Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws

(+) Yeah! (+)

0 days since Schiff followed them
---

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1198666401826967552?s=21

Why even have one then
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1198666401826967552?s=21

Why even have one then

This is the Republican Party that Joe Biden thinks he can work with even though Obama couldnt.

*bathroom sink standing at front door*

---

Why are we limiting it to Russia and Ukraine? What if Hillary hacked the DNC server?
---

https://twitter.com/ColinKahl/status/1198804467300233216

---

Navy Secretary Spencers resignation letter:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1198744260608176130?s=21

---

This is one of those issues where Im on neither side and think they all can fuck off
---

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-oas-lied-to-the-public-about-the-bolivian-election-and-coup-2019-11-19

He provides the official numbers, the math, and the official statement (which is no statement) from the OAS about the official results and why they made such a claim over an unofficial quick count.

Read the article and tell me what you think?

Yes, its a guy from CEPR, but look at the facts provided, PLEASE

---

Any discussion of Hong Kong? Because they had local elections which resulted in 90% of seats going to pro-democracy candidates, a large majority of pro-Beijing big beasts (and all candidates) losing their seats, and a huge increase in turnout - over 70% when previously it was below 50%. So much for the silent majority!
---

When someone invokes the silent majority card, it's almost always bullshit

I'm very glad first Hong Kong showed up in such spectacular fashion, but I don't expect things to get much better.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-oas-lied-to-the-public-about-the-bolivian-election-and-coup-2019-11-19

He provides the official numbers, the math, and the official statement (which is no statement) from the OAS about the official results and why they made such a claim over an unofficial quick count.

Read the article and tell me what you think?

Yes, its a guy from CEPR, but look at the facts provided, PLEASE

1) The crux of his argument relies on the change after the freeze being statistically normal. Even assuming that is true, he seems to imply that the audit is clearly a lie even though one doesn't mean the other.

2) Any time he isn't talking numbers, the rest of the article reads like a hatchet job to the OAS with very little to back that up.

The article is labeled "Opinion" for a very good reason.
---

The OAS declared a discrepancy on quick vote totals, which are as legally binding as exit polls.

The official statistics are statistically normal, following the curve perfectly.

Those final batch of votes were mostly rural, so by demographic they slant TOWARDS Morales anyway.

The OAS literally refuses to comment or draw a conclusion based on the official totals.

"He slanders the OAS"

Yeah, AND? Show me where they did something unworthy of being being legitimately attacked, here?

They made an unverified, unsupported claim that literally led to a coup, and now we're supposed to treat them like they're totally cool even though they won't comment?

Come on, dude.

---

You ask people to read an opinion piece and take issue when I point out why it's an opinion piece.

Come on, dude.
---

I'm asking you to make an analysis on the facts provided within that opinion piece.

Is that really something you can't do? That's...extremely frustrating.

Anyway

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/

Apparently there are multiple Republican towns with municipal grocery stores.

That is literally the "Socialism" they cry about, and reportedly, they're massively popular.

---

No, I am not prepared to support or refute any statistical analysis. Neither are you. That's the entire non-opinion support of his argument, and a thing you've brought up many times before. I was assuming you wanted to focus on something else. My mistake.

https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-099/19

http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Electoral-Integrity-Analysis-Bolivia2019.pdf

The preliminary findings of the audit are a lot more thorough than this guy wants to pretend they are. 9 days after they publish it, he's still talking about the preliminary vote counts as if they didn't say any of this.

https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=S-025/19

Admittedly they presented this a day after his article, but their stance isn't "okay everything is good here see ya later". I mean, Venezuela voted in favor of it for goodness sake.

Did they handle things poorly? Possibly. Hell, probably. Is there any clear indication that they acted with malice to ensure things have gone down the way they did? No, I don't see that.
---

Do you agree there should be more media coverage of the coup?

---

Probably. In general we really don't have enough global coverage outside of Europe, and even then most of that is for Britain (especially since Brexit drama started, though that aspect makes sense).
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/

Apparently there are multiple Republican towns with municipal grocery stores.

That is literally the "Socialism" they cry about, and reportedly, they're massively popular.

Someone get this to Bernie so he can run on opening a grocery store in every dying rural town

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

That is literally the "Socialism" they cry about, and reportedly, they're massively popular.

Socialism is really popular when you don't call it socialism.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/

This is a great thing, putting the 'muh socialism' angle aside.

The Republican Party does not oppose socialism in general. It is one of many economic and political tools available. We should use it at the most opportune time - that is, when the Republican Party says so - to maximize our chances.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Any discussion of Hong Kong? Because they had local elections which resulted in 90% of seats going to pro-democracy candidates, a large majority of pro-Beijing big beasts (and all candidates) losing their seats, and a huge increase in turnout - over 70% when previously it was below 50%. So much for the silent majority!

Hong Kong is one of the most urbanized places in the world. And the PRC is not even conservative. Why would the silent majority concept apply?

The silent majority concept would apply if, say, HK was not its own province but was the capital of Guangdong province....and there was massive support for the PRC among the rural farmers outside of HK city. Then they would be a silent majority because they would lack the ability to be loud available to the city dwellers, as it would be harder for them to organize into street protests or attract media attention.

But in our world, HK has virtually no rural hinterland attached to it. To criticize the silent majority concept here would be the equivalent of saying the silent majority doesn't exist because a Democrat won an NYC municipal election.
---

https://twitter.com/courtneyhagle/status/1198654816928579584?s=21

............................

---

How privileged do you have to be to believe Trump has gone through more than ANYBODY else has?
---

At least they're only comparing Trump's suffering to that of other "mortals". Hopefully that means we're not close to Trump literally being worshipped as a god just yet.
---

On a purely technically correct level, I can at least agree that I cannot understand Trumps life
---

https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui/status/1199026841585106946?s=19

damn bernie really out here saying some Trump supporters are unreachable and unconvincable...maybe even deplorable?

and he's right to say it.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui/status/1199026841585106946?s=19

damn bernie really out here saying some Trump supporters are unreachable and unconvincable...maybe even deplorable?

and he's right to say it.

He said very clearly a majority of them are not. Hillary said half of them are. Big difference.
---

red sox 777 posted...

He said very clearly a majority of them are not. Hillary said half of them are. Big difference.

Still waiting for them to prove Hillary wrong tbqh!

---

So last topic made me realize I should probably have an alt, which I hadn't had since 2004. I could read this topic, just couldn't post. I made an alt, but you still need 3 karma to post on this board.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

He said very clearly a majority of them are not. Hillary said half of them are. Big difference.

Still waiting for them to prove Hillary wrong tbqh!

It really doesn't matter if she's right or not. Lese majeste is still a crime, even if the king is bad.
---

red sox 777 posted...

He said very clearly a majority of them are not. Hillary said half of them are. Big difference.

Well, even half is pretty generous

---

Also, Bernie has fought for the working class for decades. He would not have done that if he believed they were deplorable. No one is going to feel threatened by Bernie's statement because they know he's on their side. They could disagree about policy but everyone knows Bernie fundamentally wants to help working class people.
---

Outright blocking red sox seems a bit unfair. He has a right to see the topic.

Ignoring him is good since then he can just talk to himself.
---

he could still see the topic

he just couldn't post

win-win
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Outright blocking red sox seems a bit unfair. He has a right to see the topic.

Ignoring him is good since then he can just talk to himself.

If anyone wants a topic with certain people blocked, you gotta beat me to it then. I dont block anyone by general rule
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Outright blocking red sox seems a bit unfair. He has a right to see the topic.

Ignoring him is good since then he can just talk to himself.

^

I wont complain if you want to block him because I fully understand hes annoying, but if you cant just scroll past his posts then dont make a topic and let Jakyl do it.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

He has a right to see the topic.

I mean... no he doesn't.

which isn't to say anybody has to support a topic by a blocker, but that's all just decided by community sentiment not by any sense of "rights"!
---

Okay, then we'll just agree to not support any topics you make and we'll wait for Jakyl instead.

Deciding on a personal basis who gets to take part in a community topic series that we've all been a part of for a long while is silly.
---

The greater argument is when you ban people from a containment topic they only have the option to break containment for said discussions. No one wants that.

Either Esper lied or pardoning a war criminal and demanding he retain his rank dont run counter to his values!

https://twitter.com/sengarypeters/status/1151183323340902400?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...
It's incorrect to say that you're throwing them off of insurance, but it's correct to state that you're telling them to give up insurance that they're familiar with in order for it to be replaced with something that you claim will be better. The question is then whether they trust you to deliver on that promise (which is a function not only of your intentions, but also of the competence of your implementation, and how robust the public plan is to sabotage*). In other words, you're asking people to take a big risk with something very important, and it's not a good idea to handwave that away as manufactured.

*What I'm thinking of here is sabotage when the GOP controls Congress. In particular, I think it's very likely that they would refuse to allow M4A to fund abortion.

I know! My grievance with the line that Buttigieg and the others launching this attack is that they're doing it in soundbite form which excises all that nuance! It's the line that you would see the GOP use to attack it to kill it and preserve the grotesque status quo. It is therefore extremely unhelpful to have it also used by those who are, at least nominally, in support of universal coverage.

I understand that its use is because it's effective as an attack vector by leveraging fear and uncertainty and because the media these days doesn't have the time or appetite for the required nuance but that doesn't absolve those launching the attack IMO.

Really, I think what you need from the single-payer side is to continue to educate the public on what it is and means - and Warren and Sanders have been doing that, albeit often under similar media constraints where the attention span isn't long enough sometimes to get deep into it - and stating "you don't trust the American people!" and "You're going to kick 140 million people who like their insurance off of it!" is actively harmful to that.

Now, I'm not saying it's the role of Buttigieg, Biden, etc. to defend single-payer when it is not a policy they support. However, I do think they should know enough to know what they're doing here and - again, I am speaking from a position sympathetic to single-payer so I'm not without bias on this - and it reeks of looking to score a personal political advantage at the cost of disingenuously characterizing the position of their rivals. They don't have to support or defend it, that would be nuts, but I don't think it's wrong to at least hold them to arguing against it in a fair way.

So I think this is missing the point a bit. The reality of single payer is that people will be kicked off their current health insurance plan. Maybe they'll get a better one - but there is no question that the current healthcare insurance system cannot exist indefinitely in parallel to single payer. It's just an economic certainty. When Biden and Buttigieg say this, it primarily makes them look honest.

Now, the fact that people will lose their current coverage is not necessarily a reason not to move to single payer. And, in fact, if single payer results in generally better plans, there's no problem. So the way to frame the debate is about which system produces better and cheaper healthcare.

You don't want to get sucked into ideological debates about whether single payer is "socialist" or restricts freedom. You will never win that argument. And that is the only argument you will have if you cannot bring the argument back to the strictly practical facts. And you will never be able to do that while you are pretending that you can have the best of both worlds, because the people will see right through you.

So when you attack people for refusing to lie, all you are doing is making people think there has to be something wrong with your policy proposal that you don't want them to know about.
---

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1199050850502615040?s=21

---

it's not at all silly, it's the basic concept of moderating a community - as bans are to GameFAQs

PoliContainment is just a subcommunity of GameFAQs (or rather, subcommunity of B8, a subcommunity of GameFAQs). I don't deny that "no blocking" is the community's general accepted guideline but it's not some morally correct one at all, it's just whatever the active participants decide or weigh out in relation to what other significant participants here want (note: something Corrik wants would hold zero weight because nobody wants him here in the first place so he doesn't have any competitive options)

edit and yeah what red said
---

Just be open about it. "Under single payer, 95% of the people will pay less for their healthcare, 4% will pay a little more, and 1% of the population will pay massively more. And based on other countries, we will probably pay about 40% less in total as a country than we do now."

Let the people decide if this is what they want.
---

I dont think its a moral call one way or the other as long as no threats are involved

If someone pulled a TimJab and somehow didnt get banned for it Id consider blocking them from my topics, but we havent had that here
---

Grimlyn posted...

it's just whatever the active participants decide

But it's not the active participants deciding

It's one person deciding for all of the other active participants, that's the part that's silly.
---

Also, Buttigieg and Biden need to build trust before they will ever get the opportunity to present nuanced explanations of policy arguments. Especially Mayor Pete, since he's new and people don't know enough about him to trust him yet. Biden can get away with, "I've worked for you for 40 years, you know what I stand for, trust me" to some extent.
---

In closing, sometimes Republican "talking points" simply reflect reality. If you adopt a blanket policy of opposing all Republican talking points then you give the Republican Party the power to make you take fantastical positions with no basis in reality. The GOP need only say something that is an obvious truth in a baiting way, and Democrats will rush to condemn it, taking the bait and ensnaring themselves as liars or people out of touch with reality.
---

It takes effort to be decisively worse than Ted Cruz, but Trump somehow manages:

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1199066474360590342?s=21

---