prerequisites for any sort of local development.
|
|
|
|