EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6466
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 23 2016 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote: I'm unsure what you mean by this. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/13/losers-clinton-campaign-ignored-bills-advice-and-felt-white-working-class-voters-werent-worth-the-time-n2245095 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-clintons-lonely-one-man-effort-to-win-white-working-class-voters/article/2607228 There's been plenty of criticism to the Clinton strategy both from outside and inside the Clinton camp. Even her own husband has not been in full agreement of their strategy. I think the main thing you mean is that neither Podesta nor Hillary has made big deal speeches about how they lost. And with how big the popular vote lead is, neither would I. I am fairly certain Hillary feels robbed by archaic rules while I'm certain Podesta knows he'll never get work as a campaign strategist ever again. Neither have incentive to talk about it. Hillary feels she's won and Podesta will never be hired--so its resolved in their eyes. You've got some anonymous sources and whispers of self-reflection comprising a slim minority of stories. Look at front pages and the bulk of coverage: it's comey, Russia, racism/sexism/bigotry, fake news, and flaws in the electoral college. Period. A couple posts back responding to LL's correct criticism, I brought up a round table discussion that featured pushback at even the thought of Hillary lost because of something on her end. If we really had a healthy atmosphere, it would be easy to admit her share, but as it stands, the answer is no. You might be the biggest exhibit A in this thread, just with exchanges against farva and LL, that we're still in dishonest post-game discussion. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 23 2016 03:21 Gorsameth wrote: Gee, wouldn't it be handy for the government to have a list of all citizens with basic things like nationality and current residence? Nah, that would make to much sense We could also have two types of documentation, one you can ask for the other given to you when you're born, and then have those documents on record. You can call one a Birth Certificate and the other a Passport. Crazy talk, I know, but damn one can dream right? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 23 2016 03:27 Danglars wrote: You've got some anonymous sources and whispers of self-reflection comprising a slim minority of stories. Look at front pages and the bulk of coverage: it's comey, Russia, racism/sexism/bigotry, fake news, and flaws in the electoral college. Period. A couple posts back responding to LL's correct criticism, I brought up a round table discussion that featured pushback at even the thought of Hillary lost because of something on her end. If we really had a healthy atmosphere, it would be easy to admit her share, but as it stands, the answer is no. You might be the biggest exhibit A in this thread, just with exchanges against farva and LL, that we're still in dishonest post-game discussion. You must not have read the few times I continually said that Hillary and her team made multiple strategic and image mistakes both during the initial stages of the general (Kaine nomination being the biggest) and late into the campaign (GOTV spending the most glaring) and the possibly didn't see the post you just quoted of me saying that there was even fights within the campaign due to disagreements on strategy. But I guess saying that the team messed up early, during, and late into the general election is insufficient to you as a statement saying they were at fault for the loss? Or is it that what you really want is for people to say that they dislike Hillary and were only forced into voting for her? Could you be more specific as to what you're trying to force people to say? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22215 Posts
On December 23 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote: Let's throw in religious affiliation in that registry just to be safe. You realize most of the world seems to manage to keep a record of their citizens and managed to not use it as a form of oppression right? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The federal government has cut payments to 769 hospitals with high rates of patient injuries, for the first time counting the spread of antibiotic-resistant germs in assessing penalties. The punishments come in the third year of Medicare penalties for hospitals with patients most frequently suffering from potentially avoidable complications, including various types of infections, blood clots, bed sores and falls. This year the government also examined the prevalence of two types of bacteria resistant to drugs. Based on rates of all these complications, the hospitals identified by federal officials this week will lose 1 percent of all Medicare payments for a year — with that time frame beginning this past October. While the government did not release the dollar amount of the penalties, it will exceed a million dollars for many larger hospitals. In total, hospitals will lose about $430 million, 18 percent more than they lost last year, according to an estimate from the Association of American Medical Colleges. The reductions apply not only to patient stays but also will reduce the amount of money hospitals get to teach medical residents and care for low-income people. Forty percent of the hospitals penalized this year escaped punishment in the first two years of the program, a Kaiser Health News analysis shows. Those 306 hospitals include the University of Miami Hospital in Florida, Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts, the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Nationally, hospital-acquired conditions declined by 21 percent between 2010 and 2015, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ. The biggest reductions were for bad reactions to medicines, catheter infections and post-surgical blood clots. Still, hospital harm remains a threat. AHRQ estimates there were 3.8 million hospital injuries last year, which translates to 115 injuries during every 1,000 patient hospital stays during that period. Source | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 23 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote: Let's throw in religious affiliation in that registry just to be safe. That's super hard to ensure isn't it? What's to stop everyone just saying Christian/Atheist and just ignore it from then on out? "Can't be Ahkmed 'Fuck America' Bin Laden, says here he's Christian" And if someone says to you "Hey, you're not Christian!" then wouldn't they just say "I totally believed in the Jesus when I got that card, but America's culture turned me away from the Bible, its the Democrats fault for corrupting my christianity! Praise be the Jesus!" Much better would be to require churches and holy men to have records of who attends services and only counting as a religious institution if they maintain specific attendance metrics otherwise they get taxed as businesses. That way, we track practitioners instead of liars. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 23 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote: Not really the "number of nukes" that is what matters as much as effective delivery. How well can you counter a first strike, how good is your second strike, how well can you use nukes to deter significant conventional threats. The US spends a lot of money on stupid shit like trying to build a missile shield or trying to be able to first strike against Russia which is both expensive and based on a pipe dream, which it should do less of. Our new president doesn't know what the nuclear triad is. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 23 2016 03:27 Danglars wrote: You've got some anonymous sources and whispers of self-reflection comprising a slim minority of stories. Look at front pages and the bulk of coverage: it's comey, Russia, racism/sexism/bigotry, fake news, and flaws in the electoral college. Period. A couple posts back responding to LL's correct criticism, I brought up a round table discussion that featured pushback at even the thought of Hillary lost because of something on her end. If we really had a healthy atmosphere, it would be easy to admit her share, but as it stands, the answer is no. You might be the biggest exhibit A in this thread, just with exchanges against farva and LL, that we're still in dishonest post-game discussion. At least for me, it's a strategic choice to omit the fact that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. To me, that information is self-evident and in the past. She will never be president, and the sooner that the Democratic Party can move on, the better. For that reason, I think discussions of Russia, the FBI, and fake news are far more important because they are issues that will continue to plague our country until they are resolved. Heaven help us, Hillary Clinton will not attempt another ill-fated presidential run, so discussing how terrible that was or could be is kind of irrelevant, and diminishes the other aspects of this election that should be cause for concern. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On December 23 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote: What's the problem with a better nuclear arsenal? Specifically, the US should work on better land-based nukes given that I've heard from people in the know that the US is pretty much relying on its submarines in the case of a Russian (since no one but Russia and the US takes nukes particularly seriously) first strike because they expect their land-based systems to be destroyed in the process. If he means that the US needs to improve its first strike capability then he can fuck off. That isn't going to work nor will it end well. Really? 1. It's a complete fucking waste of money. We already have the best arsenal. 2. It's a complete fucking waste of money. We don't need more, we already have enough to end the world multiple times. 3. We lose all authority to tell less responsible countries like Pakistan or even Iran to decrease their arsenal. 4. You run the risk of starting another arms race. This is just Trump trying to show everyone how big his dick, or hand, is. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 23 2016 05:07 On_Slaught wrote: Really? 1. It's a complete fucking waste of money. We already have the best arsenal. 2. It's a complete fucking waste of money. We don't need more, we already have enough to end the world multiple times. 3. We lose all authority to tell less responsible countries like Pakistan or even Iran to decrease their arsenal. 4. You run the risk of starting another arms race. This is just Trump trying to show everyone how big his dick, or hand, is. Do you think that we should stop developing conventional arms capabilities because the US has the best in the world, it's a waste of money, it emboldens Pakistan and Iran, and let's face it, it's just a Trump dick measuring contest? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Chewits
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
Donald Trump: US must greatly expand nuclear weapons http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38410027 Is this even for real? We are all fucked. Backwards thinking. Sigh | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On December 23 2016 05:35 LegalLord wrote: Do you think that we should stop developing conventional arms capabilities because the US has the best in the world, it's a waste of money, it emboldens Pakistan and Iran, and let's face it, it's just a Trump dick measuring contest? Complete red herring. The reason WMDs get special attention is because of their destructive power and the threat fallout poses to every human on earth. The world is not innately put at risk by Iran, China, or the US developing faster planes or more durable tanks. The entire basis of our arguments against Iran getting nukes and Pakistan keeping theirs is that the world is safer with less nukes, hence why us and Russia have been lowering our numbers. If we increase our production, then so will everyone else. And the more nukes there are, the more likely they get used, or stolen and then used. To your point, Trump just called out the F-35 for being too expensive (he's right. The program is a joke like the plane). How can he attack a program like that on one hand, which does us no international harm, while on the other saying we should burn up billions making world ending weapons slightly better at ending the world all the while making us look like fools in future negotiations? Makes sense only in Trump land. At least it is consistent with his desire to move us back to the 1960s. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 23 2016 05:35 LegalLord wrote: Do you think that we should stop developing conventional arms capabilities because the US has the best in the world, it's a waste of money, it emboldens Pakistan and Iran, and let's face it, it's just a Trump dick measuring contest? Do you think it is appropriate to draw a direct analogy between nuclear weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons? Society, it seems, has drawn a distinct line between nuclear weapons and everything else, and encouraging other nations to also increase their nuclear arsenal won't be good for anybody. And as for Hillary's strategic mistakes, I still think that her main problem was not her strategy, but her. With a non-terrible candidate, Democrats don't actually have to engage the fly-over states like people are pretending they do. She lost this election by losing several key swing states by about 100,000 votes. If she had even been a slightly less terrible candidate, she would have defeated Donald Trump easily. As demographics continue to shift, it will only become harder for Republicans to win presidential elections. One enormous caveat to this: Democrats need to actually fucking vote. It's astonishing to me how poor the turnout was in this election given that a fascist was on one side of the aisle, but even that couldn't convince people to vote for Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats are truly looking inward (they are not), they should be more worried about the complete lack of local engagement. Winning the presidency means nothing if you can't control government on the local level, and Democrats are hilariously bad at organizing on the local level, because they are competing against middle-class enraged white people, who love to organize on the local level. Until Democrats can solve this problem, they will continue to lose everything but the presidency, which seems to be the only election Democrats are willing to show up for. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 23 2016 06:11 LegalLord wrote: Danglars put it well: let's wait for demography to hopefully make us win everything 2020! So you're agreeing with me then? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 23 2016 06:11 LegalLord wrote: Danglars put it well: let's wait for demography to hopefully make us win everything 2020! at this rate I'm not sure we'll make it to 2020. I wish I was more than half-joking | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 23 2016 06:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: at this rate I'm not sure we'll make it to 2020. I wish I was more than half-joking Don't be so pessimistic, I'm at least 55% sure we'll make it to 2018, which is only halfway to 2020! We're all gonna die  | ||
| ||
