• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

ivysaur12

Banned
I made a thread about the 10th anniversary of gay marriage in America. No one posted in it (sad face) but thought some of the articles PoliGAF might find interesting. The Harvard Gazette did an interview with the author of the opinion:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=718370



I now want Liz Cheney to detail her kindnesses. She's already proven to be Sibling of the Year.
 
The author, a former rock drummer who opened for "Steppenwolf," is a professor of history at the University of Dayton. In addition to some of the books mentioned here, he has authored over 50 academic articles, dozens of book reviews, and has been a regular guest on "Fox and Friends."
This made me laugh. Its an author blurb for some conservative book
 
I think this about Jerry Brown often.

Why would you want Jerry Brown to run? In all of the times he's run he's placed himself to the right of the mainstream candidates in the primary. For example, in 1980 he opposed both Kennedy's health care plan (single payer) and Carter's healthcare plan (proto-Obamacare), and in 1992 he ran on a flat tax and supported term limits.
 
Why would want Jerry Brown to run? In all of the times he's run he's placed himself to the right of most of the candidates. For example, in 1980 he opposed both Kennedy's health care plan (single payer) and Carter's healthcare plan (proto-Obamacare), and in 1992 he ran on a flat tax and supported term limits.

You realize it's 2013 right now, the democrat party has shifted more to the left, and he is currently doing quite on a variety of left fronts in California. Not sure he'd win (if he was younger), but he could be a good VP. My only concern is that DC wouldn't be as "easy" as California in terms of super majorities, so how would he work with republicans in this era.
 
Why would you want Jerry Brown to run? In all of the times he's run he's placed himself to the right of the mainstream candidates in the primary. For example, in 1980 he opposed both Kennedy's health care plan (single payer) and Carter's healthcare plan (proto-Obamacare), and in 1992 he ran on a flat tax and supported term limits.

You're talking to someone who voted for Rick Snyder.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
I made a thread about the 10th anniversary of gay marriage in America. No one posted in it (sad face) but thought some of the articles PoliGAF might find interesting. The Harvard Gazette did an interview with the author of the opinion:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=718370




I now want Liz Cheney to detail her kindnesses. She's already proven to be Sibling of the Year.
Should have titled it "10th anniversary of the death of traditional marraige" you might have got some bites.

Liz Cheney sounds like an awful sibling.
 
Why would you want Jerry Brown to run? In all of the times he's run he's placed himself to the right of the mainstream candidates in the primary. For example, in 1980 he opposed both Kennedy's health care plan (single payer) and Carter's healthcare plan (proto-Obamacare), and in 1992 he ran on a flat tax and supported term limits.
You realize it's 2013 right now, the democrat party has shifted more to the left,
wat.
In the post you are responding to, the Carter healthcare plan, which was farther to the right, is what mainstream Democrats mostly support nowadays in the form of Obamacare, and even that was a fight. How can you look at that and say that the Democratic Party has moved farther to the left?
 
You realize it's 2013 right now, the democrat party has shifted more to the left, and he is currently doing quite on a variety of left fronts in California. Not sure he'd win (if he was younger), but he could be a good VP. My only concern is that DC wouldn't be as "easy" as California in terms of super majorities, so how would he work with republicans in this era.

The Democratic Party was a lot farther to the left in 1980 than it is today, the liberal/social democrats still dominated Congress, and it was the poor relations between the moderate Carter and the liberals in Congress like Kennedy that brought down his administration.
 

bonercop

Member
warren = ultra triple god-tier senator confirmed:
“The most recent discussion about cutting benefits has focused on something called the Chained-CPI. Supporters of the chained CPI say that it’s a more accurate way of measuring cost of living increases for seniors. That statement is simply not true. Chained CPI falls short of the actual increases in costs that seniors face, pure and simple. Chained CPI? It’s just a fancy way of saying cut benefits.

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics has developed a measure of the impact of inflation on seniors. It’s called the CPI-E, and, if we adopted it today, it would generally increase benefits for our retirees — not cut them.

“Social Security isn’t the answer to all of our retirement problems. We need to find ways to tackle the financial squeeze that is crushing our families. We need to help families start saving again. We need to make sure that more workers have access to better pensions. But in the meantime – so long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis – a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class – the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security.

so glad someone with her name-recognition is bringing the fight to chained-CPI bs.
 
In what universe have they "shifted more to the left" relative to Jerry Brown's first run?

The party is more liberal now than it was then on a variety of issues, from social issues to foreign policy*. Or are we going to pretend like Jerry Brown 2013 is less liberal than 1992 Jerry Brown?

*obviously the Obama administration is not left wing on foreign policy. In the late 80s/early 90s many "mainstream" democrats were playing catch up with Reagan on defense.
 

Piecake

Member
tumblr_mvqe8gUMzP1qzft56o1_500.gif

Pretty cool gif showing just how much mass transit reduces congestion.

For cities struggling to fund mass transit, they should just make a bunch of ads out of this and say "want less congestion and shorter commutes? Support mass transit"
 
Pretty cool gif showing just how much mass transit reduces congestion.

For cities struggling to fund mass transit, they should just make a bunch of ads out of this and say "want less congestion and shorter commutes? Support mass transit"

then you'll have the opponents of mass transit using the recent bay area shutdown as a counterexample.

"want to put your financial stability in the hands of a few hundreds who could stop it on their whim?"
 

Piecake

Member
then you'll have the opponents of mass transit using the recent bay area shutdown as a counterexample.

"want to put your financial stability in the hands of a few hundreds who could stop it on their whim?"

google's self driving system for mass transit.

Either that, or we could actually pay people a decent wage.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
then you'll have the opponents of mass transit using the recent bay area shutdown as a counterexample.

"want to put your financial stability in the hands of a few hundreds who could stop it on their whim?"

Actually paying people a decent wage would stop that from happening.
 
There are plenty of issues where Dems have shifted to the left -- e.g., same-sex marriage (& related issues), marijuana legalization.

On economics though, they've shifted to the right. The fact that Obama is passing Dole/Nixon legislation and it's (rightly) praised by liberals tells you something.
 
google's self driving system for mass transit.

Either that, or we could actually pay people a decent wage.

umm, the SF workers were making decent wages...tehy were making in the 70ks and 80ks. average. that's not even counting the retirement benefits and stuff

or is your idea of "decent' meaning everyone, should be making 6 figures?
 
Pretty cool gif showing just how much mass transit reduces congestion.

For cities struggling to fund mass transit, they should just make a bunch of ads out of this and say "want less congestion and shorter commutes? Support mass transit"

Reminds me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/

And sure, although not all cars are single-passenger. Plus, public transportation does not usually fund itself-- essentially you would have taxpayers paying for others not to drive (worth it, I think, but not a slam-dunk).
 
On economics though, they've shifted to the right. The fact that Obama is passing Dole/Nixon legislation and it's (rightly) praised by liberals tells you something.

They've shifted back leftward ever so slightly, I wouldn't say to the left, relative to clinton. They passed regulations rather than deregulations
 

Diablos

Member
LBJ was the last truly liberal President we had, too bad he was also a war-mongering asshole.

Also Carter gets way too much hate. It's sad.
 

Piecake

Member
umm, the SF workers were making decent wages...tehy were making in the 70ks and 80ks. average. that's not even counting the retirement benefits and stuff

or is your idea of "decent' meaning everyone, should be making 6 figures?

Guess they do make pretty high wages. Still, that seems like an incredibly stupid argument against public transportation. The benefits far outway the slim possibility of the workers going on strike, and like I said, those jobs seem ripe for google's self-drive technology in 10-20 or whatever years
 
40% (!) percent of American workers make less than $20,000.

This is going to keep getting worse. And we in 20-30 years are gonna look back and wonder how we got here.
 

Aylinato

Member
LBJ was the last truly liberal President we had, too bad he was also a war-mongering asshole.

Also Carter gets way too much hate. It's sad.


Yeah, he also was a master at getting programs he wanted passed, and all of his great society programs had beneficial consequences that have helped many people get out of poverty. However since Reagan they have been tearing down many of the programs and destroying the ability of poor people to escape perpetual poverty.

He didn't really care for the war, but he obviously didn't have the motivation to end it either.
 
LBJ was the last truly liberal President we had, too bad he was also a war-mongering asshole.

Also Carter gets way too much hate. It's sad.

LBJ was pretty much forced into the war by his advisers, but what's worse is that if you listen to his old White House recordings they all knew that escalating the war would lead to another debacle like Korea.

It's a damn shame that he decided to escalate the war too, because if he hadn't and focused on the Great Society instead we would probably still be living in a country dominated by the left and social democracy.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
40% (!) percent of American workers make less than $20,000.

This is going to keep getting worse. And we in 20-30 years are gonna look back and wonder how we got here.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...t_is_raising_money_for_its_own_employees.html
Here's a shocking image brought to us by Scott Keyes. Walmart is organizing a food drive to deliver food to its own needy employees:

1384798224.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg


I won't comment on the specific corporate politics here, but that's about as solid an indicator you could imagine of the economywide problem that economywide wages are too low. Look at it from Walmart's perspective? Suppose low-skilled workers in this country on the whole made somewhat more money. What would they do? Well as Walmart indicates with this sign, one thing they'd do is buy more groceries. And where would they buy the groceries? Well, many of them would buy them at Walmart—America's leading grocer.

Of course any particular company can improve its own bottom line by cutting compensation to the bone. But corporate America as a whole has been so successful in squeezing the labor share of national income lower and lower that it's become a substantial constraint to businesses' ability to sell things to people. The cycle of low wages, low demand, weak hiring, weak bargaining power, and low wages just keeps grinding on.

Sign of the times.
 

Diablos

Member
40% (!) percent of American workers make less than $20,000.

This is going to keep getting worse. And we in 20-30 years are gonna look back and wonder how we got here.
Holy hell, that's depressing.

How much worse does it have to get before people just start rioting en masse? 60%?
 
Guess they do make pretty high wages. Still, that seems like an incredibly stupid argument against public transportation. The benefits far outway the slim possibility of the workers going on strike, and like I said, those jobs seem ripe for google's self-drive technology in 10-20 or whatever years

slim possibility? the SF workers went on strike twice this year already, lol. it shows that you were making an uneducated opinion with the wage thing. is it possible that you're just making more uneducated opinion now?
 

Piecake

Member
slim possibility? the SF workers went on strike twice this year already, lol. it shows that you were making an uneducated opinion with the wage thing. is it possible that you're just making more uneducated opinion now?

Or I am actually including all mass transit systems, not just SF.
 
Or I am actually including all mass transit systems, not just SF.

I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. I was saying, all an opponent of mass transit has to do, is show an example of the SF strike, use it to generalize to nationwide, and you will then see the more unedcuated public change their mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom