|
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 August 08 2017 10:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:Periodic reminder that Bernie's sole mission is division of a party that he refuses to join. Bernie is planning to have his Our Revolution people primary moderate Democrats all around the country if they dare not buy into his $18 trillion dollars in the hole healthcare plan. Show nested quote +
“Our view is that within the Democratic Party, this is fast-emerging as a litmus test,” said Ben Tulchin, the pollster for Sanders’ White House run.
...
“There’s a concern that [Sanders allied] people will try to make a stir,” said a senior Democratic aide working on a 2018 campaign. “You can’t just be a liberal Democrat in a lot of these states and be elected. [So] the question is how we improve the lives of people instead of playing these political games."
Sanders allies don’t find that argument convincing.
“Any Democrat worth their salt that doesn’t unequivocally say Medicare-for-all is the way to go? To me, there’s something wrong with them,” said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution. “We’re not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/07/bernie-sanders-democrats-medicare-primaries-241388Another periodic reminder, Berniecare was found to be $18 trillion in the hole and zero professional analysis has contradicted that number. No, citing Canada is not an answer since all legislation in the USA must go from the USA baseline, thus only analysis of the USA can be used to push back against the -$18 trillion number. See, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-and-transfer-proposals Once again Sanders and his crew plan on attacking vulnerable Democrats on the basis of a plan that they refuse to defend on the financial merits.
Periodic reminder that some Democrats are incredibly out of touch still.
|
On August 08 2017 10:23 Sermokala wrote:
Your post is pretty bad and you should feel bad. Bernie sanders plan is single payer health care and you didn't even give context for your "$18 Trillion in the hole" quote. It would be increasing federal deifcits by $18 Trillion over a decade If we belive the stats that you quote.
You can't use analysis of a system based on data from a completely different system. Use data from the system from other implementation of the system and scale it up for the US. Thats what you would do for anything else. OFC its going to be hella expensive to tax the populace for a quarter or more of the economy to go through the government from now on but its worked in every other situation its been used and the system we have now is barely getting us by.
Do you have any numbers to contradict the repeated findings of previous professional analysis of implementing Single Payer in the USA? My post has data, yours has idle theorizing about the ability to reimplement a healthcare plans other country's implemented in the 60-70s.
Cali single payer would require 2x the current budget.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.html
Vermont: "But the very real peril came in the cost for the program, an estimated $4.3 billion a year, almost the size of the state’s entire $4.9 billion budget. To make up for the $2 billion shortfall, taxes would have to go up, a lot."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanderss-single-payer-health-care-plan-failed-in-vermont
Bernie: $18 trillion in the hole and uncontested by any citations to professional analysis. All you are holding is the theory that if it worked in Canada in the 60s, then we should be able to reimplement it now in 2019.
|
On August 08 2017 10:17 farvacola wrote:Funny that you cut out the line that comes directly before that quote, you'd think someone so insistent on railing against division would be careful to not sew any where it needn't belong.... Show nested quote +The Vermont senator himself has not explicitly said he’ll support primary challenges to those who won’t support his push for a so-called Medicare-for-all health care plan. But there are plenty of signs that Sanders and his allies view the issue as a defining moment for Democratic lawmakers. So yeah, looks like "...Bernie's sole mission is division of a party that he refuses to join. Bernie is planning to have his Our Revolution people primary moderate Democrats all around the country if they dare not buy into his $18 trillion dollars in the hole healthcare plan" is hyperbolic nonsense founded on taking the words of pollsters at face value. For an opposing viewpoint not intended to sew division, though admittedly only current as of July 3.... Show nested quote +On the ground, there is near-perfect unity over the view that the first priority of the entire left-of-center firmament should be to defeat the Senate GOP health care bill. At a Capitol Hill health care rally last week, Senator Bernie Sanders described the “job” of “finally pass[ing] a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program” as one that comes “after we defeat this disastrous [Trumpcare bill], and after we improve the Affordable Care Act.”
What matters is whether or not the Berners actually do start rallying against moderate Dems who won't buy into their $18 trillion dollar electoral suicide pact. Bernie talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to his activists disruption schemes. Bernie says some politically correct stuff here and there to shake off inquisitive reporters (the quote in the piece). But when it is speech time Bernie is out there rallying for Single Payer and talking about taking on the Establishment in both the Republican and the Democratic parties. That message isn't lost the followers. Don't fall for Bernie's politically correct asides that he tosses out to keep the reporters at bay.
“We will be taking on the most powerful special interests in the country: Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the corporate media, the Republican Party and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party,” he emailed supporters last Tuesday.
|
|
|
On August 08 2017 11:14 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 10:23 Sermokala wrote:
Your post is pretty bad and you should feel bad. Bernie sanders plan is single payer health care and you didn't even give context for your "$18 Trillion in the hole" quote. It would be increasing federal deifcits by $18 Trillion over a decade If we belive the stats that you quote.
You can't use analysis of a system based on data from a completely different system. Use data from the system from other implementation of the system and scale it up for the US. Thats what you would do for anything else. OFC its going to be hella expensive to tax the populace for a quarter or more of the economy to go through the government from now on but its worked in every other situation its been used and the system we have now is barely getting us by. Do you have any numbers to contradict the repeated findings of previous professional analysis of implementing Single Payer in the USA? My post has data, yours has idle theorizing about the ability to reimplement a healthcare plans other country's implemented in the 60-70s. Cali single payer would require 2x the current budget. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.htmlVermont: "But the very real peril came in the cost for the program, an estimated $4.3 billion a year, almost the size of the state’s entire $4.9 billion budget. To make up for the $2 billion shortfall, taxes would have to go up, a lot." http://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanderss-single-payer-health-care-plan-failed-in-vermontBernie: $18 trillion in the hole and uncontested by any citations to professional analysis. All you are holding is the theory that if it worked in Canada in the 60s, then we should be able to reimplement it now in 2019.
The US spends $3 Trillion or so on health care every year. Multiply that by ten years and you've got $30 Trillion. You don't have any real data and you're dismissing anything credible in your post that would't support your theories of what it would cost to implement single payer.
Taxes would go way up to pay for single payer. As much as it would cost for Health care. In exchange they wouldn't have to pay for health care. Unless you have data saying how much more they'd have to pay after taking into account how much they pay currently for health care that they wouldn't have to pay under single payer you don't have any data in your post thats anywhere as relevant as my napkin math on how much we'd save on single payer.
And your "$18 Trillion in the hole" quote is garbage because its a quote on how much it would cost over ten years. Its a marketing ploy to make people think that whole value comes in a single year. We're not stupid it just makes you look stupid. Saying a system that was complimented 40 years ago wouldn't be able to implement now isn't a real argument. Its just that we've wasted money and time not implementing it now if its better. Start providing arguments and data about if its better or not.
|
On August 08 2017 11:14 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 10:23 Sermokala wrote:
Your post is pretty bad and you should feel bad. Bernie sanders plan is single payer health care and you didn't even give context for your "$18 Trillion in the hole" quote. It would be increasing federal deifcits by $18 Trillion over a decade If we belive the stats that you quote.
You can't use analysis of a system based on data from a completely different system. Use data from the system from other implementation of the system and scale it up for the US. Thats what you would do for anything else. OFC its going to be hella expensive to tax the populace for a quarter or more of the economy to go through the government from now on but its worked in every other situation its been used and the system we have now is barely getting us by. Do you have any numbers to contradict the repeated findings of previous professional analysis of implementing Single Payer in the USA? My post has data, yours has idle theorizing about the ability to reimplement a healthcare plans other country's implemented in the 60-70s. Cali single payer would require 2x the current budget. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.htmlVermont: "But the very real peril came in the cost for the program, an estimated $4.3 billion a year, almost the size of the state’s entire $4.9 billion budget. To make up for the $2 billion shortfall, taxes would have to go up, a lot." http://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanderss-single-payer-health-care-plan-failed-in-vermontBernie: $18 trillion in the hole and uncontested by any citations to professional analysis. All you are holding is the theory that if it worked in Canada in the 60s, then we should be able to reimplement it now in 2019.
Remind me approximately how much we're going to spend on healthcare (including the enshrined insurance company profits from the ACA) over the next 10 years?
Then remind me how much Bernie wants to spend please?
|
A task force is recommending changes that could loosen protections for the greater sage grouse, a Western bird species renowned for its elaborate mating dance.
The report comes out of a review by the Trump administration of a massive Obama-era conservation plan for the bird which is imperiled by loss of habitat.
The administration says the revisions are aimed at giving states more flexibility. But critics argue that the changes favor mining and petroleum companies and could hurt the bird's long-term prospects.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke ordered a review of current sage grouse management plans in June, saying he wanted to see improvement in the bird's conservation while also taking into account "local economic growth and job creation."
Source
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — A long-simmering dispute between two top White House aides has boiled into a public battle over the direction of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, with a cadre of conservative groups pushing for the ouster of national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
In recent days, conservative groups and a website tied to Trump adviser Steve Bannon have targeted McMaster as insufficiently supportive of Israel and insufficiently tough toward Iran. They’ve expressed outrage about the firings of several aides regarded as sympathetic to their views. An online campaign — under the hashtag #FireMcMaster — prompted Trump to declare his support for his adviser.
The dispute reflects the tensions at the heart of Trump’s foreign policy coalition. McMaster is one of several powerful generals in Trump’s orbit who hail from the Republican foreign policy establishment. But Trump is equally sympathetic to the views of firebrands like Bannon, who are trying to push the party in a new, isolationist direction embodied by his “America First” doctrine.
McMaster and Bannon have clashed loudly and repeatedly during recent White House discussions over Afghanistan war strategy, according to four administration officials and outside advisers. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss private conversations.
Afghanistan, however, represents only the latest dispute between McMaster and Bannon, who’ve also fought over White House personnel.
McMaster, an Army general, recently purged three National Security Council officials who were viewed as close to Bannon or to Michael Flynn, Trump’s previous national security adviser. For people close to Bannon, the moves were seen as telling. The former chief of Breitbart News, who wants Trump to upend the Washington foreign policy establishment, has bitterly argued against further U.S. entanglement in global conflicts and believes McMaster is adhering to holdover Obama administration policies.
Breitbart, which holds significant influence in Trump’s White House, has promoted a series of anti-McMaster headlines on its website. The Zionist Organization of America on Monday announced it has undertaken a review of McMaster’s views on Israel. Dozens of conservative and alt-right social media stars have hammered the national security adviser on Twitter.
The outcry grew so loud that Trump responded Friday: “General McMaster and I are working very well together. He is a good man and very pro-Israel. I am grateful for the work he continues to do serving our country.”
Months earlier, Trump also defended his adviser, taking a printout of a story suggesting he might fire McMaster and scrawling on it with a Sharpie pen, “This is bull----. You’re doing a great job,” along with his signature. He had it delivered to McMaster, according to someone who speaks regularly with officials in the Trump administration.
But privately, Trump has at times expressed some dissatisfaction with McMaster and rued losing Flynn, according to people who have spoken with the president. The White House has said Flynn was dismissed because he did not tell White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the full extent of his contacts with Russian officials.
Trump often vents about aides without making changes. And McMaster’s position was strengthened by the recent appointment of ret. Gen. John Kelly as Trump’s chief of staff.
Bannon’s allies say the recent dismissals are evidence that McMaster is ridding the National Security Council of Trump supporters while deferring to career officials left over from former President Barack Obama’s tenure. They also chafe at McMaster’s involvement in removing Bannon from a prominent role on the NSC earlier this year.
Among those fired: White House intelligence adviser Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a Flynn protégé who previously clashed with CIA leaders.
The Iran nuclear deal also has been a source of disagreement. That Obama-era pact is opposed by Israel and prominent GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, who backs the Zionist Organization of America group that attacked McMaster. Trump has repeatedly denounced the accord, even as he has granted Iran continued relief from U.S. sanctions under the arrangement. McMaster was among the Trump aides advocating for that course.
Source
|
So who here has been following what's been going on over at Google? For those that don't know, a Google employee published this, setting off a shitstorm at the company, which apparently has resulted in Google firing him. What say y'all?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 08 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote:So who here has been following what's been going on over at Google? For those that don't know, a Google employee published this, setting off a shitstorm at the company, which apparently has resulted in Google firing him. What say y'all?
Meh, I expected more. Just a shitty person with a shitty opinion.
|
On August 08 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote:So who here has been following what's been going on over at Google? For those that don't know, a Google employee published this, setting off a shitstorm at the company, which apparently has resulted in Google firing him. What say y'all?
that manifesto was really shitty. It read like some kind of redpill rant. If you want to stay at the company don't insult every single woman by telling them that they're biologically inferior
|
On August 08 2017 10:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
seems to me the issue is that bigcorp, inc. vs joe shmoe there is pretty big power/ knowledge asymmetry. bigcorp, inc writes the contract and includes the mandatory/ binding arbitration clause, which joe schmoe, unlike xdaunt esquire and some of the more legally-inclined/ knowledgeable people here, may not even understand (and hell let's be real 99.whatever % of people don't read the stuff unless you're a weirdo like me who goes through a lease agreement and notices sneaky changes from the state association template and finagles concessions with it).
i agree contracts should generally be enforced, but corp vs consumer wrt arbitration is, for the lack of a more lawyerly phrase, kind of unfair and might be one of those areas where the gov can stand in and (i) curtail it (extreme) (ii) require companies to put it in layman's terms and big bold letters what the implications of the arbitration clause are or (iii - x) some other consumer-friendly option.
i will have to dig up notes from my legal courses, but i believe there is a decent body of literature about the use of mandatory arbitration with consumers. There's obviously a big disparity in sophistication and power between big corporations and Joe Shmoe consumer. My only point is that I find it curious that, of all of the shit that big corporations put into their contracts, people make a big stink over the arbitration clauses. Arbitration clauses are benign compared to some of the other shit that big corporations put into their contracts. Arbitration clauses merely alter the remedial process. The other shit that I'm referring to alters or even eliminates the remedy.
right, but a lot of the other stuff, if pushed hard enough, turns out to be stinky either for legal reasons and is ruled unenforceable by the courts, or for PR reasons becomes untenable (maybe this happens with some high profile arbitration cases, but only on a case-by-case basis since the underlying facts of each contract with an arbitration clause are so different). with arbitration clauses, the attitude of the courts/ case law seems to be more "hey you agreed to it" since from a philosophical standpoint as a mechanism there is nothing inherently wrong with arbitration, and it's more the duty of the government to legislate remedies, if needed, for abuses of it.
|
On August 08 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote:So who here has been following what's been going on over at Google? For those that don't know, a Google employee published this, setting off a shitstorm at the company, which apparently has resulted in Google firing him. What say y'all?
Time for him to say he identifies as female and is therefore a woman and sue Google for discrimination and sexism
|
United States41988 Posts
On August 08 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote:So who here has been following what's been going on over at Google? For those that don't know, a Google employee published this, setting off a shitstorm at the company, which apparently has resulted in Google firing him. What say y'all?
First grade moron decides to cause some shit, get shitcanned. Don't start no shit, won't be no shit.
Get your company's corporate culture criticized throughout the internet by starting a bunch of drama.
Keep your job.
Pick one.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There is definitely plenty of stupid shit within Google worth criticizing. This, however, is more like a lone moron.
|
Is the firing supposed to be controversial? I'd have to imagine so if it's being brought up as highly relevant.
Guy uses company's internal communications to insult fellow employees. Guy gets fired for doing that.
|
United States41988 Posts
If the rant was grade A SJW "all the higher ups in google are privileged incompetents who benefited from the patriarchy and they should resign in favour of trans female people of color" and the backlash was from conservatives he'd still get fired. But I'm sure somewhere there is a gofundme for him so whatever.
|
I did not read the entire memo. Read the parts where he claims the male-female ratios in it are due to biological differences between the two genders.
I think Google had the right to fire him but I can't help thinking they kinda proved half of his point by doing so. The group of people that agree with him didn't get any counter argument in return, only confirmation that their views aren't welcome. That somehow feels unhealthy to me for the Google company culture.
As for what actually accounts for the difference, I don't know and haven't read any really convincing explanations. My company does stem activities for kids and despite keeping the communication of it and the activities themselves as gender neutral as possible, we keep getting a consistent 30-35% girls - in pt, es and nl. It'd be great for business if it were 50-50 but something's happening and we haven't figured out what yet.
Edit: the more I read into it the more I think Google f'd up. 99% of criticisms I read of the memo seem to dishonestly misrepresent it.
|
On August 08 2017 12:23 xDaunt wrote:So who here has been following what's been going on over at Google? For those that don't know, a Google employee published this, setting off a shitstorm at the company, which apparently has resulted in Google firing him. What say y'all?
"Damore is an Illinois native who graduated from the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy in 2007, according to his Facebook page. As a child, Damore was a chess champion, earning the FIDE Master title, putting him in the >99th percentile, according to his CV. He won regional tournaments in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and finished second in the Nation Youth Action 2"003 Chess Tournament. He was also the highest ranked player in the world in the video game Rise of Nations in 2004.
|
That guy is right. The idea that men and women are completely interchangeable at every job is simply wrong and there is nothing absurd about that. Why is it wrong to say that in 99% of the cases a random man will be a better miner than a woman? Is this sexist? No. It's how humans are designed. The majority of women, for example, are better at works like primary school teacher because they have more empathy with the kids. Exceptions don't matter in the grand scheme. I don't care about 'but my X was great even if he wasn't a woman..' etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
