Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 227: Cancel the Politics Topic: 250 B8ers will Die

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I know Im a broken record on this

The article you linked to is from 2 days ago when this started in the first place and adds nothing new to the discussion, so this much is definitely true.
---

kevwaffles posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I know Im a broken record on this

The article you linked to is from 2 days ago when this started in the first place and adds nothing new to the discussion, so this much is definitely true.

Actually I linked a Facebook post from less than 12 hours ago, and the caption on the post (written by a major news outlet) was the subject, not the event.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that nearly 8 million people hold more than one job. But most of those extra jobs are part time, not full time.

oh, it's PART TIME, not FULL TIME! that's totally fine! i'm sure those people working full time jobs aren't fucking exhausted when they have to work their extra part time jobs!

this is the kind of insanity you get when a country doesn't have a long-time socialist tradition.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that nearly 8 million people hold more than one job. But most of those extra jobs are part time, not full time.

oh, it's PART TIME, not FULL TIME! that's totally fine! i'm sure those people working full time jobs aren't fucking exhausted when they have to work their extra part time jobs!

this is the kind of insanity you get when a country doesn't have a long-time socialist tradition.

There's definitely been a shift in the US in recent years to a sort of bimodal work hours system. Professional jobs in law, medicine, banking, engineering, tech, consulting, etc. routinely require significantly more than the "standard" 40 hours per week now, while other jobs tend to give you less than 30 hours per week so that the employer can avoid giving you the benefits required for full-time employees under the law.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I know Im a broken record on this

The article you linked to is from 2 days ago when this started in the first place and adds nothing new to the discussion, so this much is definitely true.

Actually I linked a Facebook post from less than 12 hours ago, and the caption on the post (written by a major news outlet) was the subject, not the event from 2 days ago.

I'd be making a lot more fun of you if the only thing to it was a Facebook post.

It's basically a clickbait headline, which is stupid, but it's still all the same shit from all the same time you discussed it, but self-advertised a day later.
---

stop being an asshole. nothing he talked about before was about lying about bernie suggesting a third party run. asking if he would drop out? sure. that was not what made him post that.

I'm an asshole for agreeing with him being a broken record and trying to get him to ignore clickbait bullshit because it had one questionable extrapolation that might not have been explicitly discussed here?

Sure, why not.
---

uh yeah

Yup you came off bad there.
---

So if the polls don't move at all after this we can agree that Biden is the nominee right?
---

Also, I suppose this isn't surprising, but jobs with salaries tend to be requiring more and more work hours, while jobs that pay on an hourly basis tend to be giving you less and less. I saw an article about a firm a few years ago that was offering a "salary" of $10,000 a year to a new lawyer, which is well below the federal minimum wage, and even further below the minimum wage in Boston where this job was. That was when the job market was really bad, and I imagine nowadays they'd have trouble filling the position at that salary, but it does illustrate how companies circumvent minimum wage law by offering "salaries."
---

Dude, you're throwing rocks in a glass house.
---

I don't think Bernie would ever run as an Independent Candidate. If he was going to, he'd have done it a long time ago.

That said, I think at some point -- if he's not one of the frontrunners, he should consider dropping out and endorse someone else. Especially over Joe Biden. This isn't 2016 where the ONLY candidates are Bernie and Hillary. Staying in then made sense -- not because he had a shot at winning the nomination after a certain point, but because people deserve a choice. But there are more than 20 candidates this year. Eventually, there comes a time to throw in the towel and help someone else. Maybe he will--he obviously wouldn't say it at this point. But I think even if Sanders falls behind, he could still do a lot of good and hope he does.
---

He is second or third rn though to all polling so it's absurd to ask someone who has never talked about running third party and, again, is a major candidate, what they plan to do when they lose. They don't ask the 1% guys these questions, even! Like...he got 40+% of the vote last election and didn't. No reason to think he would.

Everything about debates and candidate interviews this far before primaries has always been a shitshow even before the nonstop shitshow that was the 2016 election. Strap yourselves in for another 3-6 months before it gets even minutely better.
---

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/404503819431579650
---

No, red sox, trying to ensure that candidates tell the truth is neither insidious nor disingenuous.

It's a good thing if it forces candidates to be good at articulating themselves and also to have real understanding of the issues.

It is possible to fact check poorly but please dont mistake that for a legitimate reason to attack the practice in general.
---

I would definitely think she was hilarious and want her in as many debates as possible if I hadn't once thought the same way about someone who I'll refer to as Individual-1.
---

i'd rather have no fact checking if the "fact checking" is going to be used as a thinly veiled excuse to smear bernie tbqh
---

pyresword posted...

It is possible to fact check poorly but please dont mistake that for a legitimate reason to attack the practice in general.

---

pyresword posted...

No, red sox, trying to ensure that candidates tell the truth is neither insidious nor disingenuous.

It's a good thing if it forces candidates to be good at articulating themselves and also to have real understanding of the issues.

It is possible to fact check poorly but please dont mistake that for a legitimate reason to attack the practice in general.

The way it's done right now, whenever a candidate proposes a new or different policy, before he even gets the opportunity to explain why he thinks it would be a good idea, he gets cut off by some "fact-checkers" who say that his policy is factually bad. Of course that's an opinion, but the fact-checkers either don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact or don't care if it helps them achieve their goals (electing centrists).

Like, people malign Trump for ushering in a post-factual world, but the truth is, the Democrats started it.
---

People did the same thing to Ron Paul, by the way. Ask loaded questions with faulty premises. Mitt Romney lost a debate to Barack Obama because of this - the questions were framed in such a way to presuppose that government should be affirmatively going out and helping specific groups of people. Well if that's the presumption, no Republican is ever going to look good compared to a Democrat.

Mitt fell for it, he tried to answer those dishonest questions as best as he could. Trump responded to these kinds of bad questions with variations of "a stupid question deserves a stupid answer," which is exactly the right strategy IMO.
---

Even if you're correct (and I've never seen fact checking weaponized the way you're describing), that's still a far preferrable failure mode to operate in than the Trump failure mode. In this Trump mode of operation the public becomes misinformed, whereas in your failure mode it becomes marginally more difficult to pass new policies and sometimes politicians might undeservedly look bad.
---

Though if all you're saying is "gratuitous fact checking should not be used as a tool to shutdown good faith discussion of complicated policies" than I mostly agree with that. It sort of depends on the specifics at that point.
---

red sox 777 posted...

People did the same thing to Ron Paul, by the way. Ask loaded questions with faulty premises.

there's a lot of parallels to draw between the ridiculous way bernie gets treated by the media and the way paul did. often when paul would go on a conservative talkshow during the campaign of the '08 election, he would get bombarded with a "HOW CAN YOU NOT SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR THIS IS IMMORAL YOU'RE AN IMMORAL PERSON BLAH BLAH" diatribe, with him barely getting a word in edge-wise.

fortunately, socialism is easier to sell to the american people than libertarianism, so bernie is able to fight back a little better than paul was.
---

Good news everyone! Future president and not at all crazy person Marianne Williamson has already met both requirements to qualify for the second debate so she wont need to worry about any sort of tie-breaker scenario!

This puts her in the top 14 of candidates btw.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tiebreakers-might-decide-who-makes-the-second-democratic-debates-and-it-could-get-complicated/
---

Inviso posted...

xp1337 posted...

lowkey i think yang didn't do a bad job. Despite the fact that I'm pretty sure he got the least amount of time (I think he only got 3 questions?) he refrained from joining the interrupt/trying to talk over people bandwagon. I mean, the fact that he got almost no speaking time obviously limits things but I'd place him miles ahead of Hickenlooper, for example.

He SHOULD have been jumping in. You are competing to become the Democratic nominee, and if you get the nomination, you'll have to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump. Yang looked like he didn't want to be there. He was HORRIBLE, and the only reason I didn't rank him dead last was because Williamson is certifiably insane.

To follow up on this, apparently there was some fuckery going on with Yang's mic last night. At least, that's what Yang's camp is claiming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/andrew-yang-blames-debate-performance-on-his-mic-being-off/2019/06/28/ 3529b68e-99a0-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html

Also got sent this video about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8p73W7iZ5E" data-time="

In which you can clearly see him raise his hand and open his mouth after Bernie finishes talking, but no sound. And yet Biden clearly turns and look at him. Very much looks to me like he was trying to speak up, but had no working mic to do so with and thus got ignored. Very fucking hard to jump in when that's the case.

Seems highly unfortunate (And not in the 'oh no what could anybody have done about this, how unlucky' way) to me. Especially with the way they let Williamson or whatever the fuck her name is ramble incoherently and waste everybody's time.

Hmm. That would explain why he was so pissed during the just a few words question at the end.
---

Yeah definitely, and it would make no coincidence how Yang's total speaking time is nearly 2 minutes below the next person when he's had just under 3 minutes overall himself
---

I feel like they should've traded Yang to Night 1, and then sent Tim Ryan to Night 2.
---

Yang should really run for governor of NY or mayor of NYC and try out his proposals on a smaller scale. If he really believes they will work, that's the best way to get national adoption.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Yang should really run for governor of NY or mayor of NYC and try out his proposals on a smaller scale. If he really believes they will work, that's the best way to get national adoption.

The thing with that is, to do UBI locally, the locality would have to pass stratospherically high state or local taxes to pay for it. And residents would get it back from the UBI but.....high earners would get back much less than they put in. So we would expect an exodus of high earners and an influx of low earners. Most likely, it would not work in a locality because that locality would not be competitive with the rest of the country in business.

To make this work on a national level, you need to combine UBI with very strong protectionism. I'm talking massive tariffs on every other country.
---

Imagine your presidential prospects being torpedoed because of a faulty mic
---

i was reading up on Yang's other stances and apparently he wants to get rid of the penny

i am ALL ABOUT THAT, it should be his primary stance. sign me up #YangGang
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Imagine your presidential prospects being torpedoed because of a faulty mic

he had no prospects
---

honestly him having a faulty mic might be the best thing to happen to him, last i checked 20 minutes ago the only things still trending from last night are #DemDebate2, something about williamson and #LetYangSpeak, which started when I got up with like 4.7k Tweets and is now a little under 20k.

people are just taking excerpts from his site and interviews and tweeting them out to get them seen. it's not the same as being on the debate stage but honestly it's something??
---

I am not convinced it was faulty as opposed to malicious since when he was actually asked to speak he had no issues.

https://www.strawpoll.me/18235660/
---

That could just mean the moderator was aware of the issues and told not to ask him anything until it was fixed.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Good news everyone! Future president and not at all crazy person Marianne Williamson has already met both requirements to qualify for the second debate so she wont need to worry about any sort of tie-breaker scenario!

This puts her in the top 14 of candidates btw.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tiebreakers-might-decide-who-makes-the-second-democratic-debates-and-it-could-get-complicated/

its crazy that theyre still letting 20 people debate next time

this should be an elimination tournament, just cut the six that dont meet both criteria. No one will miss them.
---

https://twitter.com/tcwittes/status/1144584244984995840

what
the
fuck
---

In better news: https://twitter.com/AP/status/1144669869360779265
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/tcwittes/status/1144584244984995840

what
the
fuck

this is fake right

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/trump-officials-weigh-encryption-crackdown-1385306
---

Harris says that she misunderstood the question when the candidates were asked about abolishing private health insurance, and that she actually does not support it:

https://twitter.com/cathleendecker/status/1144620110562418688

Hopefully that's the last flip on that one; I was annoyed by her attack on Biden, but this was the thing she did last night that actually dropped her in my rankings.
---

ZenOfThunder posted...

https://www.strawpoll.me/18235660/

807 people think Biden won?

I cant even imagine how thats possible.
---

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1144676029883133952

So. Democracy Corps data shows Bidens favorability with African American voters went up a net 18% after last nights debate, while Mayor Petes went down 10%. Stan Greenberg chalked a lot of it up to defensiveness over the perception that the Obama-Biden legacy was under attack

Called it. Told you so. Vindicated.
---

I was interpreting the question the same way Harris did so eh

annoyed by her Biden dig what, she did a great job with that emotionally. it's hard to understand anyone annoyed by her personal explanation of why his stubborn dismissal of the issue is hurtful.
---

I was arguing with a friend about this last night, but basically my position is that, while it's generally a fair thing to criticize Biden over at the level of "Biden is wrong about this policy, and it had harmful effects", it's not fair to use it to basically call him a racist.

Now, Harris did start by saying that she didn't think Biden was a racist, but the effect of that attack in a debate format like this where Biden does not have time to articulate his position is for a lot of people to basically come away with that very message ("Biden is a racist"). Basically I think it was a cheap shot that was impossible for him to defend against to nearly the level he could have in a long-form discussion, and I don't like those sorts of tactics in a primary.
---

again it was insanely easy to respond to - admit he was wrong, like the #2 debate performance of last night Buttigieg did

Biden looked like a racist because he couldn't empathize, he can only act defensively over his ego.
---