All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[InformationGeek]

Trump doesn't get satire, does he?

[Theleviathan]

Well it’s very simple. That $5000 dollar figure comes from an inaccurate understanding of Bernie’s plan that Biden state’s in debate. A huge chuck of that is offset by a tax raise on the wealthy and an employer burdens.

For a single person making under 120k or a family of 4 making under 250k, most analysts who studied the plan determined the most people would pay virtually the same or less once everything was hashed out including the lack of premiums once you look at it holistically.

So I mean if we are being blunt, the correct answer is that he is basing his information on a partial understanding of the plan that was deliberately framed in an inaccurate light by an opponent that most unbiased analysts already debunked

This is a better answer. Even still, you don't have any links or hard numbers here and it isn't that hard to at least point people in some direction: https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s for example. Personally, I believe this will ultimately be true for most people, but it's hard to find good statistics on Bernie's plan or specifics on it from non-Bernie sources.

People will hear "higher taxes" or "more money" and try to do exactly the calculus of their personal situation that TW did. With the lack of specifics, it creates doubt, which in turn creates a wedge of trust between the voter and the candidate. If supporters only inflame that wedge....I mean...what would you reasonably expect to happen?

[numberthirty]

THIS IS PART OF WINNING AN ELECTION!!!! Was caps enough there? Bernie is going to have many potential voters ask exactly that question, sometimes based on misinformation and sometimes based on pure ignorance. If Bernie can count on his supporters to ask like dismissive assholes, you can start counting Trump's next Presidency now. Voters are often misinformed, totally off-base with reality, and stuck on issues you may find absurd. Nevertheless, if they're willing to ask, they are worth the effort to try.

Yes, every candidate has questions to answer. However, Bernie is one of the candidate promoting the biggest fundamental changes (isn't that why you support him?) and that being the case, it will generate the most doubt and/or confusion. If you want to broaden the coalition into a winning base, being willing to combat confused questions with effective answers is key. Or at least, combat the questions with information rather than derisive, dismissive BS.

As someone who just wants Trump to lose, I look at the gymnastics you just did to turn that into a Buttigieg attack or 30 to spin that into a "damn your question is stupid" response and walk away further feeling doomed. You guys don't get it. You can't put your personal baggage aside long enough to be a good solider for Bernie and try to talk to someone. Maybe you can't. Maybe you don't understand it well enough to explain it. But for all that's good in the world, if Bernie is going to be our nominee, start practicing now. Answer questions genuinely or kiss any chance of winning goodbye.

I agree with the Dad because I'm in his shoes right now. I saved from the moment my kids were born for college putting money aside into a college saving account that grew like a 401k.

My daughter is now in her sophomore year and zero student debt so far with 100% of the money coming out of the money I invested. Partly because unlike so many who don't plan she is going to community college for the first two years and living at home. She'll have to go a regular college next year but even so it will be paid for even with the increase in housing and food costs. Senior year will be sorta iffy if there is enough money but most will be paid for.

So yes like that Dad it really angers me to hear Warren and Sanders promising free college to the families and students who didn't save or chose expensive schools. There are grants for those who are actually poor but I and others shouldn't have to pay through tax dollars for those who didn't save or choose wisely. I'm not rich by any means, after 23 years at the same job and tons of overtime (24,000 of it) I passed 90,000 for the first time ever last year. I'm solidly middle class which is too much for her to get grants yet we affording college. It can be done.

Without trying to pass judgement on someone's take...

While I can sort of see where that dad is coming from?

Someone has to be the person who takes that punch in the nose to turn around a system where someone has to do what TriggerWarning laid out to put one child through college without debt.

Let's change that scenario a little...

The dad in that scenario isn't as lucky. While he could make it to that wage, he winds up in a wheelchair after a car crash.

Does the plan still work then?

Let's make that dad a little less lucky. He dies after being hit by a drunk driver.

Can the child and the family still make the plan work after he is gone? Even if they luck into collecting any sort of a settlement from the drunk driver?

One guy's take...

That dad that Warren talked to taking a punch in the nose now is worth folks never having to consider the above again.

Never mind the reality that "Didn't Save..." gets complicated pretty quickly.

So, yeah...

I wonder if Sanders supporters ever do that...

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This is a better answer. Even still, you don't have any links or hard numbers here and it isn't that hard to at least point people in some direction: https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s for example. Personally, I believe this will ultimately be true for most people, but it's hard to find good statistics on Bernie's plan or specifics on it from non-Bernie sources.

People will hear "higher taxes" or "more money" and try to do exactly the calculus of their personal situation that TW did. With the lack of specifics, it creates doubt, which in turn creates a wedge of trust between the voter and the candidate. If supporters only inflame that wedge....I mean...what reasonably expect to happen?

The reason it's hard to find statistics is because like the ACA, with something this massive, you can only really go based off projections and there will be a settling period.

And it's all about framing. You can turn "higher taxes" into "trading preemiums, deductibles, copays and insurance hassles for a minor tax increase". Which is effectively what it is. Yeah if you have no insurance, the cost of M4A will be more because you are starting with nothing and getting something.

Also the flipside to his question is that even on his most unfavorable math to a M4A plan, his healthcare is still entirely beholden to his employer and any given year they could arbitarily change it or they could lose their job and it goes away. A problem that doesn't occur under Sander's plan.

[Theleviathan]

So, yeah...

I wonder if Sanders supporters ever do that...

It's sorta hilarious, and so on brand for you, to think that response was helpful.

[Theleviathan]

The reason it's hard to find statistics is because like the ACA, with something this massive, you can only really go based off projections and there will be a settling period.

And it's all about framing. You can turn "higher taxes" into "trading preemiums, deductibles, copays and insurance hassles for a minor tax increase". Which is effectively what it is. Yeah if you have no insurance, the cost of M4A will be more because you are starting with nothing and getting something.

Also the flipside to his question is that even on his most unfavorable math to a M4A plan, his healthcare is still entirely beholden to his employer and any given year they could arbitarily change it or they could lose their job and it goes away. A problem that doesn't occur under Sander's plan.

I absolutely agree with all of that. I think Sanders has learned a lot since 2016 in how to sell his plan to voters. I think his pitch is much more practical and real world this time around. These are the things that need to be said to doubters. Make no mistake, it's going to have to be sold to them, but the avenue is there if Bernie and his supporters are willing to swallow pride for a second, wade through the disinformation and nonsense (it'll most assuredly be there), and talk to people about the real advantages.

I just bristle when I see responses like I did before. If we can't do better than that, it's over now.

[numberthirty]

It's sorta hilarious, and so on brand for you, to think that response was helpful.

Put simply...

It's the most polite way to try to gauge if there is even much of a point in trying to have the discussion.

If the second instance points to that the family in question looks like it might have a lot of trouble insuring the kids if(and I am going to cross my fingers that it never comes to pass...) Triggerwarning is no longer with us?

Because to me, it looks like his wife's policy will leave her having to buy a "For Profit" policy to cover the kids.

Which, nine times out of ten, will not be good.

If that hasn't actually been something that you have thought of when it comes to how "Medicare For All..." will rip you off?

We don't really have enough time for me to hip you to it in the most polite fashion possible.

You need to know that "You" are a part of "Us" ASAP, and we need to look out for each other.

If we were five or six months back? Maybe.

Right now? We just don't have the time.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Put simply...

It's the most polite way to try to gauge if there is even much of a point in trying to have the discussion.

If the second instance points to that the family in question looks like it might have a lot of trouble insuring the kids if(and I am going to cross my fingers that it never comes to pass...) Triggerwarning is no longer with us?

Because to me, it looks like his wife's policy will leave her having to buy a "For Profit" policy to cover the kids.

Which, nine times out of ten, will not be good.

If that hasn't actually been something that you have thought of when it comes to how "Medicare For All..." will rip you off?

We don't really have enough time for me to hip you to it in the most polite fashion possible.

If we were five or six months back? Maybe.

Right now? We just don't have the time.

If you're sincere, then make time. The primaries won't be over for months, it won't be done by next week.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That's not being vague, it's quite blunt. Sanders has shown difficulties maintaining alliances with people who don't toe his line, what you're forgetting is that his own political allies will react to that badly, some of them more than others, of course. What's really strange is how Sanders is more open to someone like Joe Rogan than Barney Frank. Many of his supporters and staff are worse than him about this, yet rather than getting disciplined they're perfectly safe in his circle. This is about ideology. Not everything is about policy, this is about social skills and bureaucracy.

There's a long wrong with this. The first being that you still failed to show the legitimacy of taking a debate about policy and ideology and trying to shift it to theory to make an absurdist statement. Sorry you are defending a poster who went on a tirade trying to say that Bernie Sanders who would hardly be considered far left in any other country in the Western world is a communist. If that's a hill you wnat to die on, that's on you, but to anybody who has an actual knowledge of what communism actually entails, it's preposterous. That's an argument you are calling "blunt".

Also name one policy or position of Joe Rogan that Sanders has embraced and made part of his platform? Compare that to any commonalities he has with Barney Frank. Put any single amount of effort into it, and the point falls apart because it's not actually based in anything resembling reality.

Now let's take what you said and go to the alternatives choices. Buttigieg existed in a small city as the head of the executive and never really had to maintain federal political alliances. Biden has ran in multiple primaries and has thus far failed to win a single state and is continuing his trend of under peformaning.

Also let's not go to into the problemtaic request of disciplining his supporters. Like wtf kind of insane fascist talk is that. He's on record multiple times telling them to not go hard at his opponents and asking them to unify. You're making an unrealistic or reasonable ask. Did Hillary discipline her supporters for the smears on Obama in 08? Particularly the racist ones? Did you personally call for that?

[Theleviathan]

Put simply...

It's the most polite way to try to gauge if there is even much of a point in trying to have the discussion.

If the second instance points to that the family in question looks like it might have a lot of trouble insuring the kids if(and I am going to cross my fingers that it never comes to pass...) Triggerwarning is no longer with us?

Because to me, it looks like his wife's policy will leave her having to buy a "For Profit" policy to cover the kids.

Which, nine times out of ten, will not be good.

If that hasn't actually been something that you have thought of when it comes to how "Medicare For All..." will rip you off?

We don't really have enough time for me to hip you to it in the most polite fashion possible.

You need to know that "You" are a part of "Us" ASAP, and we need to look out for each other.

If we were five or six months back? Maybe.

Right now? We just don't have the time.

Put simply....

This is an assumption-laden, dismissive pack of excuses.

[numberthirty]

If you're sincere, then make time. The primaries won't be over for months, it won't be done by next week.

If you let a lie be accepted as the truth for a week, how hard is it to get folks to realize it is actually a lie?

Two weeks?

A month?

Two months?

[Tami]

The FBI Makes a Bizarre Claim About Pro-Choice Terrorism

The FBI is expanding its focus on domestic terrorism, and that includes pro-choice violence — even though such violence is so vanishingly rare, it’s all but nonexistent.

In testimony before the House judiciary committee on Wednesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray disclosed that the bureau has recently “changed our terminology as part of a broader reorganization of the way in which we categorize our domestic terrorism efforts.” It’s part of a much-heralded reinvigoration of the bureau’s domestic terrorism focus after a rising tide of mostly white-supremacist terrorism.

Among four broad categories of domestic terrorism that the FBI confronts, Wray said, is “abortion violent extremism.”

But Wray wasn’t only talking about the pro-life extremism that murders abortion providers in their churches, he hastened to add, but “people on either side of that issue who commit violence on behalf of different views on that topic.”

[Steel Inquisitor]

There's a long wrong with this. The first being that you still failed to show the legitimacy of taking a debate about policy and ideology and trying to shift it to theory to make an absurdist statement. Sorry you are defending a poster who went on a tirade trying to say that Bernie Sanders who would hardly be considered far left in any other country in the Western world is a communist. If that's a hill you wnat to die on, that's on you, but to anybody who has an actual knowledge of what communism actually entails, it's preposterous. That's an argument you are calling "blunt".

You didn't offer much of an argument, to be fair. I agree Sanders wasn't a Communist. It's perplexing how you're ignoring the extremists in Sanders corner, which include Communists.

It's not like Sanders is known for having a diverse staff of rivals like Obama.

Also name one policy or position of Joe Rogan that Sanders has embraced and made part of his platform? Compare that to any commonalities he has with Barney Frank. Put any single amount of effort into it, and the point falls apart because it's not actually based in anything resembling reality.

Do you know who Rogan is? Rogan was given more room inside Sanders campaign, despite all the horrible things he's done and his relationship with the Alt-Right. What's worrying is you don't understand the context for the names I bought up or their histories with Sanders. Do you know who Barney Frank is?

Sanders needn't adopt Rogan's policies for him to be a burden to his image, like I said it's worrying he's not a friendlier relationship with Rogan then many of his colleagues on the Hill.

It's off-putting how I'm supposed to put all this work when you barely put any in the response to Celgress. Saying Clinton and Obama's name isn't compelling that they do the same thing. How are they the same? What reality are you basing your opinion on?

Now let's take what you said and go to the alternatives choices. Buttigieg existed in a small city as the head of the executive and never really had to maintain federal political alliances. Biden has ran in multiple primaries and has thus far failed to win a single state and is continuing his trend of under peformaning.

There's Warren.

Also let's not go to into the problemtaic request of disciplining his supporters. Like wtf kind of insane fascist talk is that. He's on record multiple times telling them to not go hard at his opponents and asking them to unify. You're making an unrealistic or reasonable ask. Did Hillary discipline her supporters for the smears on Obama in 08? Particularly the racist ones? Did you personally call for that?

They're speaking his name, he's done it before but nowhere near the stress he should be considering the harassment they've given to people, including his won colleagues like Elisabeth Warren. It's not just his supporters, either it's his staff, like Sirota and Nina Turner. By doing nothing he's normalising they're toxic narratives. Every politician should do this. Do you notice this from his campaigns or is all normal to your perspective? Sirota goes way back with Sanders, from when he ran for mayor.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You didn't offer much of an argument, to be fair. I agree Sanders wasn't a Communist. It's perplexing how you're ignoring the extremists in Sanders corner, which include Communists.

It's not like Sanders is known for having a diverse staff of rivals like Obama.



Do you know who Rogan is? Rogan was given more room inside Sanders campaign, despite all the horrible things he's done and his relationship with the Alt-Right. What's worrying is you don't understand the context for the names I bought up or their histories with Sanders. Do you know who Barney Frank is?

Sanders needn't adopt Rogan's policies for him to be a burden to his image, like I said it's worrying he's not a friendlier relationship with Rogan then many of his colleagues on the Hill.

It's off-putting how I'm supposed to put all this work when you barely put any in the response to Celgress. Saying Clinton and Obama's name isn't compelling that they do the same thing. How are they the same? What reality are you basing your opinion on?



There's Warren.



They're speaking his name, he's done it before but nowhere near the stress he should be considering the harassment they've given to people, including his won colleagues like Elisabeth Warren. It's not just his supporters, either it's his staff, like Sirota and Nina Turner. By doing nothing he's normalising they're toxic narratives. Every politician should do this. Do you notice this from his campaigns or is all normal to your perspective? Sirota goes way back with Sanders, from when he ran for mayor.

Let's just piece this piece apart.

Sanders isn't a communist by any stretch. Yeah some communist support him. Some of them supported Obama before him when they thought he was a progressive. There's always going to be a fringe element in any large group. The vast majority of Sander's coalition is simply a young and diverse electorate who want M4A, student loan forgiveness and a reworked tax and regulatory system.

Yeah I know exactly who Rogan is. Sanders was given room in Sander's campaign so far as that Bernie acknowledged an endorsement. He's not campaigning for Sanders. He said that he agreed with him and Sanders' campaign used that as an example of Sanders having appeal outside the Democratic Party. I know who Barney Frank is. You know how I know? He was a Congressmen in my state and I have relatives who worked with him. Sanders is far closer to Frank in ideology than Rogan. It's not even close. You are also referencing comments Frank made in 2016 when he was boosting for Hillary Clinton and trying to get her the nomination.

Let me make this very clear to you, Celgrass made his arguments very easy to nonchalantly dismiss when he decided he was going to die on the hill of Sanders being a full blown communist. That's a nonstarter to anybody who has any level of eductation on the term. Go say that to anybody with any post high school education and you will get laughed out of any room. I'm sorry but there are points where people are just flagarantly ignorant that there is no reasonable response to them. If you are going to look at Sander's or any current mainstream politicians body of work and cry communism, you are out of touch. I'd advise you not to join him on that hill because it's just something that makes you look unreasonable and like you don't know what the terms you use mean. And no, linking to a few books out of context don't help his argument. There's about the same amount of evidence that Obama and Clinton who had vast movements where they were propped up as saviors and also wanted to regulate and tax the wealthy while advocating for a public optoon are communists as their is for Sanders. And in Hillary's case the smearing was also there. But I only made the comparison to point out the complete absurdity of it.

Yes there is Warren.... who came in 4th in Iowa, is projected to come in 4th in NH the state right above hers that is closely tied to her state, a distant third in Nevada on par with Steyer. The only state she is showing real strength in is her own (mine as well). That's not going to win her the day. I wanted Warren to win. I thought she was the best shot at uniting progressives and centrists and also having strong policies. But her question was whether she could win a national election and maintain a frontrunner status. She was a frontrunner for a few weeks and then couldn't weather attacks. It sucks, but it is what it is. At this point I don't think she is going to win. It's a race between Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg as a spoiler imo. Those are the only people that showed any ability to buld a coalition close to the actual time to vote.

To your last point, he's already chastised them. I'd argue that just based on the facts you are overplaying the toxicity on his side, downplaying the toxicity on others (and yes it takes a quick twitter search to see the people who displayed disgusting vitriol towards him the minute he announced) and there's not going to be a level that will be saitisfactory to you because you are already going in with inherently biased presumption.

[Celgress]

I've decided there is no point in continuing my discussion of extereism here. I provide evidence to illuminate context and all I get back is name-calling, strawmen arguments, and vague generalizations. I won't waste my time any further trying to penetrate with facts a playpen of such wanton ignorance, blatant disinformation, fueled by a gross inability to face reality.

In closing, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in no way are political extremists. They fall neatly into the classically liberal left of center tradition, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know a liberal from a communist, or a conservative from a fascist, or a rock from a turtle.