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 October 26 2016 08:30 Liquid`Jinro wrote: The mental gymnastics required to make "Trump is less of a bully so I'm voting for him" seem plausible in your mind, must be Olympian.
Different bullies. Probably not worth deciding on that note, they're about as bad on bullying as they are on free speech.
On October 26 2016 06:52 Buckyman wrote: Social issues have nothing to do with the Republicans' current batch of trouble. Their two biggest problems this cycle are (1) Mainstream media pushing Trump on them and (2) Mainstream media demonizing Trump after the primary. They had at least five different candidates who could have thrashed Clinton, but none of them could compete with the mass of systematically misinformed voters that turned out to the primaries.
Somewhat right. Endless full coverage of his rallies and the speeches. But beside the mainstream media and thread narrative, I'd add
A packed field on the debate stage for ages defeating the plurality that opposes Trump. Weed out, separate debates into 2x5 or whatever, but nobody wins splitting topics 17 ways unless you make sound bites for a living. Blame the elites for Trump, but also blame the guys that took ages to drop out and the system that gives stage time to everybody for months.
Mainstream media will demonize everybody, its whether you can fight back hard and on principle AND it helps to not have these character flaws prominently/bragging about sexually harassing women. If Trump had better advisors, a better campaign, and took free advice better, #2 is much easier. Basically because outrage and hysterics is oversold at the moment.
He got something like 38% of the primary vote up until his last rival dropped, that's eminently beatable no matter which way you slice uninformed voters just tuning in and wondering what the hell happened to the country.
The theory was disproven when Huntsman was run out on a rail in 2012 as he was the only sane and legit Republican that was left.
What theory? I'm trying to imagine your idea is like O'Malley being proof the Democrats can't decide between corruption and socialist utopia.
On October 26 2016 10:44 oneofthem wrote: undecided voters who are also really into politics tend to be crackpots
On October 26 2016 08:03 plasmidghost wrote: Hillary's polling average has dropped by two points in the past week, should we be concerned? What about the news that Obamacare premiums are about to jump, will that cause people to vote Trump since he promised to get rid of it?
pretty difficult spot. the original law was mainly about expanding coverage, not controlling cost. they can't directly answer the cost question by only talking about expanded coverage.
her usual line of 'defending the aca' is talking about the expansion of coverage, but obviously that kind of position just gets rekt by the real cost and choice problems.
she could talk about taking additional steps to control cost, shift the blame onto drug companies, but really the best thing to do is to embrace the public option and talk about va style treatment and price control seriously.
For the polling question, it's a little too late for it to matter in a deciding fashion. The last breath it could've had is if Trump would've stopped cradling his damaged ego in the debates long enough to pound long and hard on Obamacare.
For controlling cost, I frankly assumed when Obama said it would reduce premiums by $2,500 again and again and again and again, and Dems called the damn thing the Affordable Care Act, it would push out lower premiums in exchange for a higher deficit. It seems like the most shameless of goalpost shifting to claim here and now the wonderful accomplishments of increased enrollment when you subsidize policies and penalize nonpurchasers, when everybody and their mother was singing the lower premium tune and taking it to the greedy insurance companies (that don't insure for pre-existing conditions, those gremlins!).
I swear in another two years, everybody will remark about the genius of how it intentionally collapsed the insurance market to pave the way for single payer, and the only people talking about premium costs, availability of plans, and enrollment are crackpot alt-righters.
People always seem to talk about single payer but rarely about universal multi-payer coverage systems. You don't necessarily need to run a single payer system to have full healthcare coverage and the non single payer versions like here in Germany seem more in line with the 'states rights' constructs in the US.
It's certainly not that hard to have a full healthcare coverage system. plenty of ways of implementing such. pity the republicans didn't put forth something in line with their so-called principles.
I'd like to hear more about the system germany is using.
Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses?
This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened.
I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms.
A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters.
parties always alienate their marginal voters, that's why they're marginal voters. It's also quite clear already that there's dissatisfaction with the parties.
and clinton thinking she has a mandate only matters if she has congress as well, and if congress turns dem, then it kinda is a mandate.
stein just isn't presidential material at all; johnson, a bit weak but passable.
On October 26 2016 11:37 zlefin wrote: It's certainly not that hard to have a full healthcare coverage system. plenty of ways of implementing such. pity the republicans didn't put forth something in line with their so-called principles.
I'd like to hear more about the system germany is using.
The most important points I guess are that coverage is compulsory, if you're in a high income bracket (50k+ a year) you can opt for private insurance which like 10% of people do. Everybody else is part of the public insurance system that is organised through regional insurance companies that are regulated by health commissions of their respective states and some federal laws and regulations limiting premiums and such.
Companies, trade unions and so on can also form own insurance companies and manage their budget but have to abide to state and federal laws, but otherwise can provide supplementary stuff like they see fit. If you're a salaried employer, your employer will cover part of your insurance cost.
It's all very decentralized and self organised and centered around cooperation between states, companies and employees. I guess this would be an easier pill to swallow in the US than single payer.
Is this an argument to elect Trump to avoid the tantrum? Is the tantrum even relevant if Trump loses?
This is an argument to maximize the standing of America in the world by maximizing, by proxy, the Clinton-Trump percentage gap ( nobody will care about how much Jill Stein scores). In turn, America's improved credibility and political capital will favour better geopolitical outcomes for you, and, hopefully, for the whole world. If God forbid there was 'only' a 52-49 outcome for Clinton on election night, trust me, nobody would cheer the US the next day, and the case for exceptionalism would be greatly weakened.
I'm worried about the domestic consequences. If Clinton wins by too large a margin, she will interpret it as a mandate for her (mostly irrelevant) policy position instead of as a rebuke to Trump's (lack of) position. At which point we'll have an agenda pushed on us that we didn't vote for, on the basis that we voted for it. If she goes this route, expect the Democrats to get clobbered in the congressional midterms.
A strong (>10% combined) showing by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, on the other hand, is a signal to the parties that they've alienated their marginal voters and can lead to real policy changes attempting to recapture those voters.
Again you make very good points. I think the best way to ensure she doesn't get a blank check is to vote for her in this election and then for Paul Ryan's guys in the House. You have to be able to take the cognitive dissonance, but then that's the best of both worlds : outside credibility, and inside balance.
In my opinion third party votes achieve at best nothing, inside and outside - they're forgotten in a pinch - and at worst signal that democracy is sick and voters are defiant, which is a double-edged sword since it encourages more lunatic fringey candidates to step in, ultimately yielding a cycle of polarization and gridlock. Alternation of power is better, when realistic.
Telecommunications giant AT&T is selling access to customer data to local law enforcement in secret, new documents released on Monday reveal.
The program, called Hemisphere, was previously known only as a “partnership” between the company and the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for the purposes of counter-narcotics operations.
It accesses the trove of telephone metadata available to AT&T, who control a large proportion of America’s landline and cellphone infrastructure. Unlike other providers, who delete their stored metadata after a certain time, AT&T keeps information like call time, duration, and even location data on file for years, with records dating back to 2008.
But according to internal company documents revealed Monday by the Daily Beast, Hemisphere is being sold to local police departments and used to investigate everything from murder to Medicaid fraud, costing US taxpayers millions of dollars every year even while riding roughshod over privacy concerns.
Access to Hemisphere costs local police between $100,000 and more than $1m a year, the documents reveal, and its use requires just an administrative subpoena – a much lower judicial bar than a search warrant because it does not need to be issued by a judge.
Until Monday, Hemisphere’s use was kept secret from the public – and even from judges, defense attorneys and lawmakers – by an agreement between law enforcement and AT&T which means police must not risk disclosing its use in public or even in court.
This means that police take leads from Hemisphere, but then construct cases around that lead so that the program can be protected from scrutiny, a practice known as “parallel construction”, according to the Beast.
The revelations come as AT&T prepares for its controversial $85bn acquisition of Time Warner, a deal which has been widely attacked as being bad for consumers, with both presidential candidates speaking out against the merger.
On October 26 2016 11:37 zlefin wrote: It's certainly not that hard to have a full healthcare coverage system. plenty of ways of implementing such. pity the republicans didn't put forth something in line with their so-called principles.
I'd like to hear more about the system germany is using.
The most important points I guess are that coverage is compulsory, if you're in a high income bracket (50k+ a year) you can opt for private insurance which like 10% of people do. Everybody else is part of the public insurance system that is organised through regional insurance companies that are regulated by health commissions of their respective states and some federal laws and regulations limiting premiums and such.
Companies, trade unions and so on can also form own insurance companies and manage their budget but have to abide to state and federal laws, but otherwise can provide supplementary stuff like they see fit. If you're a salaried employer, your employer will cover part of your insurance cost.
It's all very decentralized and self organised and centered around cooperation between states, companies and employees. I guess this would be an easier pill to swallow in the US than single payer.
what's the overall premium/cost as a result of taxation like?
On October 26 2016 11:37 zlefin wrote: It's certainly not that hard to have a full healthcare coverage system. plenty of ways of implementing such. pity the republicans didn't put forth something in line with their so-called principles.
I'd like to hear more about the system germany is using.
The most important points I guess are that coverage is compulsory, if you're in a high income bracket (50k+ a year) you can opt for private insurance which like 10% of people do. Everybody else is part of the public insurance system that is organised through regional insurance companies that are regulated by health commissions of their respective states and some federal laws and regulations limiting premiums and such.
Companies, trade unions and so on can also form own insurance companies and manage their budget but have to abide to state and federal laws, but otherwise can provide supplementary stuff like they see fit. If you're a salaried employer, your employer will cover part of your insurance cost.
It's all very decentralized and self organised and centered around cooperation between states, companies and employees. I guess this would be an easier pill to swallow in the US than single payer.
what's the overall premium/cost as a result of taxation like?
The overall costs are about 10% of the GDP which is comparable to most other European nations. For every individual publicly insured it's 15% of the paycheck with half of it being covered by the employer. If you add in occasional things that you have to pay out of pocket (dental care usually requires some private pay in) you'll probably end up with a tenth of your paycheck if you're in the median income bracket.
If you're in education you also are insured through your parents until you're 25 or start to work.
On October 26 2016 11:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote: In my opinion third party votes achieve at best nothing, inside and outside - they're forgotten in a pinch - and at worst signal that democracy is sick and voters are defiant, which is a double-edged sword since it encourages more lunatic fringey candidates to step in, ultimately yielding a cycle of polarization and gridlock. Alternation of power is better, when realistic.
Maybe normally, but I feel like both parties are unstable at the moment and there's a significant (>5%) chance that one of them falls apart in the next decade. The Republican party is developing strain between the ex-Tea Party contrarians and the party center, and between the party center and Trump. Meanwhile, the Democratic party needs to deal with the recent hints of deep corruption from the email leaks; if they continue to ignore the issue, the label "Democrat" could become toxic. Either issue could result in a shift to a different two-party system, in which case it'd be better to already have an established backup second party ready to go.
(BTW, it's really nice to be able to have a civil conversation about the election where the people I'm talking to don't agree with me.)
That Gingrich-Kelly interview was really bad for Newt. If it were any other campaign I would expect him to apologize before morning, but I'm half expecting them to double down on accusing Megyn Kelly of being a slut.
Telecommunications giant AT&T is selling access to customer data to local law enforcement in secret, new documents released on Monday reveal.
The program, called Hemisphere, was previously known only as a “partnership” between the company and the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for the purposes of counter-narcotics operations.
It accesses the trove of telephone metadata available to AT&T, who control a large proportion of America’s landline and cellphone infrastructure. Unlike other providers, who delete their stored metadata after a certain time, AT&T keeps information like call time, duration, and even location data on file for years, with records dating back to 2008.
But according to internal company documents revealed Monday by the Daily Beast, Hemisphere is being sold to local police departments and used to investigate everything from murder to Medicaid fraud, costing US taxpayers millions of dollars every year even while riding roughshod over privacy concerns.
Access to Hemisphere costs local police between $100,000 and more than $1m a year, the documents reveal, and its use requires just an administrative subpoena – a much lower judicial bar than a search warrant because it does not need to be issued by a judge.
Until Monday, Hemisphere’s use was kept secret from the public – and even from judges, defense attorneys and lawmakers – by an agreement between law enforcement and AT&T which means police must not risk disclosing its use in public or even in court.
This means that police take leads from Hemisphere, but then construct cases around that lead so that the program can be protected from scrutiny, a practice known as “parallel construction”, according to the Beast.
The revelations come as AT&T prepares for its controversial $85bn acquisition of Time Warner, a deal which has been widely attacked as being bad for consumers, with both presidential candidates speaking out against the merger.
On October 26 2016 11:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote: In my opinion third party votes achieve at best nothing, inside and outside - they're forgotten in a pinch - and at worst signal that democracy is sick and voters are defiant, which is a double-edged sword since it encourages more lunatic fringey candidates to step in, ultimately yielding a cycle of polarization and gridlock. Alternation of power is better, when realistic.
Maybe normally, but I feel like both parties are unstable at the moment and there's a significant (>5%) chance that one of them falls apart in the next decade. The Republican party is developing strain between the ex-Tea Party contrarians and the party center, and between the party center and Trump. Meanwhile, the Democratic party needs to deal with the recent hints of deep corruption from the email leaks; if they continue to ignore the issue, the label "Democrat" could become toxic. Either issue could result in a shift to a different two-party system, in which case it'd be better to already have an established backup second party ready to go.
(BTW, it's really nice to be able to have a civil conversation about the election where the people I'm talking to don't agree with me.)
Precisely, and I would even put that chance at 10% since we've been able to observe the size of the rift on one side during the Boehner/Tea Party shutdown tantrum. But then, why would you not want to make your vote count as much as possible, and cast it instead for the 90%-95% chance scenario, rather than doing contingency planning ? Also, third parties are much more volatile than established parties, so it's not clear you build a lasting impact by voting for one. If you cast a split presidential Dem / congress Rep vote, you're pretty damn sure these two will be around at least in four years' time.
(As an aside, I would love to see a four-party system in America enabling a wider array of policy issues to be in the spotlight ; but that's probably a pipe dream, given how much stupidity is embedded in the system. Informational inequality is real, people).
Also, I agree with you : this thread right now is TL at its best.
The email leaks haven't really shown deep corruption, nor even much of a hint of the kind of truly serious corruption. Least none of the ones that have been discussed in thread (which is quite a few of the more notable ones) I don't think the Democrat label is at any risk of becoming toxic except to those already entrenched in another side. Sometimes hints are just hints, and there's nothing real behind them; especially when there's another side looking to make a mountain out of molehills of anything that looks the slightest bit off.
There's no way to get an alternate party up to scale in time; the only way is to rely on the various different state-level dem and rep parties to provide different strains to choose from. The side parties are side for a reason, cuz they're mostly catering to people too extreme for the regular parties, in one way or another.
On October 26 2016 11:54 MyLovelyLurker wrote: In my opinion third party votes achieve at best nothing, inside and outside - they're forgotten in a pinch - and at worst signal that democracy is sick and voters are defiant, which is a double-edged sword since it encourages more lunatic fringey candidates to step in, ultimately yielding a cycle of polarization and gridlock. Alternation of power is better, when realistic.
Maybe normally, but I feel like both parties are unstable at the moment and there's a significant (>5%) chance that one of them falls apart in the next decade. The Republican party is developing strain between the ex-Tea Party contrarians and the party center, and between the party center and Trump. Meanwhile, the Democratic party needs to deal with the recent hints of deep corruption from the email leaks; if they continue to ignore the issue, the label "Democrat" could become toxic. Either issue could result in a shift to a different two-party system, in which case it'd be better to already have an established backup second party ready to go.
(BTW, it's really nice to be able to have a civil conversation about the election where the people I'm talking to don't agree with me.)
Gary Johnson flames out - The Libertarian nominee is on a downward trajectory in the polls.
The bottom is falling out of Gary Johnson’s poll numbers.
The two-time Libertarian presidential candidate has shed roughly half his supporters over the past two months. His slide from nearly 10 percent in September to a recent polling average of 5.6 percent — combined with Hillary Clinton’s growing advantage over Donald Trump — means Johnson is increasingly unlikely to be a major factor unless the race tightens in the final two weeks.
The former New Mexico governor, along with other third-party candidates, could still tip the scales in states where minor-party candidates have traditionally run strongest. But despite Johnson’s large national profile, the third-party candidate who now has the best chance of swinging a state result is Evan McMullin — the former House GOP staffer running as an independent who is climbing in the polls in Utah, typically a safe Republican state.
But McMullin is on the ballot in only about a dozen states, while Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Green Party nominee Jill Stein is on 45 ballots, including D.C.
In recent presidential elections, third-party candidates have been kept in the low single-digits on Election Day. At the national level, 1.7 percent of voters in 2012 chose a candidate from outside the two major-party nominees, up from 1.4 percent in 2008 and 1 percent in 2004. In 2000, when Ralph Nader won 2.7 percent of the vote as the Green Party nominee, 3.7 percent of voters picked from outside the Democratic and Republican candidates.
-snipped-
Unfortunately Johnson's probably going to be lucky to even get 5% at this point.
I think there will need to be a lot more polling after the elections are done, but I'm not sure where most (middle-ground) people stand on Hillary's corruption, because there's really not enough damning evidence of it, and there's a lot of apathy in the air for how this election has been run - mud-slinging, embellishment, lying, insults, potentially falsified evidence, etc. I wouldn't be able to say with certainty how Hillary will be viewed in 3 years when hopefully Trump is out of the limelight and the real stories come out and the fake stories die (assuming she wins).
There's not really been much evidence that Hillary herself has been corrupt in those leaks, but the DNC heads have been hurt by them.
The only real thing that seems to have come out of the more recent leaks was Brazille leaking a townhall question to the Clinton campaign while she worked at CNN. At best that's mid-level corruption - I didn't really like Brazille before it because I thought she was the kind of person who would do that kind of thing. Didn't really alter my opinion of her at all.
EPT
