Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 28 2019 10:16 xDaunt wrote: I find it quite curious that Democrats are so quick to jump on drug companies and other industries who have raised their prices over the years, yet they completely ignore the industry that is most guilty of price-gouging: college education. Quite the contrary, democrats want to empower these institutions to charge even more for education by flooding the system with federal money!
This is not my experience. Perhaps democrats should focus more on this, but I've definitely heard it talked about in liberal circles that the current student debt problem is linked to the price creep of college education. You may be a bit quick to find things "quite curious" about the political party you generally disagree with.
edit: by linked I mean, guaranteed funding for students means schools raise their prices, in part to woo more competitive students, and in part just because they can.
None of these "free college education" plans advanced by any of the candidates addresses tuition prices. In contrast, all of their health care plans place caps on health care costs. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
That is a separate issue. Democratic candidates' plans for helping make college education affordable, or even free for students, ought to address the price of that education, even if it is paid for by public money. You were tangling up your criticisms.
On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote: The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times.
And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812.
It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand.
But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity.
This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A.
Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean?
It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true.
On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban.
On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:
On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:
On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote: The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times.
And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812.
It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand.
But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity.
This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A.
Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in.
It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist.
It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ...
Like it was straight up made to be racist
It would only drive down representation of minorities if they are not citizens. In a similar vein, I would not want a bunch of Americans voting in our Canadian election until such time that they became Canadian citizens. Had we been equally lax in our citizenship for decades, suddenly bringing in Question 13 on a long form census would no doubt dis-proportionally impact Americans rather than Bolivians or Russians, but the policy would nonetheless not be anti-American. It's a sensible census question, even if the guy suggesting it is himself anti-American.
You're missing the point that the constitution guarantees non citizens representation (without voting rights, they cannot select their representatives but they do have representatives). What you are proposing is unconstitutional. It may sound reasonable for you but if you're going to argue that the constitution should be changed then you should incorporate an acknowledgement that you understand the question is unconstitutional into your argument.
On June 28 2019 10:16 xDaunt wrote: I find it quite curious that Democrats are so quick to jump on drug companies and other industries who have raised their prices over the years, yet they completely ignore the industry that is most guilty of price-gouging: college education. Quite the contrary, democrats want to empower these institutions to charge even more for education by flooding the system with federal money!
This is not my experience. Perhaps democrats should focus more on this, but I've definitely heard it talked about in liberal circles that the current student debt problem is linked to the price creep of college education. You may be a bit quick to find things "quite curious" about the political party you generally disagree with.
edit: by linked I mean, guaranteed funding for students means schools raise their prices, in part to woo more competitive students, and in part just because they can.
None of these "free college education" plans advanced by any of the candidates addresses tuition prices. In contrast, all of their health care plans place caps on health care costs. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
That is a separate issue. Democratic candidates' plans for helping make college education affordable, or even free for students, ought to address the price of that education, even if it is paid for by public money. You were tangling up your criticisms.
The point is that their plans don't, despite the obvious need. I find this omission quite curious.
On June 28 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bernie is still the only one that doesn't reek of used car salesman when he talks
That's only because you're not paying attention. His Medicare for all plan is an utter fraud. Like I've posted previously, the more accurate description is Medicare for none.
On June 28 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bernie is still the only one that doesn't reek of used car salesman when he talks
That's only because you're not paying attention. His Medicare for all plan is an utter fraud. Like I've posted previously, the more accurate description is Medicare for none.
EDIT: Bennett is explaining why right now.
I'm paying attention lol, his policy matters a lot less than the other part he mentioned. No one gets nothin without 10's of millions of people taking to the streets and demanding it and he's the only one willing to say it.
Every single person raised their hand on the illegal immigrant healthcare question? Amazing. Biden was last and looked reluctant though. lol. "Just stay out of the spotlight."
edit: and the moderator missed it and called on him anyways. ahaha
On June 28 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bernie is still the only one that doesn't reek of used car salesman when he talks
That's only because you're not paying attention. His Medicare for all plan is an utter fraud. Like I've posted previously, the more accurate description is Medicare for none.
EDIT: Bennett is explaining why right now.
As always I'll remind the readers of the topic that the US gov already spends more per person on healthcare than the British gov does and yet Americans don't have universal government healthcare. You could afford the British system without paying any insurance premiums, copays, deductibles, prescription fees, and so forth. You would have to accept need based rationing though, unless you opted out with private insurance which you could still buy.
On June 28 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bernie is still the only one that doesn't reek of used car salesman when he talks
That's only because you're not paying attention. His Medicare for all plan is an utter fraud. Like I've posted previously, the more accurate description is Medicare for none.
EDIT: Bennett is explaining why right now.
As always I'll remind the readers of the topic that the US gov already spends more per person on healthcare than the British gov does and yet Americans don't have universal government healthcare. You could afford the British system without paying any insurance premiums, copays, deductibles, prescription fees, and so forth. You would have to accept need based rationing though, unless you opted out with private insurance which you could still buy.
Bernie's plan isn't the British plan. And I have no idea why you're posting this anyway because you know that I want a public option.
On June 28 2019 10:33 Introvert wrote: Every single person raised their hand on the illegal immigrant healthcare question? Amazing. Biden was last and looked reluctant though. lol. "Just stay out of the spotlight."
edit: and the moderator missed it and called on him anyways. ahaha
Biden with the slow-ass raise of the hand once he noticed everyone else had raised their hand, even the moderator wasn't sure he had raised his hand lolz
On June 28 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bernie is still the only one that doesn't reek of used car salesman when he talks
That's only because you're not paying attention. His Medicare for all plan is an utter fraud. Like I've posted previously, the more accurate description is Medicare for none.
EDIT: Bennett is explaining why right now.
As always I'll remind the readers of the topic that the US gov already spends more per person on healthcare than the British gov does and yet Americans don't have universal government healthcare. You could afford the British system without paying any insurance premiums, copays, deductibles, prescription fees, and so forth. You would have to accept need based rationing though, unless you opted out with private insurance which you could still buy.
Bernie's plan isn't the British plan. And I have no idea why you're posting this anyway because you know that I want a public option.
On June 28 2019 10:39 Introvert wrote: What exactly is kamala talking about? DACA is still a thing, it's doing the Court system slow walk, so it's REALLY slow.
DACA is on life support. No one wants to pull the plug or give it the magical shot to give it life.
Kamala Harris is wrong there, half of the country is far right, telling immigrants of color to fuck off even though the white people are also immigrants is entirely consistent with your values.
EPT
