It is. They are eating their own instead of focusing on the most important aspect - beating Trump. I understand they're each trying to differentiate themselves but the last 2 nights were nothing but Dems shooting each other, and last night was a total assault on Obama. I thought I was watching the GOP debates at times.
Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served as the first White House chief to Obama, said Democratic presidential candidates were being extraordinarily short-sighted and wrong-headed by assailing the Obama administration's record, rather than trying to build upon it.
This is exactly the problem. Obama was popular and while there are parts of his legacy that weren't necessarily stellar, the Dems need to run on a "return to normalcy" which we experienced in the Obama era, rather than talk about all of the horrible things the Dems did under Obama/Biden. Trump must be super happy about the past couple of nights.
Agreed.
Part of the problem is the way the DNC set these debates up to have a bunch of lesser tier candidates who have zero shots of winning going up against the ones who actually do. Fucking DeBlasio was just tossing grenades during his two debates. Fuck him. He sucks.
Everyone would have been much better served seen Biden go up against Sanders, Warrnen, Harris, Buttigegehappoiueggie, and maybe a couple others during his two debates.
The DNC is trying to give the lessers a chance to climb up in the polls. Next time there will be far fewer debaters.
Giving the lessers about 7 minutes total talking time during a long debate and never knowing when its their turn to speak makes it extremely challenging to shine.
The more I read and watch the more I realize that all the dem candidates are pretty damn shitty. Where is the next Obama? A country of 300 million plus and this is the best we have?
Disagree....any of them would be better than tRump.
True but do any of them really stand out to you? I mean i absolutely loved Obama as a candidate. I was excited and proud to vote for him. These candidates? Yeah not too much. It was the same feeling for Hillary, I voted for her but I wasn't overly excited to think of her as the president.
I’d feel good voting for Pete or Amy. Someone else could stand out between now and Election Day. But as of now those are the only 2 that could get me to the polls based on them and not their opponent
I tend to agree with McGruff 1) there's no Obama in the mix and 2) it's amazing that there can't be one every cycle...it's amazing that Obama's practically a once-in-a-generation candidate.
As a politically engaged person, yeah, you can vote for Amy. I'm from her state and she's smart and capable. But she's not going to bring people to the polls like Obama did. You mention Pete...he's the most Obama-like among them, but I don't think he quite has the appeal to the sometimes-apolitical that Obama did.
But to McGruff's point, most of them seem to be stumbling their way through and just as likely to turn people off as pull them in.
I feel like there was a time when Biden was actually kinda sharp-tongued and would have run up the score in the debates with a dolt like Trump. Well, if so, those days seem to be behind him.
Biden has never been attacked as a frontrunner from multiple leftists before this summer. He did better yesterday and will do better as the debate field shrinks.
Biden had an informal talk with the press today and he sounded excellent. That's a much better forum than having 19 debaters attack you over 2 nights.
I'm not sure we have seen any candidate encounter that challenge before (since DT was not perceived as a strong frontrunner when 10 Rs were debating last time).
The more I read and watch the more I realize that all the dem candidates are pretty damn shitty. Where is the next Obama? A country of 300 million plus and this is the best we have?
Disagree....any of them would be better than tRump.
True but do any of them really stand out to you? I mean i absolutely loved Obama as a candidate. I was excited and proud to vote for him. These candidates? Yeah not too much. It was the same feeling for Hillary, I voted for her but I wasn't overly excited to think of her as the president.
I’d feel good voting for Pete or Amy. Someone else could stand out between now and Election Day. But as of now those are the only 2 that could get me to the polls based on them and not their opponent
I tend to agree with McGruff 1) there's no Obama in the mix and 2) it's amazing that there can't be one every cycle...it's amazing that Obama's practically a once-in-a-generation candidate.
As a politically engaged person, yeah, you can vote for Amy. I'm from her state and she's smart and capable. But she's not going to bring people to the polls like Obama did. You mention Pete...he's the most Obama-like among them, but I don't think he quite has the appeal to the sometimes-apolitical that Obama did.
But to McGruff's point, most of them seem to be stumbling their way through and just as likely to turn people off as pull them in.
I feel like there was a time when Biden was actually kinda sharp-tongued and would have run up the score in the debates with a dolt like Trump. Well, if so, those days seem to be behind him.
Biden has never been attacked as a frontrunner from multiple leftists before this summer. He did better yesterday and will do better as the debate field shrinks.
Biden had an informal talk with the press today and he sounded excellent. That's a much better forum than having 19 debaters attack you over 2 nights.
I'm not sure we have seen any candidate encounter that challenge before (since DT was not perceived as a strong frontrunner when 10 Rs were debating last time).
Agreed. Biden, Warren & Buddha do really well in small groups and diner type settings where people can see they’re genuine, self deprecating and not so crazy. The trick is to turn those glad handing moments into filled arenas with adoring crowds. It takes a lot of work, a well organized ground game and the ability to avoid major gaffes or getting ahead of any previously undisclosed negativity. Do that for the next six months and things will go well. Biden is capable but Warren might have a better ground game, at least in Iowa.
@mcgruff10 I’m liking the following: Biden, Warren, Buddha, Harris, and Castro. And not necessarily in that order or who I like or want to win. Just that from what I’ve seen thus far, I think they’re capable and all but Biden have a future, particularly Buddha, Castro and Harris.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system? Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult. My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
Yes. I think we have agreed on that in the past.
I was attempting to point out though I love Bernie (but want Biden to win), I blame him for not getting a decent explanation of MFA funding.
My concern is there's alot of passion coming from the Bernie Liz flank and they may be able to push MFA onto the platform. So it would help us if folks understand it's not necessarily more expensive if that were to happen.
At this point in time a Medicare option is the best plan for dems to propose
Im not for M4A, but agree with you that Bernie doesn't sell it well. He preaches to the converted. As a moderate, I've never felt that he was trying to convince me, and what is politics but convincing others of your POV.
Warren is more convincing, but Im immune to her because every problem has the sane solution from the same pool of tax money.
Im so sick of Harris lecturing and waving her finger in people’s faces. She doesn’t seem to be likable or friendly, more abrasive and rude. Definitely see the prosecutor side come out in these debates. Not sure if she wants to help me with affordable health care or throw me in jail.
Waving a finger in peoples faces is a miss characterization.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
And give me the reason why this have to be a reality in the US, with other countries managing?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
And give me the reason why this have to be a reality in the US, with other countries managing?
When people in debates are already talking about how expensive it will be to implement Medicare for All, and scaring Americans already, the solution isn't likely to be 'also fix the condition of every single hospital at the same time'.
Once again, you are cherry-picking what you want, ignoring all constraints or uphill battles like they simply don't exist. You don't seem to realize that some of us are on your side, and not saying 'no', but saying 'not right now', and some (like me) would even prefer to say 'not right now but let's make a plan that coexists with the unique characteristics and needs of the USA and its citizens'.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
(haha - not saying you are Bill O'Reilly)
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The goalposts have move far to the right. Obama was pretty central/moderate yet he was painted as a commie. Hillary was basically a 1950s republican.
The word socialism has been weaponized expertly and framed as communism. Any progressive idea like fixing the health care cost issue, affordable education, fair elections, accepting science, etc are now considered moving toward stalin and work camps
If the extreme left was present, we would be talking about a workers' revolution to take over the government as well as the means of production. Trying to adapt to the world as if its 2020 and not pretending its 1960 is not crazy-left.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
I agree on the 'false equivalencies'. There was no shift towards racism from the Democratic party that SC alluded to - that's pretty clear.
Bear in mind that shifts towards extremes are pretty difficult to detect, because the best leading indicator we have for movement on the political spectrum is just voter volume (and I mean volume as in how loud/outspoken they are), and moderates are moderate - and their voices can be drowned out by the far-louder polar extremes. I think there's a shift to the left in the Democratic party going on, however I believe it could be less significant than it feels based on that fact.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The goalposts have move far to the right. Obama was pretty central/moderate yet he was painted as a commie. Hillary was basically a 1950s republican.
The word socialism has been weaponized expertly and framed as communism. Any progressive idea like fixing the health care cost issue, affordable education, fair elections, accepting science, etc are now considered moving toward stalin and work camps
If the extreme left was present, we would be talking about a workers' revolution to take over the government as well as the means of production. Trying to adapt to the world as if its 2020 and not pretending its 1960 is not crazy-left.
Yes.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
SC, look in this nested thread. There's very clearly no link to where that graph is sourced from (fact, not narrative).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
SC, look in this nested thread. There's very clearly no link to where that graph is sourced from (fact, not narrative).
Page 1272 in the "Donald Trump" thread.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
One more thing, SC, if you're referring to that other graph you posted several pages back, that wasn't what I asked. If you're going to use the "twice as much on health care" as a talking point, and you extracted the talking point from this current graph, it's this current graph I would appreciate a source for. I thought that would've been clear.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.
"Haha" Okey.
I will say the same when someone says Ten is a bigger album than Riot Act
"We can't have these apple-to-apple comparions, We have to look at the cultural landscape, the changing of the music industry, the arrival of the mickey mouse club pop scene, so Riot Act selling nothing compared to Ten can actually be seen as selling DOUBLE the amounts of Ten, therefore You Are can be seen as a bigger single than Evenflow and should be played at every show instead of Evenflow."
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Comments
The DNC is trying to give the lessers a chance to climb up in the polls. Next time there will be far fewer debaters.
Giving the lessers about 7 minutes total talking time during a long debate and never knowing when its their turn to speak makes it extremely
challenging to shine.
Biden has never been attacked as a frontrunner from multiple leftists before this summer. He did better yesterday and will do better as the debate field shrinks.
Biden had an informal talk with the press today and he sounded excellent. That's a much better forum than having 19 debaters attack you over 2 nights.
I'm not sure we have seen any candidate encounter that challenge before (since DT was not perceived as a strong frontrunner when 10 Rs were debating last time).
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Warren is more convincing, but Im immune to her because every problem has the sane solution from the same pool of tax money.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Once again, you are cherry-picking what you want, ignoring all constraints or uphill battles like they simply don't exist. You don't seem to realize that some of us are on your side, and not saying 'no', but saying 'not right now', and some (like me) would even prefer to say 'not right now but let's make a plan that coexists with the unique characteristics and needs of the USA and its citizens'.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But in the words of David Letterman
(haha - not saying you are Bill O'Reilly)
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
The word socialism has been weaponized expertly and framed as communism. Any progressive idea like fixing the health care cost issue, affordable education, fair elections, accepting science, etc are now considered moving toward stalin and work camps
If the extreme left was present, we would be talking about a workers' revolution to take over the government as well as the means of production. Trying to adapt to the world as if its 2020 and not pretending its 1960 is not crazy-left.
Bear in mind that shifts towards extremes are pretty difficult to detect, because the best leading indicator we have for movement on the political spectrum is just voter volume (and I mean volume as in how loud/outspoken they are), and moderates are moderate - and their voices can be drowned out by the far-louder polar extremes. I think there's a shift to the left in the Democratic party going on, however I believe it could be less significant than it feels based on that fact.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I will say the same when someone says Ten is a bigger album than Riot Act
"We can't have these apple-to-apple comparions, We have to look at the cultural landscape, the changing of the music industry, the arrival of the mickey mouse club pop scene, so Riot Act selling nothing compared to Ten can actually be seen as selling DOUBLE the amounts of Ten, therefore You Are can be seen as a bigger single than Evenflow and should be played at every show instead of Evenflow."