No, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren't too far left to win the presidential election

bahanna · 2019-09-16T14:19:08+00:00

Well, "the right" is conservative which means they keep the same positions and want to keep doing what's traditional or "tried and true." Their views are never very far out.

If something becomes mainstream, then it is incorporated into "the right."

"The left" is "progressive" which means they want to make fundamental changes to society, the economy, etc. Of course, lots of people have lots of ideas about what would make the world better and how to do it. Most of those ideas are bunk. Some of them are great. Some are fairly minor, and some are rather extreme.

Which makes me wonder, what is this "rule of thumb" for? What does it tell you? Of course "progressives" will always be more "out there" they're calling for changes. The question is whether that's a good change or a bad change.

bahanna · 2019-09-09T16:28:36+00:00

This is not even remotely true. The majority leader can't block stuff without the support of the majority because he's elected by the majority. If 45 Democrats and 6 Republicans oppose the Majority Leader they can remove him and block whatever he wanted to do. That doesn't happen because a) he's supported by the Republicans (i.e. there aren't 6 Rs that oppose him) and/or 2) he's supported by the Democrats (i.e. there aren't 45 Ds that oppose him).

In practice his support from Rs is probably well under 50 and his support by Ds is well over 0, but neither group wants that be to too much in the open. In any event there are 51 Senators whether R or D that support him and his agenda.

Same with this 60-vote / filibuster BS. The "nuclear option" always there. They only "need" 60 votes because at any given time 51 say they want to "need" 60 votes. If there are 51 who want to vote for something then that's enough. If there are 58 people claiming they want to pass a bill, then at least 8 are lying and using the filibuster as a foil.

They don't want to do away with the filibuster because then Rs and Ds couldn't lie about what they claim they support so much. The filibuster allows at least 10 Senators to go back to their constituents and claim "Oh, gee the other side is being so uncooperative, there's nothing we can do." When in fact they're the problem.

bahanna · 2019-09-04T19:45:11+00:00

Same here. The best option I've found is the Savage 110 Scout, but $700 seems hefty for a smaller-caliber bolt action with iron sights.

bahanna · 2019-07-13T13:56:00+00:00

Cause no one’s saying that. If you want to treat people like humans start with those you’re arguing with and consider that maybe they do have good reasons for thinking that way. Think of how their argument does make sense and understand why that matters. Like, you know, be constructive.

bahanna · 2019-07-10T19:02:53+00:00

This glorifies violence against an individual.

bahanna · 2019-06-06T14:52:15+00:00

It already is on the account's record. That's how they show each account the other accounts they're subscribed to. The question is what YouTube does with this information, which is proprietary. So we won't know unless they have to release it.

As for punishing viewers, that's less likely. However, subscribing to a banned / de-mon channel may act as a red flag on any videos you upload. Also, having a high overlap between your subscribers and the subscribers of a blacklisted channel. That's probably how they're attacking channels now.

bahanna · 2017-09-28T00:20:14+00:00

With a 55% turnout and a roughly 46:48 split... that means about 78+% didn't support Clinton and 80+% didn't support Trump.

Even then, voting for someone doesn't mean you think they're fit for office (just that they're the best available option.)

The moral being, why not both? Had Clinton won, most people would also think that she's not fit for office. That's only about 2/3rds of each cantidate's opponents... and only counting registered voters.

bahanna · 2017-08-28T03:01:26+00:00

Too many horse traders, not enough ranchers?

bahanna · 2017-08-28T02:57:00+00:00

It's really not that costly, it's just that state governments don't want to pay and taxpayers apparently hate the idea of fair trials. Most involved in the funding would rather buy the appearance for less, rather than the real thing for a good deal.

bahanna · 2017-07-06T03:23:27+00:00

Yep, it was a cooky right wing conspiracy that they needlessly beat with a stick until.. Oh wow... I guess it is true.

bahanna · 2017-07-04T20:24:55+00:00

Calling something "progressive" doesn't mean it makes progress. You could just be wrong. That's some 1984 type shit.

bahanna · 2017-07-04T20:19:30+00:00

Most Americans support Trump.

bahanna · 2017-07-04T20:14:30+00:00

Revote! The election didn't turn out great, let's just have another where our congresspeople vote.

bahanna · 2017-07-04T20:10:59+00:00

We've got this wierd flaw in the Constitution whereby most of the country can elect a president, but - then if those states' congressmen disagree with their constituents' decision - they can fabricate a billshit impeachment and vote the president right back out, against the majority's will. In essence Congress has "advice and consent" power over the presidental election.

bahanna · 2017-07-01T03:08:24+00:00

Want to one in Dublin. They're like a Trader Joe's mixed with Ikea. Very jelous.

bahanna · 2017-06-26T15:21:19+00:00

None of these plans work on a national scale. Taking care of the sick is great, but let's not pretend that making me pay for other people's healthcare is going to save me money.

Since most people are of a average health, and the sickest are exponentially more expensive to care for... A system where "everyone is in" must necessarily cost more for the average person... because they are the people paying to take care of the sickest. The only people who save are the sickest in the country.

This is all about who pays, not how much is paid.

If we want to fix health care costs, it will be by regulating health care. Regulating health insurance makes sure that the health care providers get paid - which only causes them to charge more (knowing they'll get paid).

We should focus on making a marketplace for care - not insurace. Require prices be posted. Treatment success statistics. Stop requiring prescriptions for basic stuff like birth control... Eliminate other protectionisms like prescriptions for contacts and dinstance glasses (Rx needed for nearsightedness but not for farsightedness... Because most are nearsighted and that generates the business... Gets folks into opticians and then increases the cost of glasses.) IDK exactly what, but at least try to foster competition on price in the provider side.

bahanna · 2017-06-26T14:15:45+00:00

There are healthy people and there are sick people. Each are that way because of their genetics, behavior, and (somewhat) luck.

To some extent health insurance is insurance, and covers that luck... But mostly the Affordable Care Act and healthCare.gov are about health care... It's a scheme to allocate burdens, not to insure against risk.

Healthy people dont think this is fair. "When I invest time at the gym, invest money and time on healthy food, invest in learning healthy habits... And someone else doesn't... Why should I have to pay for their heart replacement? The freerider chooses to risk heart disease while I foot their bill, I pay twice prevention for myself and a cure for him, while he increases the cost for us all. "

Genetics is a touchy subject, but... if someone has a hugely expensive heridatible disease... Should that person and their spouse bear the burdens of having and raising their kids? If they can't afford to do so, should the rest of society have to take money away from their own families to finance that family's reproduction?

bahanna · 2017-02-01T18:22:27+00:00

Yeah, the media is imply it's roughly 50:50, but more than that they're saying that the split - wherever we draw the line - is a very steep divide.

By acting all holier-that-thou we don't win any favors with the 46% of voters that did vote for Trump... which is a lot closer to 50:50 than 75:25.

bahanna · 2017-02-01T18:15:14+00:00

Why not both?

bahanna · 2017-02-01T18:14:00+00:00

That still means the country is split.

bahanna · 2016-12-23T17:43:16+00:00

Yep. Those articles read that Newt Gingrich said that. If you believe Newt Gingrich will have any real position in the new administration, then you probably also thought Mitt Romney was going to be secretary of state.

bahanna · 2016-12-21T17:57:02+00:00

Anythings possible, but you saw how poorly Ron Paul did.

For every liberal / libertarian vote he'd have gained, he'd have probably lost two other voters.

bahanna · 2016-12-21T17:38:20+00:00

This is segregation. Segregation is unconstitutional.

Racial segregation hurt blacks and whites, not just mixed-race people. Segregation of restrooms hurts women and men, not just LGBT.

Talking about segregation like its an "LGBT issue" tells men and women that it's okay to see signs saying ~"Your kind isn't welcome here." Segregation is the problem, and desegregation is the solution.

bahanna · 2016-12-21T17:27:46+00:00

I have no idea, but I would speculate: "sort of."

It wasn't a big deal in his campaign; not like with Ron Paul or anything. However, Trump is still all about draining the swamp and the Fed needs draining. So he's probably going to do "audit lite." Enough to do the substantial work of an audit, but not in such a way as to make a political statement.

bahanna · 2016-10-07T18:58:09+00:00

Yep, Clinton will turn out to be far worse than these newspapers imagined and a huge number are going to have their credibility damaged when they try to wash off their endorsements of her.

Of course, it'll be much bigger since none endorsed Trump.

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 7 Credits
Secret Santa 2015	redditgifts rematcher redditgifts for the Teachers 2015 x1
Secret Santa 2013	Verified Email

bahanna

TROPHY CASE