In the Reddit threads about this, there are tons of people sowing discord between Beto and Bernie with suspiciously similar talking points. Be aware that agents of chaos are already meddling in...
Exemplary
In the Reddit threads about this, there are tons of people sowing discord between Beto and Bernie with suspiciously similar talking points. Be aware that agents of chaos are already meddling in the 2020 election trying to spread dissension wherever possible.
as a leftist: no, absolutely not. at best it varies by subreddit; broadly, however, it's mostly liberals, neoliberals, and vocal libertarians, with a small but vocal group of radical right...
Honestly, I totally disagree. Reddit overall is much, much more leftist. Anyone seen to be even remotely right-wing is downvoted into oblivion.
as a leftist: no, absolutely not. at best it varies by subreddit; broadly, however, it's mostly liberals, neoliberals, and vocal libertarians, with a small but vocal group of radical right wingers. dog whistles, casual racism and xenophobia, bigotry, and other things are exceptionally frequent and seldom downvoted to oblivion unless specifically highlighted.
tildes is much more leftist than reddit ever has been or will be.
it is your experience. mine has been that reddit is probably one of the most casually racist places i actually use. the amount of casual bigotry of all kinds is quite impressive when you actually...
Perhaps it's because I don't trawl /r/all, but you don't really have to scroll far down the comments for a lot of the posts in my feed to get to some sort of leftist, liberal, or other such view, which has been upvoted considerably, and the associated opposing view which has been downvoted considerably.
I'd describe mainstream Reddit as the polar opposite to somewhere like 4chan which has the other side of the coin. Maybe it's just my experience - not that I'm looking for somewhere like 4chan. Boy do I hate that place.
it is your experience. mine has been that reddit is probably one of the most casually racist places i actually use. the amount of casual bigotry of all kinds is quite impressive when you actually experience it and know when to see it and what its tells are. it's somewhat sobering, actually.
I'm not looking for an echo chamber, and if that means that Tildes is more of an echo chamber than Reddit, perhaps I'd be best moving elsewhere. I shall see. I'm kind of in a state of political change at the moment, and I'm looking for opposing viewpoints and whatnot, but not to the extent that Reddit can get to. I've only been here for an hour or so, so I'll give it a week and see what I think.
i'll make a point that i've made a few times on here: just because only one side of the political spectrum is represented on a website does not and would not an echo chamber make. an anarchist is not a socialist is not a social democrat is not a liberal is not a blue dog democrat is not a conservative liberal. you would maybe get these people as a whole to agree on one thing, maybe. there is wide, fundamental ideological diversity in the broader left wing of the political spectrum, just as is true of the right.
This is why you don't see it. I browse /r/popular periodically (which I believe is just /r/all, sans the NSFW stuff) and it's amazing how much racist, xenophobic, and/or far-right stuff makes it...
This is why you don't see it. I browse /r/popular periodically (which I believe is just /r/all, sans the NSFW stuff) and it's amazing how much racist, xenophobic, and/or far-right stuff makes it to the first few pages of that. Usually via completely unpolitical subreddits similar to /r/unpopularopinion. Lots of Libertarian stuff too, although that's a mixed bag of sensible things and /r/insanepeoplefacebook
You go on the wrong parts of Reddit. You also incorrectly conflate bigotry with the right wing - it is possible to be right wing and not a racist, and it is possible to be left wing and be one....
You go on the wrong parts of Reddit.
You also incorrectly conflate bigotry with the right wing - it is possible to be right wing and not a racist, and it is possible to be left wing and be one. This is because people merge social and economic conservative belief systems when discussing them when real people don't.
i use the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else, but thank you for needlessly trying to assert that my experiences must be wrong for whatever reason. i'm very pleased to find out that you...
You go on the wrong parts of Reddit.
i use the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else, but thank you for needlessly trying to assert that my experiences must be wrong for whatever reason. i'm very pleased to find out that you are apparently the singular person who determines what is and is not the "wrong" parts of reddit.
You also incorrectly conflate bigotry with the right wing - it is possible to be right wing and not a racist, and it is possible to be left wing and be one. This is because people merge social and economic conservative belief systems when discussing them when real people don't.
i said literally nothing about the political leaning of the people being bigoted but, since you insist on bringing it up, far and away the most bigoted people in my experience on reddit are all the right wingers, and i can't say that i've met very many reddit right wingers who weren't either islamophobic, transphobic, racist or bigoted in some capacity, or a combination of the three. the liberals and the libertarians are usually just casually racist and their big problem is they like to try and act like it's okay if people advocate for ethnostates or genocide because we have to let people be heard or whatever. actually what's quite funny is that after the right-wingers, in my experience the white leftists tend to be the most racist camp on reddit because they're all privileged idiots who have no understanding of minority issues, and so they advocate for things they have no understanding of like reparations over the objections of minorities because they want to be woke,
With the subscription functionality you literally can't go to the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else. Different subsets exist - if a subreddit is full of bigots, unsubscribe. Eventually...
i use the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else
With the subscription functionality you literally can't go to the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else. Different subsets exist - if a subreddit is full of bigots, unsubscribe. Eventually you will be left with the set of subreddits that you are interested in that aren't full of bigots. The determining factor of whether they are the wrong or right parts is whether they are the wrong or right parts for you. And by your own description they are clearly wrong.
If you read what you originally wrote (with leftist and radical right wingers discussed throughout) and still claim you weren't lumping in political leanings with bigotry, then you aren't discussing this rationally.
...you understand that people can like, use subreddits they don't subscribe to, yes? and that there is literally nothing stopping me from viewing, participating in, and engaging with people in...
With the subscription functionality you literally can't go to the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else. Different subsets exist - if a subreddit is full of bigots, unsubscribe. Eventually you will be left with the set of subreddits that you are interested in that aren't full of bigots.
...you understand that people can like, use subreddits they don't subscribe to, yes? and that there is literally nothing stopping me from viewing, participating in, and engaging with people in subreddits i am not subscribed to, yes? please stop and actually check that what you're saying is true before you make a comment like this, because with respect, your entire premise is complete baloney and if you'd done a modicum of research you would recognize that it falls flat the moment it's contested.
The determining factor of whether they are the wrong or right parts is whether they are the wrong or right parts for you. And by your own description they are clearly wrong.
once again, thank you for trying to explain my feelings and experiences to me as though you are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong. i'm pretty charitable ordinarily, but please fuck off with these kinds of assertions and stop acting like you know me in any way, shape or form. it's grating and you really come off as a massive asshole to me in trying to insist that how i feel and what personally i have experienced on reddit must be wrong because you don't agree with it.
If you read what you originally wrote (with leftist and radical right wingers discussed throughout) and still claim you weren't lumping in political leanings with bigotry, then you aren't discussing this rationally.
i literally did not. there is a period between the point about ideologies and the point about dogwhistles for a reason, and i'm not exactly silent about how i feel. if i wanted to say that it was all right wingers, i would literally just say it was right wingers in the same way that i just said that in my experience, reddit right wingers are the most racist people on reddit followed thereafter by white reddit leftists. politely, do not act like you speak for me or know my opinions, thanks. if i wanted to have my supposed views inaccurately explained back to me, i'd just go back to reddit and take it from some chud there who thinks that because i'm a socialist means i want to kill all white people or whatever.
So the word 'subscribe' can have multiple meanings. Sue me. Read it as 'participate in' if it makes you feel better. Bottom line is, one person's reddit can be different to someone else's reddit,...
...you understand that people can like, use subreddits they don't subscribe to, yes?
So the word 'subscribe' can have multiple meanings. Sue me. Read it as 'participate in' if it makes you feel better. Bottom line is, one person's reddit can be different to someone else's reddit, and that means the idea that you have the same reddit as EVERYONE else impossible.
thank you for trying to explain my feelings
You explained your feelings. If you didn't have a problem with Reddit then wtf are you complaining about?
i literally did not. there is a period
Left vs right. Something else. Left vs right some more. Obviously the middle thing has NOTHING to do with left vs right. If you don't want your views to be understood inaccurately then don't express them inaccurately.
...so your argument is literally a dumb semantic one that means absolutely nothing and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything i've said? awesome, glad we cleared that one up. please...
So the word 'subscribe' can have multiple meanings. Sue me. Read it as 'participate in' if it makes you feel better. Bottom line is, one person's reddit can be different to someone else's reddit, and that means the idea that you have the same reddit as EVERYONE else impossible.
...so your argument is literally a dumb semantic one that means absolutely nothing and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything i've said? awesome, glad we cleared that one up. please don't bring it up again if that is literally the only reservation you have.
You explained your feelings. If you didn't have a problem with Reddit then wtf are you complaining about?
if you're not going to read anything that i just wrote, why even reply, and especially why reply with something that has literally no bearing on or understanding of the point i just made? genuinely i have no clue what you're contesting here, or if you're contesting anything at all that's even worth responding to.
Left vs right. Something else. Left vs right some more. Obviously the middle thing has NOTHING to do with left vs right. If you don't want your views to be understood inaccurately then don't express them inaccurately.
no, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with anything i just said? i am genuinely confused, and it seems like you're trying to argue that somehow my point is invalid because i use the left-right political axis in my comment even though (1) i literally didn't do that either because i brought up libertarianism, which defies that spectrum and requires a dual axes to properly define and (2) the left-right axis is well established as the most basic way of categorizing politics and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.
i honestly have to ask: are you even attempting to argue in good faith at this point? it feels like you aren't in any capacity.
No, my argument boils down to this: You complained about things that happen on Reddit, which is a very heterogeneous website. I told you that you go on the wrong parts of Reddit. They are wrong...
so your argument is literally a dumb semantic one that means absolutely nothing
No, my argument boils down to this: You complained about things that happen on Reddit, which is a very heterogeneous website. I told you that you go on the wrong parts of Reddit. They are wrong not because I think they are wrong, because I don't really give a shit about the stuff you mentioned and just ignore it - they're wrong for YOU as evidenced by your complaints. You should go on the parts that don't lead you to complain. You can do that by unsubscribing to things and just not going to certain subs. It's really quite simple.
oh, then you could have done that way more clearly several messages ago instead of acting like somehow i go on the "wrong" parts of reddit in the other sense and that my experiences with reddit...
oh, then you could have done that way more clearly several messages ago instead of acting like somehow i go on the "wrong" parts of reddit in the other sense and that my experiences with reddit are therefore not true or whatever. regardless, your idea that this is something that can just be quarantined is laughable, because it's the reddit community at large that is the problem, and it extends into every subreddit as i'm sure people like @dubteedub can attest given their involvement in keeping an eye on bigotry and racism and other things of that nature in the reddit community. as i led with, reddit is probably the most casually racist website i use, and a lot of that is because of right-wingers, but it's also contributed to by stupid people in the middle (who act like those right-wingers have a right to call for things like genocide) and a subset of decadent, bourgeois champagne leftists who are overwhelmingly white and into socialism to be woke and thus are more than willing to throw minorities under the bus when it's convenient.
Having thoroughly researched the health care industry and the m4a proposals... Reddit... R/politics only wants to hear about how good it is Literally just posting the facts... That are not as...
Having thoroughly researched the health care industry and the m4a proposals... Reddit... R/politics only wants to hear about how good it is
Literally just posting the facts... That are not as positive as Bernie, gets me downvotes... Every time...
If you mean the actual commenters, sure, there might be a left-wing bias. But there's a huge number of people who repeat the same things, almost word for word in most politics-focused threads. You...
If you mean the actual commenters, sure, there might be a left-wing bias. But there's a huge number of people who repeat the same things, almost word for word in most politics-focused threads. You can't argue with them, they refuse to give detailed arguments or most of the time even expand upon their opinions. They're clearly not legitimate users.
in my experience it's not even actual trolls litigating things like this right now, but rather militant supporters who feel like relitigating 2016's primary and see harris and beto as the next...
Be aware that agents of chaos are already meddling in the 2020 election trying to spread dissension wherever possible.
in my experience it's not even actual trolls litigating things like this right now, but rather militant supporters who feel like relitigating 2016's primary and see harris and beto as the next hillary, to be coronated at the expense of sanders at the probably inevitable convention. make of that what you will.
The tricky thing is that there are plenty of people disagreeing for many reasons and it's very difficult to distinguish between people discussing differences in reasonably good faith and various...
The tricky thing is that there are plenty of people disagreeing for many reasons and it's very difficult to distinguish between people discussing differences in reasonably good faith and various trolls or paid shills. They're all mixed together and interact and feed off of each other. That's what makes it so insidious and effective for meddlers; they only have to do part of the work. Whether it's seeding a spark of an argument, kindling a controversial statement into a divisive exchange, or stoking and feeding existing disagreement that was petering out, they are successfully enflaming the forums without having to resort to outright flame thrower tactics that are more hateful but easier to detect and moderate effectively.
Maybe not so much Beto, but I really feel like SOMEONE is trying to give Harris a coronation. She's been talked about as if she was a front runner for two years despite having basically no...
Maybe not so much Beto, but I really feel like SOMEONE is trying to give Harris a coronation. She's been talked about as if she was a front runner for two years despite having basically no national name recognition. When talking about candidates, I heard NPR talk up how big her crowd sizes are and then mutter about how Sanders has big crowds, too. They gave specific numbers for Harris, but didn't for Sanders. In every measure of polling, enthusiasm, and fundraising, Sanders does better than her, but even NPR (one of the news organizations I respect the most) talks as if she's more of a front runner than he is.
I'm not one of the people that you mentioned, but I can definitely understand how they feel.
well, harris is a frontrunner, so i see why she gets treated as one by the media--but that said, aside from her early crowd in Oakland, she's.been pretty weak in the past few weeks and her polling...
well, harris is a frontrunner, so i see why she gets treated as one by the media--but that said, aside from her early crowd in Oakland, she's.been pretty weak in the past few weeks and her polling sucks. she's got the same problem beto does: she isn't meeting the popular vote threshold in a lot of these polls, and even when she does she's usually a ways behind sanders and biden.
Yeah, she's one of the top tier of candidates. But was she two years ago? Is she in the top tier because the media has been acting like she is for the last two years or because people actually...
Yeah, she's one of the top tier of candidates. But was she two years ago? Is she in the top tier because the media has been acting like she is for the last two years or because people actually like her? Are her crowd sizes worth mentioning more than Sanders' are?
It's not like I'd argue that she isn't ONE of the front runners now (however much help she got to be one). The problem comes in when it feels like people are trying to push her as THE front runner.
Edit: You know since this post is about Beto, I thought I should clarify that I've seen far less of this about him. I'm not his biggest fan because he reminds me far too much of candidates in my state that seem to have no real stances on anything and rely on rhetorical skills (or an R next to their name) to carry the day. He doesn't even have an issues page as far as I can tell.
A lot of Clinton's staff got jobs with Harris not long after the 2016 election. So far it seems like they are using a very similar playbook. They are trying to turn a 'tough on crime' prosecutor...
A lot of Clinton's staff got jobs with Harris not long after the 2016 election. So far it seems like they are using a very similar playbook. They are trying to turn a 'tough on crime' prosecutor into a progressive, and create an idea that she is the anointed one.
This is a really broad statement that I can only take as creating an excuse to discount anyone who would take issue with the framing/claims/context of this article/title. I've mostly kept my mouth...
This is a really broad statement that I can only take as creating an excuse to discount anyone who would take issue with the framing/claims/context of this article/title. I've mostly kept my mouth shut about the topic, but it's starting to sound like bible beaters claiming that "satan is all around us trying to tempt us". Low, that we'd fall victim and become another of the useful idiots /s. Stop treating people like children - maybe some of us actually have valid critiques of one or more of the candidates and you should hear them out before you assume they have ulterior motives. It seems like I almost remember a time when vibrant debate was a critical part of a healthy democracy.
I certainly believe there are plenty of people that have valid critiques. I'm not trying to suggest all who disagree with x or y have ulterior motives, but the existence of bad actors is a factor...
I certainly believe there are plenty of people that have valid critiques. I'm not trying to suggest all who disagree with x or y have ulterior motives, but the existence of bad actors is a factor that we all need to be aware of as it's likely to only get worse.
Debate is indeed valuable, but only so far as the parties involved are operating in good faith (which I tend to assume more strongly here than on Reddit).
I'm not surprised that the charismatic young face of the corporate branch of the Democratic party got a lot of money, especially if it means that he can just barely one-up Sanders and get a news...
I'm not surprised that the charismatic young face of the corporate branch of the Democratic party got a lot of money, especially if it means that he can just barely one-up Sanders and get a news cycle out of it, but on his policies he's really not who I'm passionate about.
i think that this is going to be the biggest stumbling block for a lot of candidates: almost none of them (besides Bernie, i guess) have policies which are exciting or new. most of them are...
but on his policies he's really not who I'm passionate about.
i think that this is going to be the biggest stumbling block for a lot of candidates: almost none of them (besides Bernie, i guess) have policies which are exciting or new. most of them are following either Sanders' 2016 formula, Hillary's 2016 formula, or Obama's 2012 formula. (to say nothing of how most of them come off as inauthentic in what they propose! outside of harris and sanders i can't say i've been that impressed by the charisma of anybody in the race so far, a lot of which i think is because most of these candidates aren't standing on a platform of what they truly believe and they're still adjusting) it might work, but jesus is it not particularly inspiring.
sure, but first you need a candidate who can do that, and not all candidates are equal against trump. harris and warren do worse than beto, sanders, or biden in that regard for example. you also...
sure, but first you need a candidate who can do that, and not all candidates are equal against trump. harris and warren do worse than beto, sanders, or biden in that regard for example. you also need a candidate that isn't just the FUCK TRUMP candidate. standing for literally nothing or angling yourself as a status quo ante candidate isn't helpful just because it beats trump. we should have someone who will at least try to make progress and not just someone who will act like everything is fine because donald isn't in office anymore and leave it at that. there are many material issues that need to be addressed that have not been, and that's part of why donald won to begin with. it's nice to just be "blue wave", but let's please shoot for a bit more than that so shit can actually happen and we don't just end up with someone who will struggle in the general or whose whole thing is FUCK TRUMP, but the status quo is AWESOME! as the nominee
Very, very much. Trump's presidency has been an unprecedented disaster from my perspective. I'd prefer Sanders, though would settle for Warren if it comes to it. Her ideas aren't as exciting, but...
Very, very much. Trump's presidency has been an unprecedented disaster from my perspective.
I'd prefer Sanders, though would settle for Warren if it comes to it. Her ideas aren't as exciting, but I feel that it would be a strong step in the right direction as far as ameliorating corporate control goes.
I will. I've heard a little bit about him, and liked what I heard, but I haven't read up on him. I'll take a closer look. Really, now is the time for dark horse candidates, even if they don't win....
I will. I've heard a little bit about him, and liked what I heard, but I haven't read up on him. I'll take a closer look.
Really, now is the time for dark horse candidates, even if they don't win. Getting the more extreme ideas out into the public discourse so that the people closer to the center seem reasonable is a tactic the right has been using for years to normalize some awful positions; I'd be happy to see the overall discourse moving further towards the left through exposure to a wider variety of ideas.
this is not especially surprising, given beto's ability to fundraise in the texas senate race--but it means absolutely nothing if he can't get people to vote for him over other choices. he doesn't...
this is not especially surprising, given beto's ability to fundraise in the texas senate race--but it means absolutely nothing if he can't get people to vote for him over other choices. he doesn't poll above the popular vote threshold you have to meet to be eligible for a state's delegates in any of the early states, which is going to make his candidacy pretty short lived if it holds. the only people i see really contending, polling wise, are sanders, harris, warren, and maybe biden. everybody else is either on the fast track to getting owned or needs to really pick up if they want to be viable going into the debates.
If there's one thing I think I learned in the last presidential primary season, it's that there are ways for candidates to defy expectations, in either direction, that seemed like fantasy in the...
If there's one thing I think I learned in the last presidential primary season, it's that there are ways for candidates to defy expectations, in either direction, that seemed like fantasy in the two cycles Obama was elected.
The new landscape makes for strange and unexpected break-outs and flops. Do the traditional candidates have a leg up? Sure. But those who capture the imagination of the media and get air time and social media virality also get outsized support by traditionally expected benchmarks.
I've noticed he hasn't published his average donation or number of donation figures. I'm guessing he has way less backers and a way higher average donation than Sanders. I'm not saying there...
I've noticed he hasn't published his average donation or number of donation figures. I'm guessing he has way less backers and a way higher average donation than Sanders. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of people out there who like Beto, but I really don't think it's fair to say he "topped" Sanders without those numbers.
Personally, he's not my top choice. Or second. But he's not my last choice. I have no idea what he stands for, what his vision for America is, or what policies he wants to implement. His strategy in Texas seemed to be talk as little about those things as possible. Maybe it will change in this campaign, but he seems at best a dull candidate right now. I have no idea what's so exciting about him to some people.
Part of what Bernie has always bragged about is his large number of donors and small average donation. If Beto raised slightly more money, but his average donation was 10x Bernie's, I wouldn't...
Part of what Bernie has always bragged about is his large number of donors and small average donation. If Beto raised slightly more money, but his average donation was 10x Bernie's, I wouldn't call that topping Bernie. I'd say Beto has far fewer, but wealthier supporters than Bernie does.
I don't personally care about the NFL thing. And immigration... I'm not so sure that's the best thing to run on. A lot of people are very progressive economically, but see illegal immigration as a major problem. These people live in swing states and will be needed to beat Trump.
Maybe he does have specific stances (I don't see an issues page on his website), but even for his "signature" issue of immigration he seems to make feel good speeches that don't actually say a whole lot. What would he DO about immigration if he were elected president? More legal immigration? Less? Amnesty for illegal immigrants? Open borders?
What would he do about climate change? What would he do about the wars in the middle east? What would he do about drug prices? What would he do about rising health care premiums? What does he think about the deficit?
That’s his biggest asset. A big part of the presidency is making people feel good about your decisions or to give them hope for the future. It’s why mega churches are also very popular. From my...
he seems to make feel good speeches that don't actually say a whole lot.
That’s his biggest asset. A big part of the presidency is making people feel good about your decisions or to give them hope for the future. It’s why mega churches are also very popular. From my experiences, most say very little to make you think critically or change your ways, but instead focus on lots of easily digested fluff or messages that make you feel good about yourself. By avoiding issues, Beto is allowing the general populace to hear the extremes from both sides and choose the “safer” choice of a centrist.
What would he do about drug prices? What would he do about rising health care premiums? Bernie/Warren want to be radical, which is silly. there is no reason not to promote Gov't healthcare as...
What would he do about drug prices? What would he do about rising health care premiums?
During the 2018 midterm elections, few voters said a candidate’s position on a national health plan was an important factor in their vote (Figure 11) and a larger share of Democrats now say they want House Democrats to focus on improving and protecting the ACA rather than passing a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 12). So while the general idea of a national health plan (whether accomplished through an expansion of Medicare or some other way) may enjoy fairly broad support in the abstract, it remains unclear how the future of this issue – which really gained traction during the 2016 presidential primary and Bernie Sanders’ rallying cry for “Medicare-for-all” – will play out.
Bernie/Warren want to be radical, which is silly. there is no reason not to promote Gov't healthcare as Pro-Business, pro everyone.
Whats radical is wanting socialized policies without the socialized taxes.
so increasing the total amount to 85% as is Medicare is 30B-50B
And even if we used our muscle to get lower prices from them there's further limits as Prescriptions total less than ~$200 Billion. So even if we got everyone at 85% Generics and lowered prices of all drugs by a third
We're up to ~60B in savings
There's Profits to Cut Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group, cumulatively collected $4.5 billion in net earnings in the first three months of 2017
25B-30B
So yea there's an easy way to save in this but we're at top saving ~95B in a 3.3Trillion Budget
US medical salaries are double or triple that of uk/germany
Approximately 8.7 percent of health-care spending in the U.S. is attributable to cigarette smoking
And then we have to work on
Overcoming society’s cognitive bias that more—more medical care, more expensive medical care, more high-tech medical care—is better.
Our health care system values (i.e., pays more for) high-tech, complex medical and specialty services.
However, if there is a secret sauce in successful super-utilizer programs, it is the dogged (and decidedly “unsexy”) investment in human-to-human relationships between the patient and the care team.
This process is inherently messy—it is rarely a direct path
There's savings to be found but it will take some cultural changes
But to start off with how do we pay for a national Insurance program, taking over expenses of ~$1.6 Trillion currently being handled by private insurance and out of pocket non insured
Fantastic! I really hope he can carry momentum forward and be a real competitor while maybe taking the lead come debates. I'm glad we have someone in the race who can bring a voice for the...
Fantastic! I really hope he can carry momentum forward and be a real competitor while maybe taking the lead come debates. I'm glad we have someone in the race who can bring a voice for the moderates of the party.
I am not a fan of beto, the fact he was in the same "hacker group" (actually just a place to post obscure essays) as Curtis Yarvin and Jacob Applebaum was enough to put me off.
I am not a fan of beto, the fact he was in the same "hacker group" (actually just a place to post obscure essays) as Curtis Yarvin and Jacob Applebaum was enough to put me off.
That's a bit of an unfair assessment. He was part of it in 1988, whereas the others you mentioned were a part of it much later. Applebaum joined in 2008, 20 years later. It's like if Tildes...
That's a bit of an unfair assessment. He was part of it in 1988, whereas the others you mentioned were a part of it much later. Applebaum joined in 2008, 20 years later. It's like if Tildes becomes a neo-nazi forum in 20 years and they associate you with their ideologies.
I used to frequent their filez back in the day. It was the equivalent of 4chan for whatever it's worth, and not particularly noteworthy. The actual hacking they did was a bit cooler and it was...
I used to frequent their filez back in the day. It was the equivalent of 4chan for whatever it's worth, and not particularly noteworthy. The actual hacking they did was a bit cooler and it was hacking mostly in the older sense; learning by taking things apart and making them do cool things. The CODC got some notoriety for creating tools for others, but were really always a lot more above board than their peers (Legion of Doom, MOD, etc). I really always considered them as a bit lesser than those other groups.
If anything, it made Beto cooler in my eyes and it only proves he was an intelligent teenager who questioned authority.
In the Reddit threads about this, there are tons of people sowing discord between Beto and Bernie with suspiciously similar talking points. Be aware that agents of chaos are already meddling in the 2020 election trying to spread dissension wherever possible.
Reddit has been overrun by users pushing the Republican narrative. The net neutrality-related threads are even worse.
You're so right about this. It's unbelievable. It's changed so much, especially the last 2-3 years.
as a leftist: no, absolutely not. at best it varies by subreddit; broadly, however, it's mostly liberals, neoliberals, and vocal libertarians, with a small but vocal group of radical right wingers. dog whistles, casual racism and xenophobia, bigotry, and other things are exceptionally frequent and seldom downvoted to oblivion unless specifically highlighted.
tildes is much more leftist than reddit ever has been or will be.
it is your experience. mine has been that reddit is probably one of the most casually racist places i actually use. the amount of casual bigotry of all kinds is quite impressive when you actually experience it and know when to see it and what its tells are. it's somewhat sobering, actually.
i'll make a point that i've made a few times on here: just because only one side of the political spectrum is represented on a website does not and would not an echo chamber make. an anarchist is not a socialist is not a social democrat is not a liberal is not a blue dog democrat is not a conservative liberal. you would maybe get these people as a whole to agree on one thing, maybe. there is wide, fundamental ideological diversity in the broader left wing of the political spectrum, just as is true of the right.
This is why you don't see it. I browse /r/popular periodically (which I believe is just /r/all, sans the NSFW stuff) and it's amazing how much racist, xenophobic, and/or far-right stuff makes it to the first few pages of that. Usually via completely unpolitical subreddits similar to /r/unpopularopinion. Lots of Libertarian stuff too, although that's a mixed bag of sensible things and /r/insanepeoplefacebook
You go on the wrong parts of Reddit.
You also incorrectly conflate bigotry with the right wing - it is possible to be right wing and not a racist, and it is possible to be left wing and be one. This is because people merge social and economic conservative belief systems when discussing them when real people don't.
i use the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else, but thank you for needlessly trying to assert that my experiences must be wrong for whatever reason. i'm very pleased to find out that you are apparently the singular person who determines what is and is not the "wrong" parts of reddit.
i said literally nothing about the political leaning of the people being bigoted but, since you insist on bringing it up, far and away the most bigoted people in my experience on reddit are all the right wingers, and i can't say that i've met very many reddit right wingers who weren't either islamophobic, transphobic, racist or bigoted in some capacity, or a combination of the three. the liberals and the libertarians are usually just casually racist and their big problem is they like to try and act like it's okay if people advocate for ethnostates or genocide because we have to let people be heard or whatever. actually what's quite funny is that after the right-wingers, in my experience the white leftists tend to be the most racist camp on reddit because they're all privileged idiots who have no understanding of minority issues, and so they advocate for things they have no understanding of like reparations over the objections of minorities because they want to be woke,
With the subscription functionality you literally can't go to the exact same parts of reddit as everybody else. Different subsets exist - if a subreddit is full of bigots, unsubscribe. Eventually you will be left with the set of subreddits that you are interested in that aren't full of bigots. The determining factor of whether they are the wrong or right parts is whether they are the wrong or right parts for you. And by your own description they are clearly wrong.
If you read what you originally wrote (with leftist and radical right wingers discussed throughout) and still claim you weren't lumping in political leanings with bigotry, then you aren't discussing this rationally.
...you understand that people can like, use subreddits they don't subscribe to, yes? and that there is literally nothing stopping me from viewing, participating in, and engaging with people in subreddits i am not subscribed to, yes? please stop and actually check that what you're saying is true before you make a comment like this, because with respect, your entire premise is complete baloney and if you'd done a modicum of research you would recognize that it falls flat the moment it's contested.
once again, thank you for trying to explain my feelings and experiences to me as though you are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong. i'm pretty charitable ordinarily, but please fuck off with these kinds of assertions and stop acting like you know me in any way, shape or form. it's grating and you really come off as a massive asshole to me in trying to insist that how i feel and what personally i have experienced on reddit must be wrong because you don't agree with it.
i literally did not. there is a period between the point about ideologies and the point about dogwhistles for a reason, and i'm not exactly silent about how i feel. if i wanted to say that it was all right wingers, i would literally just say it was right wingers in the same way that i just said that in my experience, reddit right wingers are the most racist people on reddit followed thereafter by white reddit leftists. politely, do not act like you speak for me or know my opinions, thanks. if i wanted to have my supposed views inaccurately explained back to me, i'd just go back to reddit and take it from some chud there who thinks that because i'm a socialist means i want to kill all white people or whatever.
So the word 'subscribe' can have multiple meanings. Sue me. Read it as 'participate in' if it makes you feel better. Bottom line is, one person's reddit can be different to someone else's reddit, and that means the idea that you have the same reddit as EVERYONE else impossible.
You explained your feelings. If you didn't have a problem with Reddit then wtf are you complaining about?
Left vs right. Something else. Left vs right some more. Obviously the middle thing has NOTHING to do with left vs right. If you don't want your views to be understood inaccurately then don't express them inaccurately.
...so your argument is literally a dumb semantic one that means absolutely nothing and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything i've said? awesome, glad we cleared that one up. please don't bring it up again if that is literally the only reservation you have.
if you're not going to read anything that i just wrote, why even reply, and especially why reply with something that has literally no bearing on or understanding of the point i just made? genuinely i have no clue what you're contesting here, or if you're contesting anything at all that's even worth responding to.
no, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with anything i just said? i am genuinely confused, and it seems like you're trying to argue that somehow my point is invalid because i use the left-right political axis in my comment even though (1) i literally didn't do that either because i brought up libertarianism, which defies that spectrum and requires a dual axes to properly define and (2) the left-right axis is well established as the most basic way of categorizing politics and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.
i honestly have to ask: are you even attempting to argue in good faith at this point? it feels like you aren't in any capacity.
No, my argument boils down to this: You complained about things that happen on Reddit, which is a very heterogeneous website. I told you that you go on the wrong parts of Reddit. They are wrong not because I think they are wrong, because I don't really give a shit about the stuff you mentioned and just ignore it - they're wrong for YOU as evidenced by your complaints. You should go on the parts that don't lead you to complain. You can do that by unsubscribing to things and just not going to certain subs. It's really quite simple.
oh, then you could have done that way more clearly several messages ago instead of acting like somehow i go on the "wrong" parts of reddit in the other sense and that my experiences with reddit are therefore not true or whatever. regardless, your idea that this is something that can just be quarantined is laughable, because it's the reddit community at large that is the problem, and it extends into every subreddit as i'm sure people like @dubteedub can attest given their involvement in keeping an eye on bigotry and racism and other things of that nature in the reddit community. as i led with, reddit is probably the most casually racist website i use, and a lot of that is because of right-wingers, but it's also contributed to by stupid people in the middle (who act like those right-wingers have a right to call for things like genocide) and a subset of decadent, bourgeois champagne leftists who are overwhelmingly white and into socialism to be woke and thus are more than willing to throw minorities under the bus when it's convenient.
Having thoroughly researched the health care industry and the m4a proposals... Reddit... R/politics only wants to hear about how good it is
Literally just posting the facts... That are not as positive as Bernie, gets me downvotes... Every time...
If you mean the actual commenters, sure, there might be a left-wing bias. But there's a huge number of people who repeat the same things, almost word for word in most politics-focused threads. You can't argue with them, they refuse to give detailed arguments or most of the time even expand upon their opinions. They're clearly not legitimate users.
in my experience it's not even actual trolls litigating things like this right now, but rather militant supporters who feel like relitigating 2016's primary and see harris and beto as the next hillary, to be coronated at the expense of sanders at the probably inevitable convention. make of that what you will.
The tricky thing is that there are plenty of people disagreeing for many reasons and it's very difficult to distinguish between people discussing differences in reasonably good faith and various trolls or paid shills. They're all mixed together and interact and feed off of each other. That's what makes it so insidious and effective for meddlers; they only have to do part of the work. Whether it's seeding a spark of an argument, kindling a controversial statement into a divisive exchange, or stoking and feeding existing disagreement that was petering out, they are successfully enflaming the forums without having to resort to outright flame thrower tactics that are more hateful but easier to detect and moderate effectively.
Maybe not so much Beto, but I really feel like SOMEONE is trying to give Harris a coronation. She's been talked about as if she was a front runner for two years despite having basically no national name recognition. When talking about candidates, I heard NPR talk up how big her crowd sizes are and then mutter about how Sanders has big crowds, too. They gave specific numbers for Harris, but didn't for Sanders. In every measure of polling, enthusiasm, and fundraising, Sanders does better than her, but even NPR (one of the news organizations I respect the most) talks as if she's more of a front runner than he is.
I'm not one of the people that you mentioned, but I can definitely understand how they feel.
well, harris is a frontrunner, so i see why she gets treated as one by the media--but that said, aside from her early crowd in Oakland, she's.been pretty weak in the past few weeks and her polling sucks. she's got the same problem beto does: she isn't meeting the popular vote threshold in a lot of these polls, and even when she does she's usually a ways behind sanders and biden.
Yeah, she's one of the top tier of candidates. But was she two years ago? Is she in the top tier because the media has been acting like she is for the last two years or because people actually like her? Are her crowd sizes worth mentioning more than Sanders' are?
It's not like I'd argue that she isn't ONE of the front runners now (however much help she got to be one). The problem comes in when it feels like people are trying to push her as THE front runner.
Edit: You know since this post is about Beto, I thought I should clarify that I've seen far less of this about him. I'm not his biggest fan because he reminds me far too much of candidates in my state that seem to have no real stances on anything and rely on rhetorical skills (or an R next to their name) to carry the day. He doesn't even have an issues page as far as I can tell.
A lot of Clinton's staff got jobs with Harris not long after the 2016 election. So far it seems like they are using a very similar playbook. They are trying to turn a 'tough on crime' prosecutor into a progressive, and create an idea that she is the anointed one.
This is a really broad statement that I can only take as creating an excuse to discount anyone who would take issue with the framing/claims/context of this article/title. I've mostly kept my mouth shut about the topic, but it's starting to sound like bible beaters claiming that "satan is all around us trying to tempt us". Low, that we'd fall victim and become another of the useful idiots /s. Stop treating people like children - maybe some of us actually have valid critiques of one or more of the candidates and you should hear them out before you assume they have ulterior motives. It seems like I almost remember a time when vibrant debate was a critical part of a healthy democracy.
I certainly believe there are plenty of people that have valid critiques. I'm not trying to suggest all who disagree with x or y have ulterior motives, but the existence of bad actors is a factor that we all need to be aware of as it's likely to only get worse.
Debate is indeed valuable, but only so far as the parties involved are operating in good faith (which I tend to assume more strongly here than on Reddit).
I'm not surprised that the charismatic young face of the corporate branch of the Democratic party got a lot of money, especially if it means that he can just barely one-up Sanders and get a news cycle out of it, but on his policies he's really not who I'm passionate about.
i think that this is going to be the biggest stumbling block for a lot of candidates: almost none of them (besides Bernie, i guess) have policies which are exciting or new. most of them are following either Sanders' 2016 formula, Hillary's 2016 formula, or Obama's 2012 formula. (to say nothing of how most of them come off as inauthentic in what they propose! outside of harris and sanders i can't say i've been that impressed by the charisma of anybody in the race so far, a lot of which i think is because most of these candidates aren't standing on a platform of what they truly believe and they're still adjusting) it might work, but jesus is it not particularly inspiring.
sure, but first you need a candidate who can do that, and not all candidates are equal against trump. harris and warren do worse than beto, sanders, or biden in that regard for example. you also need a candidate that isn't just the FUCK TRUMP candidate. standing for literally nothing or angling yourself as a status quo ante candidate isn't helpful just because it beats trump. we should have someone who will at least try to make progress and not just someone who will act like everything is fine because donald isn't in office anymore and leave it at that. there are many material issues that need to be addressed that have not been, and that's part of why donald won to begin with. it's nice to just be "blue wave", but let's please shoot for a bit more than that so shit can actually happen and we don't just end up with someone who will struggle in the general or whose whole thing is FUCK TRUMP, but the status quo is AWESOME! as the nominee
Very, very much. Trump's presidency has been an unprecedented disaster from my perspective.
I'd prefer Sanders, though would settle for Warren if it comes to it. Her ideas aren't as exciting, but I feel that it would be a strong step in the right direction as far as ameliorating corporate control goes.
I will. I've heard a little bit about him, and liked what I heard, but I haven't read up on him. I'll take a closer look.
Really, now is the time for dark horse candidates, even if they don't win. Getting the more extreme ideas out into the public discourse so that the people closer to the center seem reasonable is a tactic the right has been using for years to normalize some awful positions; I'd be happy to see the overall discourse moving further towards the left through exposure to a wider variety of ideas.
Here's an article about him I found, if anyone else is curious.
I enjoyed Buttigieg’s interview on Stay Tuned with Preet two weeks ago and will be keeping a close eye on his candidacy.
I'm on the same page. But I guess I need to learn more about Buttigieg.
this is not especially surprising, given beto's ability to fundraise in the texas senate race--but it means absolutely nothing if he can't get people to vote for him over other choices. he doesn't poll above the popular vote threshold you have to meet to be eligible for a state's delegates in any of the early states, which is going to make his candidacy pretty short lived if it holds. the only people i see really contending, polling wise, are sanders, harris, warren, and maybe biden. everybody else is either on the fast track to getting owned or needs to really pick up if they want to be viable going into the debates.
If there's one thing I think I learned in the last presidential primary season, it's that there are ways for candidates to defy expectations, in either direction, that seemed like fantasy in the two cycles Obama was elected.
The new landscape makes for strange and unexpected break-outs and flops. Do the traditional candidates have a leg up? Sure. But those who capture the imagination of the media and get air time and social media virality also get outsized support by traditionally expected benchmarks.
I've noticed he hasn't published his average donation or number of donation figures. I'm guessing he has way less backers and a way higher average donation than Sanders. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of people out there who like Beto, but I really don't think it's fair to say he "topped" Sanders without those numbers.
Personally, he's not my top choice. Or second. But he's not my last choice. I have no idea what he stands for, what his vision for America is, or what policies he wants to implement. His strategy in Texas seemed to be talk as little about those things as possible. Maybe it will change in this campaign, but he seems at best a dull candidate right now. I have no idea what's so exciting about him to some people.
He hasn't revealed if this number was achieved by a lot of big one-time donators that are tapped out now.
Number of donors can be a sign of grassroots support vs corporate support.
Part of what Bernie has always bragged about is his large number of donors and small average donation. If Beto raised slightly more money, but his average donation was 10x Bernie's, I wouldn't call that topping Bernie. I'd say Beto has far fewer, but wealthier supporters than Bernie does.
I don't personally care about the NFL thing. And immigration... I'm not so sure that's the best thing to run on. A lot of people are very progressive economically, but see illegal immigration as a major problem. These people live in swing states and will be needed to beat Trump.
Maybe he does have specific stances (I don't see an issues page on his website), but even for his "signature" issue of immigration he seems to make feel good speeches that don't actually say a whole lot. What would he DO about immigration if he were elected president? More legal immigration? Less? Amnesty for illegal immigrants? Open borders?
What would he do about climate change? What would he do about the wars in the middle east? What would he do about drug prices? What would he do about rising health care premiums? What does he think about the deficit?
I haven't heard him saying a whole lot of that.
That’s his biggest asset. A big part of the presidency is making people feel good about your decisions or to give them hope for the future. It’s why mega churches are also very popular. From my experiences, most say very little to make you think critically or change your ways, but instead focus on lots of easily digested fluff or messages that make you feel good about yourself. By avoiding issues, Beto is allowing the general populace to hear the extremes from both sides and choose the “safer” choice of a centrist.
What would he do about drug prices? What would he do about rising health care premiums?
Bernie/Warren want to be radical, which is silly. there is no reason not to promote Gov't healthcare as Pro-Business, pro everyone.
Whats radical is wanting socialized policies without the socialized taxes.
Healthcare in 2017
The German Health Care by Berlin University of Technology
Health insurance is mandatory for all citizens and permanent residents of Germany
As of 2016, the legally set uniform contribution rate is 14.6 percent of gross wages, shared equally by the employer and employees.
Out-of-pocket spending accounted for 13.2 percent of total health spending in 2014, mostly on nursing homes, pharmaceuticals, and medical aids
Prescriptions 8.2% of Expenses
There's savings but this over simplification on just pharmaceuticals and profits isnt going to make any real change
Generics already Represent 70% of the total prescriptions dispensed in the US, so there is limited gains in savings
And even if we used our muscle to get lower prices from them there's further limits as Prescriptions total less than ~$200 Billion. So even if we got everyone at 85% Generics and lowered prices of all drugs by a third
There's Profits to Cut Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group, cumulatively collected $4.5 billion in net earnings in the first three months of 2017
So yea there's an easy way to save in this but we're at top saving ~95B in a 3.3Trillion Budget
US medical salaries are double or triple that of uk/germany
Who gets services...now comes time to save money
Just 5% of Americans Account for 50% of Spending.
In 2014, 4.3 million of the 28 million Medicare FFS beneficiaries had 6 or more chronic conditions. This group accounted for 51% of Medicare FFS spending
U.S. health care costs for chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease totaled $1.1 trillion in 2016
Approximately 8.7 percent of health-care spending in the U.S. is attributable to cigarette smoking
And then we have to work on
Overcoming society’s cognitive bias that more—more medical care, more expensive medical care, more high-tech medical care—is better.
However, if there is a secret sauce in successful super-utilizer programs, it is the dogged (and decidedly “unsexy”) investment in human-to-human relationships between the patient and the care team.
This process is inherently messy—it is rarely a direct path
There's savings to be found but it will take some cultural changes
But to start off with how do we pay for a national Insurance program, taking over expenses of ~$1.6 Trillion currently being handled by private insurance and out of pocket non insured
Fantastic! I really hope he can carry momentum forward and be a real competitor while maybe taking the lead come debates. I'm glad we have someone in the race who can bring a voice for the moderates of the party.
I am not a fan of beto, the fact he was in the same "hacker group" (actually just a place to post obscure essays) as Curtis Yarvin and Jacob Applebaum was enough to put me off.
That's a bit of an unfair assessment. He was part of it in 1988, whereas the others you mentioned were a part of it much later. Applebaum joined in 2008, 20 years later. It's like if Tildes becomes a neo-nazi forum in 20 years and they associate you with their ideologies.
This reminds me a lot of incels and how it started as a friendly support group in 90s, but is now (20 years later) a hate group. (Source)
I used to frequent their filez back in the day. It was the equivalent of 4chan for whatever it's worth, and not particularly noteworthy. The actual hacking they did was a bit cooler and it was hacking mostly in the older sense; learning by taking things apart and making them do cool things. The CODC got some notoriety for creating tools for others, but were really always a lot more above board than their peers (Legion of Doom, MOD, etc). I really always considered them as a bit lesser than those other groups.
If anything, it made Beto cooler in my eyes and it only proves he was an intelligent teenager who questioned authority.
yes. he was about 16 when he did that (1988)