|
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 November 15 2016 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded. The media followed the easiest way to make money. Unfortunately, that didn't include any real substantive criticism and just a lot of "Clinton is corrupt and Trump is an asshole". There was good stuff here and there, but it was pretty much drowned out by the deluge of clickbait.
Beyond that, there was some clear agenda-pushing from many directions. Some of the people who most aggressively criticized Trump also stood to gain the most from a Clinton win. The two examples that come to mind instantly are Mike Morell and FP Mag endorsing her. Their criticisms of Trump are not very nuanced, though plenty in them is valid, but their endorsement of Hillary Clinton as a FP pillar is clearly without nuance and devoid of a valid level of self-criticism. One who is not deeply on their side or so deep into the anti-Trump wagon as to not be willing to see both sides can see it for what it is, and despite the obvious dangers of a Trump presidency, in a way this did need to happen. Whether or not it was worth it will be a story told by the history cubes.
|
On November 15 2016 02:18 Sermokala wrote:
As a minnesota resident I can say Keith elison is super legit. Him and Tom Emmer who's a Republican work together on minnesota Somali issues. He sees in the ground islamaphobia and it's causes and actively works on it. A lot of friction in the Somali community actually comes from other west African catholic black people. And yes it's not the whole community but the young who are first generation americans who have the most problems.
Amy Klobuchar would make a great candidate for president and for a first woman president. Now that the midwest is the battleground of the nation someone able to lock down the great lake states would be powerful.
I like Ellison, but my 2 reservations are (i) he's from a very safe, urban Dem district and (ii) he's a lawmaker and I'd like to see a full-time chairman. Maybe some combo of him and Dean as co-chair or chair and vice-chair.
On November 15 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 02:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded. The media followed the easiest way to make money. Unfortunately, that didn't include any real substantive criticism and just a lot of "Clinton is corrupt and Trump is an asshole". There was good stuff here and there, but it was pretty much drowned out by the deluge of clickbait. Beyond that, there was some clear agenda-pushing from many directions. Some of the people who most aggressively criticized Trump also stood to gain the most from a Clinton win. The two examples that come to mind instantly are Mike Morell and FP Mag endorsing her. Their criticisms of Trump are not very nuanced, though plenty in them is valid, but their endorsement of Hillary Clinton as a FP pillar is clearly without nuance and devoid of a valid level of self-criticism. One who is not deeply on their side or so deep into the anti-Trump wagon as to not be willing to see both sides can see it for what it is, and despite the obvious dangers of a Trump presidency, in a way this did need to happen. Whether or not it was worth it will be a story told by the history cubes.
What is with you and history cubes?
|
Where else are we going to store historical knowledge in the future if not in cubes?
One day they will speak of a candidate so electable that a socialist old man had to be put down to stop the next Hitler from taking power.
|
On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. Having brains means you know a KKK march is newsworthy. If you're willing to deny that, there's a lot you're willing to deny. Such as that Donald Trump is a deer in headlights right now. 200 retards walking down the street in the Carolinas aren't really newsworthy, no. Neither is David Duke. Nobody cares about David Duke. A guy with all of 3% support. And nobody will ever care about him again. This is something people have already been blaming the media for. That it was the news cycle, without which Trump didn't have free advertising, that elevated him. And that's a bad thing to do, legitimize someone you believe is evil, give them a platform, unless it's someone who's actually called himself a Grand Wizard and would never be relevant without getting invited on TV.  On November 14 2016 12:18 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. Might want to re-evaluate this one. We don't have much of an idea what is going to happen. Trump's inability to focus and taking a "chairman of the board" role means, like we suspected, others especially Mike Pence are gonna be making a lot of decisions. The notion that we can make all these reasoned statements of what President Trump will be and do is pretty silly. His incompetence still makes him a dice roll. And I hope Trump's supporters have the honesty to own the result. If you find it inconvenient to think your way through these issues, just don't trouble yourself. The rest of us will continue seeing our predictions come to fruition. Everything might feel like a roll of the dice to you, but if one side of the die comes up 90% of the time, we can be pretty confident. If you don't like Pence, you should have collectively been more psychologically open to his candidacy from the beginning, as some of us suggested (rather than going all-in on one candidate with one strategy), and you might have gotten a different running mate to go along with the best thing to happen to the GOP in years. If DJT had run as a Democrat in an alternate timeline, he would have won with the votes of a lot of the same people naysaying him now. But he probably smartly knew the Democratic nomination would have been out of reach. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff.
There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful".
|
On November 15 2016 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 02:17 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. Having brains means you know a KKK march is newsworthy. If you're willing to deny that, there's a lot you're willing to deny. Such as that Donald Trump is a deer in headlights right now. 200 retards walking down the street in the Carolinas aren't really newsworthy, no. Neither is David Duke. Nobody cares about David Duke. A guy with all of 3% support. And nobody will ever care about him again. This is something people have already been blaming the media for. That it was the news cycle, without which Trump didn't have free advertising, that elevated him. And that's a bad thing to do, legitimize someone you believe is evil, give them a platform, unless it's someone who's actually called himself a Grand Wizard and would never be relevant without getting invited on TV. On November 14 2016 12:18 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. Might want to re-evaluate this one. We don't have much of an idea what is going to happen. Trump's inability to focus and taking a "chairman of the board" role means, like we suspected, others especially Mike Pence are gonna be making a lot of decisions. The notion that we can make all these reasoned statements of what President Trump will be and do is pretty silly. His incompetence still makes him a dice roll. And I hope Trump's supporters have the honesty to own the result. If you find it inconvenient to think your way through these issues, just don't trouble yourself. The rest of us will continue seeing our predictions come to fruition. Everything might feel like a roll of the dice to you, but if one side of the die comes up 90% of the time, we can be pretty confident. If you don't like Pence, you should have collectively been more psychologically open to his candidacy from the beginning, as some of us suggested (rather than going all-in on one candidate with one strategy), and you might have gotten a different running mate to go along with the best thing to happen to the GOP in years. If DJT had run as a Democrat in an alternate timeline, he would have won with the votes of a lot of the same people naysaying him now. But he probably smartly knew the Democratic nomination would have been out of reach. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true. Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff. There's good reason to believe this is different than "yeah of course the VP is powerful".
Well, I thought you had said we can't possibly have any idea what's going to happen. I now realize that doesn't apply to outcomes we don't like. The vice president has no authority to sign a bill or do basically anything else important. The president can just ignore him if he doesn't like what he's getting.
|
On paper VP is powerful. In reality, you have Dick Cheney.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I just had a chance to look at Trump's 60 minute interview. And a couple things I have to comment on.
Building The Wall™ seems like one of those Shovel Ready™ job programs that Obama wanted from post-TARP stimulus program. Feels like a standard Keynesian stimulus project. He's keeping the Obama incarceration of illegals and not chasing after all the other Undocumented™ aliens. Maybe he can really deport the criminals so they stop clogging up jail resources and sucking money. Ho hum.
Repeal the ACA and keep pre-existing conditions and under 26 dependent care... hmm. No individual mandate?
This will kill health Insurance. If you want pre-existing conditions covered, you CANNOT give people the option to not buy the insurance. For the set of low probably but astronomical cost health conditions, individual can always wait until after they are diagnosed with the condition in order buy the insurance. Insurance companies have to cover the cost of treatment. This is guaranteed loss for the insurance companies.
At the beginning, insurance companies naturally lose the healthiest segment of the population, the young people. Then as average costs go higher and higher, insurance companies will lose more and more from its healthy and low risk side of the spectrum and pile-up on guarantee loss pre-existing conditions. At some point, the premiums will be so high, market will collapse, and it would be like there is no insurance at all.
Well damn. At least in such a scenario, Americans will fully appreciate the cost of healthcare instead of bitching about premiums.
|
On November 15 2016 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
On paper VP is powerful. In reality, you have Dick Cheney.
I would argue Trump is significantly more opinionated and specific than GWB. I also think that Trump's visit with Obama, as well as all he learns about the presidency in the weeks leading up to inauguration, will make it a lot more important to him.
|
On November 15 2016 03:52 TanGeng wrote:
I just had a chance to look at Trump's 60 minute interview. And a couple things I have to comment on.
Building The Wall™ seems like one of those Shovel Ready™ job programs that Obama wanted from post-TARP stimulus program. Feels like a standard Keynesian stimulus project. He's keeping the Obama incarceration of illegals and not chasing after all the other Undocumented™ aliens. Maybe he can really deport the criminals so they stop clogging up jail resources and sucking money. Ho hum.
Repeal the ACA and keep pre-existing conditions and under 26 dependent care... hmm. No individual mandate?
This will kill health Insurance. If you want pre-existing conditions covered, you CANNOT give people the option to not buy the insurance. For the set of low probably but astronomical cost health conditions, individual can always wait until after they are diagnosed with the condition in order buy the insurance. Insurance companies have to cover the cost of treatment. This is guaranteed loss for the insurance companies.
At the beginning, insurance companies naturally lose the healthiest segment of the population, the young people. Then as average costs go higher and higher, insurance companies will lose more and more from its healthy and low risk side of the spectrum and pile-up on guarantee loss pre-existing conditions. At some point, the premiums will be so high, market will collapse, and it would be like there is no insurance at all.
Well damn. At least in such a scenario, Americans will fully appreciate the cost of healthcare instead of bitching about premiums.
Ultimately, single-payer universal healthcare is the system that works, and the ACA is only viable to the extent that it leads to that system. That it's so hard to implement universal healthcare is not indicative of its effectiveness as a policy; it has quite convincingly been proven the best.
|
if I were to pick an intermediary system between the prior american system and single payer, I don't think I'd choose the ACA.
I still think the republicans should try to put up a fiscally conservative alternative system that's actually fleshed out, rather than vague promises that the Ryan plan has done.
|
On November 15 2016 03:52 TanGeng wrote:
I just had a chance to look at Trump's 60 minute interview. And a couple things I have to comment on.
Building The Wall™ seems like one of those Shovel Ready™ job programs that Obama wanted from post-TARP stimulus program. Feels like a standard Keynesian stimulus project. He's keeping the Obama incarceration of illegals and not chasing after all the other Undocumented™ aliens. Maybe he can really deport the criminals so they stop clogging up jail resources and sucking money. Ho hum.
Repeal the ACA and keep pre-existing conditions and under 26 dependent care... hmm. No individual mandate?
This will kill health Insurance. If you want pre-existing conditions covered, you CANNOT give people the option to not buy the insurance. For the set of low probably but astronomical cost health conditions, individual can always wait until after they are diagnosed with the condition in order buy the insurance. Insurance companies have to cover the cost of treatment. This is guaranteed loss for the insurance companies.
At the beginning, insurance companies naturally lose the healthiest segment of the population, the young people. Then as average costs go higher and higher, insurance companies will lose more and more from its healthy and low risk side of the spectrum and pile-up on guarantee loss pre-existing conditions. At some point, the premiums will be so high, market will collapse, and it would be like there is no insurance at all.
Well damn. At least in such a scenario, Americans will fully appreciate the cost of healthcare instead of bitching about premiums.
An interesting thought:
1. Trump used to be all for single payer
2. Trump's plan would body slam the insurance industry
3. Perhaps we are seeing "starve the beast" be applied to a private industry?
4. Government...bail out of insurance in the form of what ends up being medicaid for all?
|
On November 15 2016 04:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 03:52 TanGeng wrote:
I just had a chance to look at Trump's 60 minute interview. And a couple things I have to comment on.
Building The Wall™ seems like one of those Shovel Ready™ job programs that Obama wanted from post-TARP stimulus program. Feels like a standard Keynesian stimulus project. He's keeping the Obama incarceration of illegals and not chasing after all the other Undocumented™ aliens. Maybe he can really deport the criminals so they stop clogging up jail resources and sucking money. Ho hum.
Repeal the ACA and keep pre-existing conditions and under 26 dependent care... hmm. No individual mandate?
This will kill health Insurance. If you want pre-existing conditions covered, you CANNOT give people the option to not buy the insurance. For the set of low probably but astronomical cost health conditions, individual can always wait until after they are diagnosed with the condition in order buy the insurance. Insurance companies have to cover the cost of treatment. This is guaranteed loss for the insurance companies.
At the beginning, insurance companies naturally lose the healthiest segment of the population, the young people. Then as average costs go higher and higher, insurance companies will lose more and more from its healthy and low risk side of the spectrum and pile-up on guarantee loss pre-existing conditions. At some point, the premiums will be so high, market will collapse, and it would be like there is no insurance at all.
Well damn. At least in such a scenario, Americans will fully appreciate the cost of healthcare instead of bitching about premiums. An interesting thought: 1. Trump used to be all for single payer 2. Trump's plan would body slam the insurance industry 3. Perhaps we are seeing "starve the beast" be applied to a private industry? 4. Government...bail out of insurance in the form of what ends up being medicaid for all?
You forgot Step 5. Congressional Passage-return to Step 1.
|
On November 15 2016 04:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 03:52 TanGeng wrote:
I just had a chance to look at Trump's 60 minute interview. And a couple things I have to comment on.
Building The Wall™ seems like one of those Shovel Ready™ job programs that Obama wanted from post-TARP stimulus program. Feels like a standard Keynesian stimulus project. He's keeping the Obama incarceration of illegals and not chasing after all the other Undocumented™ aliens. Maybe he can really deport the criminals so they stop clogging up jail resources and sucking money. Ho hum.
Repeal the ACA and keep pre-existing conditions and under 26 dependent care... hmm. No individual mandate?
This will kill health Insurance. If you want pre-existing conditions covered, you CANNOT give people the option to not buy the insurance. For the set of low probably but astronomical cost health conditions, individual can always wait until after they are diagnosed with the condition in order buy the insurance. Insurance companies have to cover the cost of treatment. This is guaranteed loss for the insurance companies.
At the beginning, insurance companies naturally lose the healthiest segment of the population, the young people. Then as average costs go higher and higher, insurance companies will lose more and more from its healthy and low risk side of the spectrum and pile-up on guarantee loss pre-existing conditions. At some point, the premiums will be so high, market will collapse, and it would be like there is no insurance at all.
Well damn. At least in such a scenario, Americans will fully appreciate the cost of healthcare instead of bitching about premiums. An interesting thought: 1. Trump used to be all for single payer 2. Trump's plan would body slam the insurance industry 3. Perhaps we are seeing "starve the beast" be applied to a private industry? 4. Government...bail out of insurance in the form of what ends up being medicaid for all?
I wonder if xDaunt's quip on ACA breaking insurance companies to make way for single payer will turn out to be prescient? It does make some sense in a sort of twisted logic sort of way.
In any case single payer universal healthcare is the system that works best and the US is late to realize that.
On November 15 2016 04:02 zlefin wrote:
if I were to pick an intermediary system between the prior american system and single payer, I don't think I'd choose the ACA.
I still think the republicans should try to put up a fiscally conservative alternative system that's actually fleshed out, rather than vague promises that the Ryan plan has done.
Wasn't Obamacare basically the Heritage Foundation's alternative to universal healthcare anyways?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 04:09 LegalLord wrote:
Wasn't Obamacare basically the Heritage Foundation's alternative to universal healthcare anyways?
Mostly. Sort Of.
There are only so many ways you can manipulate health insurance industry to achieve the most popular provisions. So it has to look similar.
|
legal -> iirc it was when it was romneycare; but I think there may've been a few differences and i'm not sure heritage still likes the idea, I think they may've changed their mind on it at some point.
|
One of the major flaws in US healthcare that consistently leads to huge prices is in all the disincentives it creates in preventative treatment of diseases, making issues escalate until they become obscenely expensive to treat. Consistent and mass-produced cheap preventative care does a lot more than advanced treatments in keeping people healthy. The US makes it difficult to receive care and that tends to lead people to sitting on dangerous diseases before they become worse - and more expensive.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 04:20 zlefin wrote:
legal -> iirc it was when it was romneycare; but I think there may've been a few differences and i'm not sure heritage still likes the idea, I think they may've changed their mind on it at some point.
I was talking about 1989 when it was think tank material rather than its first policy form in 2006.
|
Microsoft announced on Monday that it has made its largest wind energy purchase yet.
The tech giant bought 237 megawatts of wind energy to completely power its newly built datacenter in Cheyenne, Wyoming, a state where nearly 88 percent of electricity comes from heavy pollutant coal.
The latest purchase brings Microsoft’s total wind power capacity up to 500 megawatts ― a significant number, but small when you consider that it’s less than one-eighth of what one nuclear plant produces.
Last year, when the Redmond, Washington-based company publicized plans to open the datacenter, Wyoming Gov. Matthew Mead (R) touted his state’s cheap electricity. Microsoft’s datacenters house servers that host websites across the internet, and suck up huge amounts of electricity. Because most electricity is generated by dirty fossil fuels, such as coal, datacenters now contribute nearly as much to global warming as the entire air travel industry.
Microsoft’s move comes nearly a week after Donald Trump won his presidential bid, ushering in a transitional team stacked with climate change deniers and oil industry executives keen to reverse much of the last eight years’ hard-forged environmental progress.
So far, the president-elect has signaled his desire to quash President Barack Obama’s currently stalled Clean Power Plan, reignite the coal industry and pull out of the historic Paris climate accord. Already, the company behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which Obama rejected last year, is looking to repitch the project. Trump has called scientific evidence of climate change “bullshit” and “a hoax.”
He has also repeatedly trashed the wind and solar industries for being too costly and for killing eagles that collide with turbines. Oil and coal stocks surged the day after his historic election.
The “only hope” for fighting climate change over the next four years, as Fast Company declared last week, may rest in mayors and activistic chief executives.
Under policies like Obama’s, Microsoft’s investment in wind power may have seemed like an incremental step in a larger march forward. And it still has some value, as it demonstrates the commercial viability of clean energy. But now, such a move may amount to little more than a ploy by a $454 billion behemoth to compete with rivals like Google and Amazon.
Google became the biggest corporate purchaser of clean energy last year, and it’s investing aggressively to meet its goal of powering all its operations with renewables by 2025. The firm is even using its advanced artificial intelligence software to find new ways to stop wasting electricity.
Amazon, by contrast, refuses to release data on its own carbon emissions, and has been much slower than its competitors to invest in clean power. Given that Microsoft is second only to Amazon in the lucrative web-hosting industry, purchasing wind power gives the Xbox maker a leg up.
“We’re focused on building a cloud that serves the broader good, a cloud that is trusted, inclusive and responsible,” Microsoft President Brad Smith wrote in a blog post. “By thinking creatively about our energy needs and the assets at our datacenters, we’re able to deliver an innovative solution in Wyoming that does just that — and serves as a model from which we all can learn.”
If only the incoming Trump administration would take heed.
Source
|
On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey".
I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies and rhetoric have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend:
“I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added.
Source.
Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think?
And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of.
Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party.
|
single payer isnt really the only/ best way to achieve effective universal coverage, though in its implemented cases it certainly does seem like a good solution. going swiss (basic required insurance plus supplemental) or german (multipayer) are other options and more possible to transition to from our current system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
