• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hypothetical scenario, All the republicans bash each other and somehow christie wins nomination, hillary defeats bernie as expected. Both are indicted/charged for their various "gates."

Which two independent candidates would run then? I could see a bloomberg/biden/perhaps even bernie run.
 

Diablos

Member
Maybe Trump can smack Rubio instead of Jeb like he usually does?

While it's amusing that Trump and Cruz are having a petty fight, I'd rather they cannibalize Rubio's share.
I think Trump is smart enough to know that if he's too hard on Rubio he risks doing so at his peril.

Jeb is so easy to pick on.
 

Holmes

Member
So now we're taking 2 year old articles (from Politico) to push a narrative. That's desperate and OT would eat it up.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
It'd be hilarious if this were a ploy just to destroy Jeb. What if Trump drops out of the Presidential race as soon as Jeb does lol. Not sure how he plans to win with pretty much no money, no support, and no ground game.
 
Hypothetical scenario, All the republicans bash each other and somehow christie wins nomination, hillary defeats bernie as expected. Both are indicted/charged for their various "gates."

Which two independent candidates would run then? I could see a bloomberg/biden/perhaps even bernie run.

Christie goose is cooked
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — The two former allies of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie charged in the George Washington Bridge lane-closing case will get a second chance to force the release of documents from the law firm whose taxpayer-funded 2014 report absolved Christie of blame.

U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton on Friday said attorneys for Bill Baroni and Bridget Kelly can subpoena the Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher law firm for what they contend are thousands of pages of relevant documents, particularly communications between people in Christie's office and the bridge's operator during the September 2013 closures.
For a guy who keeps talking about prosecuting Hillary and jailing her, escorting Obama out of whitehouse and all that toughtalk, he never took time to tailor an orange jumpsuit for himself. Hopefully we will see a video of him escorted out too.
 

Diablos

Member
If Rubio wins the nomination and Presidency btw, you can thank Kendrick Meek and Charlie Crist for not settling their shit behind closed doors for the sake of sanity. It should have never been a three man race.
 
Christie goose is cooked

For a guy who keeps talking about prosecuting Hillary and jailing her, escorting Obama out of whitehouse and all that toughtalk, he never took time to tailor an orange jumpsuit for himself. Hopefully we will see a video of him escorted out too.

Oh yea his goose is like 100% cooked and for more than bridge gate, just wondering what happens when both nominees are indicted (in the alternative universe where it happens).
 
Would your opinion change if the transcripts came out and it backed up the "narrative?"
What would back up the narrative? Maybe there's video of her cackling about the 47% while lighting her Cubans with Benjamin Franklin's face as she rolls around in gold doubloons under a shower of Pol Roger.
 

Drakeon

Member
Christie goose is cooked

For a guy who keeps talking about prosecuting Hillary and jailing her, escorting Obama out of whitehouse and all that toughtalk, he never took time to tailor an orange jumpsuit for himself. Hopefully we will see a video of him escorted out too.

I've been waiting for Christie to get his comeuppance for over 2 years now, I hope it actually comes. Knowing his luck it'll be after he's out of office like Bob McDonnell in VA.
 

Makai

Member
For a guy who keeps talking about prosecuting Hillary and jailing her, escorting Obama out of whitehouse and all that toughtalk, he never took time to tailor an orange jumpsuit for himself. Hopefully we will see a video of him escorted out too.
U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman stated that, based upon the evidence that was available, his office would not bring any more charges in the case beyond the indictments against Kelly, Baroni, and Wildstein
 

johnsmith

remember me
What would back up the narrative? Maybe there's video of her cackling about the 47% while lighting her Cubans with Benjamin Franklin's face as she rolls around in gold doubloons under a shower of Pol Roger.

JqbKOMl.jpg
 
What would back up the narrative? Maybe there's video of her cackling about the 47% while lighting her Cubans with Benjamin Franklin's face as she rolls around in gold doubloons under a shower of Pol Roger.

"You have been unfairly blamed. The homeowners deserve a large share of the blame. I will fight for you as well as the rest of america." IDK, doesn't need to be as obvious as your post.
 
"You have been unfairly blamed. The homeowners deserve a large share of the blame. I will fight for you as well as the rest of america." IDK, doesn't need to be as obvious as your post.
She hasn't ever said that man.

That's blatantly inaccurate, and even wall street would call her on it.
 
The Bridgegate prosecutor already reviewed those documents so if there was something really damaging to Christie in terms of an indictment, we would have heard about it.
 
Man, that is a milquetoast as fuck statement. How is that controversial?

Beating wall street up, demagouging them, lying about what they do (apparently entirely fraud is the only acceptable answer as per sanders) doesn't solve anything.

That doesn't mean you don't reform them.

I'm more worried about our entire economic incentive structure. Wall Street is just playing the game. See shkreli, someone with a lot of intelligence (and ego...) saw finance/pharma as the path to the greatest material success. Why didn't he think being a doctor, a researcher, a civil rights lawyer, or something else? Why are so many of the graduates of the ivy leagues going into finance and consulting? The incentives are stacked toward going into those fields and other fields are languishing. This is not really the fault of any one industry, and I don't know what will fix this outside of changing the incentive structures of all of these jobs.

She hasn't ever said that man.

That's blatantly inaccurate, and even wall street would call her on it.

Oh i know shes never said it i was responding to what she could say that I think would be damning enough without literally diving into a pool of money. I've seen that article before and its quite vague and not substantiated so its 100% useless. Pretty curious about the transcripts mostly because shes probably gonna be nominee and president and it says a lot about ones character what you say when you don't think certain people are listening.
 
U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman stated that, based upon the evidence that was available, his office would not bring any more charges in the case beyond the indictments against Kelly, Baroni, and Wildstein
That was based on the evidence that was available. They're going to get more evidence now!
 
I'm more worried about our entire economic incentive structure. Wall Street is just playing the game. See shkreli, someone with a lot of intelligence (and ego...) saw finance/pharma as the path to the greatest material success. Why didn't he think being a doctor, a researcher, a civil rights lawyer, or something else? Why are so many of the graduates of the ivy leagues going into finance and consulting? The incentives are stacked toward going into those fields and other fields are languishing. This is not really the fault of any one industry, and I don't know what will fix this outside of changing the incentive structures of all of these jobs.



Oh i know shes never said it i was responding to what she could say that I think would be damning enough without literally diving into a pool of money. I've seen that article before and its quite vague and not substantiated so its 100% useless. Pretty curious about the transcripts mostly because shes probably gonna be nominee and president and it says a lot about ones character what you say when you don't think certain people are listening.

As long as those jobs have the highest wages, they will receive the most interest. It's as simple as that.

The government can and should do a better job incentivizing more "socially efficient" as opposed to economically efficient jobs however, like nurses, or teachers.

Idk, as for research like neuroscience and biology and stuff? Do those fields have profit sharing from discoveries? Like does someone who discovers a new drug get a share of the ownership rights and profits?

If not, and I really know nothing about that industry, they should, and this would compel more graduates to go after them.

As it is currently, it is much easier to share in the profits of financial innovations that one creates on Wall Street.
 
This last paragraph from an article I read drives home the point many of us are trying to elucidate
Let me be clear: we know that high quality health care can be delivered at much lower cost than is the U.S. norm. We know because other countries do it. In fact, some of them have plans not unlike the one Senator Sanders is proposing. We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before. That is the way that public policy is made in democracies. Radical change may occur after a catastrophic economic collapse or a major war. But in normal times, democracies do not tolerate radical discontinuity. If you doubt me, consider the tumult precipitated by the really quite conservative Affordable Care Act.
 
As long as those jobs have the highest wages, they will receive the most interest. It's as simple as that.

The government can and should do a better job incentivizing more "socially efficient" as opposed to economically efficient jobs however, like nurses, or teachers.

Idk, as for research like neuroscience and biology and stuff? Do those fields have profit sharing from discoveries? Like does someone who discovers a new drug get a share of the ownership rights and profits?

If not, and I really know nothing about that industry, they should, and this would compel more graduates to go after them.

As it is currently, it is much easier to share in the profits of financial innovations that one creates on Wall Street.

The field of research is so incredibly stacked against new researchers both compensation wise and for the chance of making it big (you do get a split but its generally low and very hard to get as pharma will just use your research and throw maybe a token sum unless they want you to do the trials). Medicine is better but huge loans (unless you are an mdphd :p) and decreasing pay make consulting and finance much more lucrative and they are much less stressful in the long run. I think medicine is ok right now, probably could do with less loans/better loan repayment programs in exchange for a bit less salary, research so utterly screwed given how important it is (i am super biased but mental illness costs our economy 100s of billions in a conservative estimate and its only getting worst).

It just seems the research and to a lesser extent the medical fields rely on people accepting shit conditions/pay to fulfill their intellectual pursuits (money isn't quite the only incentive but it is the most common one).

This last paragraph from an article I read drives home the point many of us are trying to elucidate

It's a good but very cold hearted statement given how many people are dying/getting very sick from poor preventative care (and its costing us a fortune in work that could be put toward better uses).
 
you want Jeb staying in till Florida making it a Jeb, Rubio, Trump and Cruz race. Ideally NH, SC and NV goes Trump/Cruz/Trump or Trump/Trump/Trump and they split the SEC states. It starves Rubio momentum into March 8th and March 15th states. Jeb prevents Rubio from winning FL and OH allowing Trump or Cruz to slip through.
It's way early, but Florida is one of Trump's best states. But I'm praying so hard for a second place finish for Jeb in NH. Trump is just biding his time before he goes on the offensive against Rubio.
 
Why Wall Street is fed up with the White House—and Republicans too, but apparently, not Hillary:

Lament of the Plutocrats - Politico - 12/11/2013 said:
The worry on Wall Street is about how far to the left Clinton might have to drift to appease what’s been proclaimed the “Warren wing of the Democratic Party”—the vocal populists buoyed by Elizabeth Warren’s tough critiques of Wall Street greed, as well as by the recent election of liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio on their New York home turf. According to people in Clinton’s extended circle, John Podesta—the former White House chief of staff under her husband who this week joined the Obama White House for a year-long stint—was poised to work with Hillary Clinton on her messaging on income inequality, a role he seems less likely to fill while he's in government. Still, some say fears that Clinton will end up alienating financial sector donors the way Obama has, even if she tacks left, are overblown. “Wall Street folks are so happy about [having Clinton run] that they won’t care what she says,” says one well-placed Democrat.

And if the banking class is delighted with Clinton lately, the feeling appears mutual. In Manhattan last week, Clinton sat down with the Carlyle Group’s David Rubenstein for their second question-and-answer session in the last two months. Unlike the first one, held for his private equity firm’s investor conference, this was a more public appearance, part of a program honoring the late diplomat Richard Holbrooke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Clinton easily regaled the well-heeled crowd with stories from her past before Rubenstein ended their half-hour chat with a joke about her future: Would she be interested in joining a private equity firm?

“Is that an offer?” Clinton asked, laughing as the audience knowingly joined in. She may soon need many things from the titans of finance, but a job is probably not one of them.

Yeah, Hillary is totally the right presidential candidate to introduce sweeping legislation, and appoint regulators with a singular mission; to guarantee that the financial sector can never again put this nation on its knees...
 

jtb

Banned
saying a few questionable things in a Goldman speech, knowing full well you will be running for president in a year or two, then refusing to release the likely not at all damning transcripts just seems so typically Clintonian, in that classic—completely avoidable and yet will be blown out of proportion because of needless secrecy and knee-jerk media reaction—way.
 
It's a good but very cold hearted statement given how many people are dying/getting very sick from poor preventative care (and its costing us a fortune in work that could be put toward better uses).

But that's the whole point, the Sanders plan is making a ton of assumptions about our ability to save that fortune. If all of the accumulated cost inefficiencies that have built up over the decades can't be overcome then the plan will either collapse in upon itself or the costs will cripple the economy.
 

Bowdz

Member
Man, that is a milquetoast as fuck statement. How is that controversial?

Beating wall street up, demagouging them, lying about what they do (apparently entirely fraud is the only acceptable answer as per sanders) doesn't solve anything.

That doesn't mean you don't reform them.

Strong this.
 
But that's the whole point, the Sanders plan is making a ton of assumptions about our ability to save that fortune. If all of the accumulated cost inefficiencies that have built up over the decades can't be overcome then the plan will either collapse in upon itself or the costs will cripple the economy.

I'm talking more about the idea of single payer/strong universal healthcare. If sanders is president he wont be writing it, hes giving his support for an idea in the same vein. There is a ton of ways to save, that is not the question or has ever been the question. The problem is political expediency causes a lot of pain/death/and more costs for the future.
 
It's a good but very cold hearted statement given how many people are dying/getting very sick from poor preventative care (and its costing us a fortune in work that could be put toward better uses).

Your prior convictions are showing (priors in econ parlance).

Most economists agree that increasing availability of care will not reduce costs, even when preventative care is factored in. It will in fact increase total health care spending.

kpf7Ghv.png


v6eepHB.png


Link to poll: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_7U5X7S5d03bXLjn

Link to study that asked this question: povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/Insuring_the_Uninsured.pdf

Key findings from study:

The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment found that covering the uninsured with Medicaid increased the use of health care, including primary care, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits; diminished financial strain; and reduced depression. There was no statistically significant impact on physical health measures, employment, or earnings.

This doesn't mean you don't do it! You just don't frame it from a cost saving perspective, but a moral one.
 
Your prior convictions are showing (priors in econ parlance).

Most economists agree that increasing availability of care will not reduce costs, even when preventative care is factored in. It will in fact increase total health care spending.

kpf7Ghv.png


v6eepHB.png


Link to poll: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_7U5X7S5d03bXLjn

Link to study that asked this question: povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/Insuring_the_Uninsured.pdf

Key findings from study:



This doesn't mea you don't do it! You just don't frame it from a cost saving perspective, but a moral one.

Well that study seems a bit silly given that I don't advocate for just making the ACA even more inclusive. Obviously (hindsight bias is strong in me) giving more healthcare without holdling for other values increases costs, I meant to increase availability + fix the current problems with healthcare system (sorry if I didn't phrase it correctly, you have good data which is always nice to see).

Tl;dr I agree with the article but its not really what i was proposing (plus medicaid isn't an all inclusive plan to begin with, lots of things aren't paid for that better plans do pay for).
 
Stray thought, academia is frankly a pyramid scheme. And publications are a racket.

:/

This is extremely anti-intellectual and disheartening. Not to mention untrue in the vast majority of cases.

NBER, the journal from which I drew the study I linked, is like the most respected economic journal. It is not a racket.

Well that study seems a bit silly given that I don't advocate for just making the ACA even more inclusive. Obviously (hindsight bias is strong in me) giving more healthcare without holdling for other values increases costs, I meant to increase availability + fix the current problems with healthcare system (sorry if I didn't phrase it correctly, you have good data which is always nice to see).

Tl;dr I agree with the article but its not really what i was proposing (plus medicaid isn't an all inclusive plan to begin with, lots of things aren't paid for that better plans do pay for).

No, I mean the idea that savings will be made up from any kind of increase in preventative care is not one that is borne out. This would apply to Sanders plan as well.

The main things which make our health system expensive compared to other advanced nations is not even something that is addressed in his plan.
 
Stray thought, academia is frankly a pyramid scheme. And publications are a racket.

Not even frankly, it is 100% a pyramid scheme outside of a few different research schemes (private research like allen institute which is a weird public/private hybrid is cool, and the old bell labs was very horizontally oriented with regards to researchers and the "PI's".

Just got published a few weeks ago, the costs were a few thousand (and even more to make it public which is so dumb I can't even). The system needs to change. But a lot of people are happy with the status quo and those people have power (story of the whole political system) so I guess things are gonna suck for a bit longer (europe has a bit less of a pyramid scheme but its not perfect there either).
 
This last paragraph from an article I read drives home the point many of us are trying to elucidate

Let me be clear: we know that high quality health care can be delivered at much lower cost than is the U.S. norm. We know because other countries do it. In fact, some of them have plans not unlike the one Senator Sanders is proposing. We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before. That is the way that public policy is made in democracies. Radical change may occur after a catastrophic economic collapse or a major war. But in normal times, democracies do not tolerate radical discontinuity. If you doubt me, consider the tumult precipitated by the really quite conservative Affordable Care Act.

But, that's something Bernie cleaned up, in Thursday's debate; the ACA would continue, until UHC is in a position to replace it, and I believe we're talking about a process that would span many months.
 
Where is Sanders' party?

As in, where are the people of power that support him and the people that he would trust to put in places of power?

Even the most idiotic of tinpot dictators knows that you need a group of loyal hit man to run a government because you just can't go at it alone.

Sanders is an independent. Now he's a Democrat... but he rails against other Democrats and actively tries to paint them as "Establishment." Yet he has no plan of his own to install any of his own people- if he has any, in places of power. No Sanders movement to overthrow the "Establishment" on a state level, or down ballot. Yet he is not supporting fellow Democrats in their reelection campaigns either.

Where in the world is the rest of his revolution?
 

danwarb

Member
I would say that it's not a certainty that current Bernie Sanders fans don't turn into Dixiecrats as they get promoted at work.

Young men like Socialism, but they also think sexism doesn't exist anymore and are just as racist as their parents and are more supportive of banning all abortions than their parents. Economic issues may be their priority right now, but who knows how economic vs. social issues as their priority will progress as their careers evolve.

Their atheism may keep them away from the Republican party though.

It's one of those issues when there's a trend currently, but that trend is not inevitable because actors can change things. Like how "demographic apocalypse" will probably be avoided by Republicans now that East Asians are "becoming white" like the Irish and Jews became white in the past and how mixed white and non-white Hispanic children are identifying as white.
Young women like socialism too. Young people in general like Bernie's European democratic socialism. Sanders polling better than Hillary with women under 60 in New Hampshire is impressive. This is also a thing across Europe. As we've lurched further and further to the right, the left is making an overdue comeback, bringing back some compassion and reason.

I hope people stick with him.
 
:/

This is extremely anti-intellectual and disheartening. Not to mention untrue in the vast majority of cases.

NBER, the journal from which I drew the study I linked, is like the most respected economic journal. It is not a racket.

You misunderstand his point, not that the research is bad but rather the structure and incentives for publications are heavily distorted (way more grad students than tenure spots for every field, grad students/post docs are overworked and underpaid, etc.)

To be fair, my expertise is in STEM mostly but the idea holds for most parts of academia.
 

Teggy

Member
Ugh, Rubio is going with his "Hillary is disqualified" shtick in his online ads. Someone wake me when this election is over. I can't deal with another 9 months of this.
 

Kangi

Member
Ugh, Rubio is going with his "Hillary is disqualified" shtick in his online ads. Someone wake me when this election is over. I can't deal with another 9 months of this.

I have heard that line about a hundred times over in SC. It's THE political ad on TV. Every. waking. hour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom