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 22 2016 09:03 Plansix wrote: To be very clear, I do not believe Bernie Sanders could have accomplish the things I want. I reviewed his track record in congress and how willing he is to compromise and found it lacking. By the time the primary got to my state, Clinton was my own option.
I feel like I've asked this before, but what specifically do you think she will accomplish that Bernie wouldn't have?
I have not faith in Bernie or the far left of the democrats to compromise to get a bill passed or through the house. Or deal with some bad amendments attached to bills that do things he doesn't like. The thing that you seem to forget the Republican will control the House and enough of the Senate to stop anything Bernie wants. They would attach amendments to bills doing things he doesn't like. He was good at getting amendment onto bills in the Senate, but his record for getting his own bills passed is fucking terrible, especially for how long he was in the Senate.
On September 22 2016 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Judging by the responses none of you even know what I'm talking about?
I'm not talking about the twin towers at all. I'm talking about WTC-7. Sounds like you guys are like me and just wrote it off as Alex Jones stuff without looking much deeper.
If anyone knows anything about WTC-7 I'd be interested in hearing from them.
Actually I do:
A large chunk of the building was burning, so you should take it easy, and not call people out without some thought first.
Those are just typical office fires, if those made buildings like that prone to near 0-resistance collapse, no one would go in them.
Most things are designed to withstand any one bad thing happening to it at once, so a fire for example, sure. It's tough to anticipate a large combination of things at once, and usually this results in the negative effects amplifying themselves many times.
I remember watching a documentary years and years back that said something about bad fireproofing standards on the steel, then you have a massive shock to the foundation when other things are collapsing, that's the building going through an earthquake. You have debris hitting the building from the other stuff happening. Combine that with the fire going on for hours on end.
And now when quickly skimming wikipedia, I see some stuff about a sprinkler system needing manual initiation, low water pressure to deal with the flow rate of water needed, and who knows, maybe some minor construction faults as well.
Point is, a reasonable number of buildings would have fallen in these circumstances... Would all? Unlikely, but it's completely feasible for it to happen, say the average skyscraper would have a 30-50% chance of falling in this situation. When you girlfriend told you she finished eating the food you made she didn't like and there was a 50% chance she ate it and a 50% chance she threw it out, is your reaction to go check the garbage can?
It's a completely realistic thing to happen, and I don't know why people keep trying to hang onto these things so tight.
I'm feeling like that's a no to reading the NIST report. The official report discounts any "large combination of things" they say it was the fire changing the loads alone that caused a near zero-resistance collapse.
Also the odds are nowhere near 30-50% by any measure. There have been lots of fires in tall buildings, some that were clearly worse, the only time they've ever collapsed like that, in all the time they've existed, happened on that day.
But as Nec pointed out this just acts as a distraction. The bottom line is that I do own what I'm voting for.
And you're right, according to this it's a bit more a freak accident than usual. That said, you must've seen an episode on Mayday, and how a little bit of ice on a pitot tube can bring an airplane down.
We have silly engineering failures like the Quebec Bridge or Tacoma Bridge, Hyatt Walkway, etc. The modes of failure described are realistic, and poor design could have caused them. Until an entire building is up in flames and it collapses, we don't really know how well it really withstands fires. There's are many things which are difficult to understand the full extent of without referring to a historical event.
Again, I urge you to watch some Mayday episodes to see just how much silly stuff can go wrong that you would never expect. Like a tiny tiny gap between a connection that wears down due to moisture getting in and freezing over and over again and thus propagating a crack, one short circuit, using a bolt one size too small, a fuel sensor not working, incorrect setting on can pressurization system... There are so many things that it's impossible to rule out this could have never happened. Not to mention the numerous people involved in the investigation that some might have felt to do some whistleblowing if they were doing this unethical stuff.
What makes you so set on this being an inside job?
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being one by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
Not if you're horizon is beyond this election. The federal funds are not insignificant.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being one by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
Not if you're horizon is beyond this election. The federal funds are not insignificant.
Compared to the supreme court and the rest of government? That's a little hard to imagine. You can always support third party issues, you can't unfuck the climate or remove supreme court judges.
On September 22 2016 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Judging by the responses none of you even know what I'm talking about?
I'm not talking about the twin towers at all. I'm talking about WTC-7. Sounds like you guys are like me and just wrote it off as Alex Jones stuff without looking much deeper.
If anyone knows anything about WTC-7 I'd be interested in hearing from them.
Most things are designed to withstand any one bad thing happening to it at once, so a fire for example, sure. It's tough to anticipate a large combination of things at once, and usually this results in the negative effects amplifying themselves many times.
I remember watching a documentary years and years back that said something about bad fireproofing standards on the steel, then you have a massive shock to the foundation when other things are collapsing, that's the building going through an earthquake. You have debris hitting the building from the other stuff happening. Combine that with the fire going on for hours on end.
And now when quickly skimming wikipedia, I see some stuff about a sprinkler system needing manual initiation, low water pressure to deal with the flow rate of water needed, and who knows, maybe some minor construction faults as well.
Point is, a reasonable number of buildings would have fallen in these circumstances... Would all? Unlikely, but it's completely feasible for it to happen, say the average skyscraper would have a 30-50% chance of falling in this situation. When you girlfriend told you she finished eating the food you made she didn't like and there was a 50% chance she ate it and a 50% chance she threw it out, is your reaction to go check the garbage can?
It's a completely realistic thing to happen, and I don't know why people keep trying to hang onto these things so tight.
I'm feeling like that's a no to reading the NIST report. The official report discounts any "large combination of things" they say it was the fire changing the loads alone that caused a near zero-resistance collapse.
Also the odds are nowhere near 30-50% by any measure. There have been lots of fires in tall buildings, some that were clearly worse, the only time they've ever collapsed like that, in all the time they've existed, happened on that day.
But as Nec pointed out this just acts as a distraction. The bottom line is that I do own what I'm voting for.
And you're right, according to this it's a bit more a freak accident than usual. That said, you must've seen an episode on Mayday, and how a little bit of ice on a pitot tube can bring an airplane down.
We have silly engineering failures like the Quebec Bridge or Tacoma Bridge, Hyatt Walkway, etc. The modes of failure described are realistic, and poor design could have caused them. Until an entire building is up in flames and it collapses, we don't really know how well it really withstands fires. There's are many things which are difficult to understand the full extent of without referring to a historical event.
Again, I urge you to watch some Mayday episodes to see just how much silly stuff can go wrong that you would never expect. Like a tiny tiny gap between a connection that wears down due to moisture getting in and freezing over and over again and thus propagating a crack, one short circuit, using a bolt one size too small, a fuel sensor not working, incorrect setting on can pressurization system... There are so many things that it's impossible to rule out this could have never happened. Not to mention the numerous people involved in the investigation that some might have felt to do some whistleblowing if they were doing this unethical stuff.
What makes you so set on this being an inside job?
I'm not even set it was an "inside job". I'm familiar with the idea of failures like you describe and that's more or less what I had chalked it up to.
My problem arose when I started talking to engineers and architects who had shed the stigma of examining closely the questions around it and they explained how even if you take everything they say at face value, including the final destination style chain of events, they didn't bother to explain the near-zero resistance collapse. There's lots of other problems with the explanation but that's the one that opened me up to the idea we're not getting a complete and accurate explanation.
There's also something to the whole unprecedented mass disturbance/destruction of the scene by Giuliani
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being one by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
Not if you're horizon is beyond this election. The federal funds are not insignificant.
Compared to the supreme court and the rest of government? That's a little hard to imagine. You can always support third party issues, you can't unfuck the climate or remove supreme court judges.
If Trump nominates someone to the Supreme Court, we won't get campaign fiance reform for at least another 10+ years, if not longer.
Quick comment on "greedy doctors", 4 years of school taking on > 200k loan. Then Slaving away for 3-7 years making 50k. Then after finally becoming independent and making good money you have to basically practice defensive medicine which is inefficient as fuck but everyone is ready to sue, all adding to the stress on a physician. We have the best doctors in the world and that is simply because of the "greed" plus extensive training. If you want socialized shit where we make no pay then med school better be free, and people better be ok with inefficient and slow medicine.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being one by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
Not if you're horizon is beyond this election. The federal funds are not insignificant.
Compared to the supreme court and the rest of government? That's a little hard to imagine. You can always support third party issues, you can't unfuck the climate or remove supreme court judges.
If Trump nominates someone to the Supreme Court, we won't get campaign fiance reform for at least another 10+ years, if not longer.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that.
On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise.
Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy.
On September 22 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote: Quick comment on "greedy doctors", 4 years of school taking on > 200k loan. Then Slaving away for 3-7 years making 50k. Then after finally becoming independent and making good money you have to basically practice defensive medicine which is inefficient as fuck but everyone is ready to sue, all adding to the stress on a physician. We have the best doctors in the world and that is simply because of the "greed" plus extensive training. If you want socialized shit where we make no pay then med school better be free, and people better be ok with inefficient and slow medicine.
Just a lazy example. Maybe I should have gone with health system or hospital instead of pointing out the practitioners. I 100% agree that doctors deserve to be richly compensated given the qualifications they have to acquire and the environments in which they practice. It was more a jab at the physicians who charge for way too many units of medication (some which they don't even use) and ancillary dumb shit.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being one by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
Not if you're horizon is beyond this election. The federal funds are not insignificant.
I admit to having sympathy with both the Bernie/Stein folks and the HRC-only-option folks.
The purist argument, is, incidentally, similar to the never-trump view. It takes a long view, agrees to sacrifice a few judicial appointments and whatever the other side can push through in four years, for the perceived good of the party. I'm very persuaded that if I were a Republican, that's what I'd be doing.
On the Democratic side, it's tougher because of the composition of the lower houses and statehouses. Republicans can vote for Johnson thinking, quite correctly, that HRC will be unable to do much domestically that doesn't have bipartisan support. Trump will have a friendly house and potentially senate, plus R governments in most states. He could actually push seriously for things like nationwide stop-and-frisk, or loosening of libel laws. He would also be capable of getting in an idiotic pissing contest with China, Russia, India, France, Turkey or whoever, which could have real consequences.
A lot of people I know are going with the safe-state swing-state test. If you are in a safe state, vote for the third party, and otherwise vote strategically. That way disaster is averted, but a mandate is denied. Because trust me, I would rather like to deny HRC the opportunity to claim a real mandate.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage.
Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's.
And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare.
I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not.
They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem.
Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means.
On September 22 2016 08:16 zlefin wrote: Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job.
trademark people have to process between 6 and 10 applications a day. how long do you want them scouring gaming forums for obscure gaming genres? if they had more time to search they might catch it, but theyd also probably be excoriated for being lazy scumbags the rest of the time when the applications take a fraction of the time.
tower defense isn't exactly an obscure genre. and a few simple google searches would've shown it was invalid. I expect them to have people knowledgeable in an area reviewing things, and not to make obvious and basic mistakes which are symptomatic of a failure to have decent oversight systems in place. that you make the unsound claim of tower defense being obscure reduces the strength of your point substantially.
ok im not defending it. im saying that its understandable how a bad trademark gets issued. imagine some middle aged woman getting the application. it's not that hard to see how any combination of two words that is not already in the trademark database in the computer games market would be prima facie valid. i don't really view it as the main problem affecting the IP system; in fact i don't really view it as that big of a problem at all. trademarks are pretty worthless without tangible evidence in litigation, and a trademark on tower defense is obviously a flimsy legal document.
there are a number of bad patents issued every year too. just google ip blogs making fun of idiotic patents that were issued. but in any organization with 10,000+ examiners issuing millions of intellectual property rights you are going to have some things fall through the cracks. i don't think the tower defense anecdote amounts to much.
what it amounts to, is them using the improperly granted name to bully other people into not using a valid generic term; and more importantly, reducing (by a tiny amount) the social perception of the validity of the government system, by violating the rule of law. patents are a bit too important a thing to have a lot of stuff falling through the cracks; if they are, it means they should FIX THE CRACKS. I find the granting of stuff in violation of the law due to failure by the gov't to perform due diligence, and malfeasance by the filling attorneys attesting to things that are not true (isn't that perjury?), to be a serious matter.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that.
On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise.
Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy.
I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from.
You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in.
Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game.
On September 22 2016 09:03 Plansix wrote: To be very clear, I do not believe Bernie Sanders could have accomplish the things I want. I reviewed his track record in congress and how willing he is to compromise and found it lacking. By the time the primary got to my state, Clinton was my own option.
I feel like I've asked this before, but what specifically do you think she will accomplish that Bernie wouldn't have?
I have not faith in Bernie or the far left of the democrats to compromise to get a bill passed or through the house. Or deal with some bad amendments attached to bills that do things he doesn't like. The thing that you seem to forget the Republican will control the House and enough of the Senate to stop anything Bernie wants. They would attach amendments to bills doing things he doesn't like. He was good at getting amendment onto bills in the Senate, but his record for getting his own bills passed is fucking terrible, especially for how long he was in the Senate.
I feel like "nothing" was the answer last time too. That's why I suggested you stop using that false argument.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that.
On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise.
Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy.
I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from.
You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in.
Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game.
Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage.
Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's.
And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare.
I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not.
They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem.
Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means.
For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well.
The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage.
Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's.
And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare.
I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not.
They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem.
Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means.
Did you miss the part where I said Medicare-for-all was a pipe dream?
Also, if you're just going to say "yeah Hillary is lying lol you're wrong" then as wolf/sheep said I don't see the point in trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with you.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being one by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
Not if you're horizon is beyond this election. The federal funds are not insignificant.
On the Democratic side, it's tougher because of the composition of the lower houses and statehouses. Republicans can vote for Johnson thinking, quite correctly, that HRC will be unable to do much domestically that doesn't have bipartisan support. Trump will have a friendly house and potentially senate, plus R governments in most states. He could actually push seriously for things like nationwide stop-and-frisk, or loosening of libel laws. He would also be capable of getting in an idiotic pissing contest with China, Russia, India, France, Turkey or whoever, which could have real consequences.
Trump won the primary by running against elected Republicans and the principle of elites & establishment ruining the country. I very much think Trump, if elected, will be dealing with a very hostile Congress. That's one reason I'm comfortable voting for Trump given some very bad positions on trade.
EPT
