Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Weirdly specific non-issue, 10/10

No...?

[Antioch]

Really? Here's a page full of details on her various positions. Out of all the people running now, Hillary is the one I've most often seen break down her plans on camera.

Bernie's focus seems to be much more on the bigger issues than the details - there are multiple times I've seen him delay answering a policy related question to remind everyone that the 1% own too much wealth in this country. And Trump avoids details like the plague because apparently people interpret vagueness as honesty when it's coming from him.

Really? Do you have a link to that?

Having a list on a website is dandy and all, but that is written by a campaign team. I seriously can't remember her really actually brining in interesting points on tv, but if you have a link to that I would love to see it.

[Twi]

But I'm sure that the next three year investigation will turn up high treason that this one missed.

We were probably due a grimdark reboot. I'm gonna give this one a miss and hold out for the inevitable five year all-star retrospective investaganza, with congressional hearings remastered for VR.

I'm tempted to sig it. Strongly. Stroooongly.

[Sheb]

Really? Here's a page full of details on her various positions. Out of all the people running now, Hillary is the one I've most often seen break down her plans on camera.

Bernie's focus seems to be much more on the bigger issues than the details - there are multiple times I've seen him delay answering a policy related question to remind everyone that the 1% own too much wealth in this country. And Trump avoids details like the plague because apparently people interpret vagueness as honesty when it's coming from him.

Really? Do you have a link to that?

Having a list on a website is dandy and all, but that is written by a campaign team. I seriously can't remember her really actually brining in interesting points on tv, but if you have a link to that I would love to see it.

Some formats just aren't made for detailed policy discussions. Just because Sanders never tweeted a detailled plan doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

[Frumple]

... honestly, though, some kind of post indexing links to any of the remaining candidates where they make explicit policy statements/detail plans of implementation to any extent, on camera, would probably be pretty nice for a thread like this to have.

E: Though, uh, for clinton specifically, you might want to check this page, which is transcripts of stuff she's explicitly said to the public. Some of the ones I've checked so far (an alzheimer one, ferex) do indeed straight up say exactly what the issues page said.

[Antioch]

Really? Here's a page full of details on her various positions. Out of all the people running now, Hillary is the one I've most often seen break down her plans on camera.

Bernie's focus seems to be much more on the bigger issues than the details - there are multiple times I've seen him delay answering a policy related question to remind everyone that the 1% own too much wealth in this country. And Trump avoids details like the plague because apparently people interpret vagueness as honesty when it's coming from him.

Really? Do you have a link to that?

Having a list on a website is dandy and all, but that is written by a campaign team. I seriously can't remember her really actually brining in interesting points on tv, but if you have a link to that I would love to see it.

Some formats just aren't made for detailed policy discussions. Just because Sanders never tweeted a detailled plan doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

Just now you said it must be because I am not listening >_>

Camera is just fine for explaining something in more detail, and like I said if you have the material I would be more than happy to see it.

[Frumple]

... ant, I just edited in a link to a page with a lot of transcripts from stuff hillary's said, in case you missed it. You can check that, then hunt down the videos of the events. Some of these are definitely making statements that are pretty explicit; not as detailed as the issues pages, but I'm seeing explicit support for raising the federal minimum wage, explicit dollar amounts for Alzheimer's research, etc., etc. It's usually a relatively small portion of her speeches, but they're definitely there.

E: Definitely definitely. I've been reading over it a bit more, and something like better than half of those speeches on the first page alone have pretty bloody explicit policy statements in them. She almost seems outright fond of straight up enumerating and stating what she physically intends to do if/when elected.

[scriver]

Weirdly specific non-issue, 10/10

No...?

He means it's a non-issue because nobody disagrees with it.

[Frumple]

There's... a lot of stuff in politics that nobody disagrees is a problem that still is an issue. Disagreement over implementation is a thing.

[Reelya]

Campus sexual assault
It’s not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to stop campus sexual assault.

Weirdly specific non-issue, 10/10

Well, it is an issue. But a bigger issue is that women on college campuses are less likely to be sexually assaulted than similar-aged women who are non-students:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/19/rape-on-campus-not-as-prevalent-as-it-is-off-campus/
Where's the funding to protect young working class women? Sticking "campus" into the phrase sexual assault actually distorts the truth: that non-campus women are at higher risk. The early 1990s VAWA (violence against women act) funding mostly went to colleges. There were basically no provisions in that act to help poor working class women.

What it boils down to is this: college activists are middle-to-upper class. They fight for middle class welfare, and they're not necessarily educated about the plight of classes other than their own. Poor women who are at higher levels of risk basically don't have a voice in this. Hence the distorted picture of who is "at risk". This is the sort of thing Black feminists are talking about when they say elite white feminists don't get it.

[Strife26]

And y'know, the creation of shadow justice system where you're guilty until proven innocent in a kangaroo court set up entirely outside the purview of the real court system based on some incredibly spurious overreach from the education department based on a very over broad reading of old law.

[Sheb]

I still don't get what these Kangaroo courts refers to?

[Zangi]

A show, as in the conclusion is already set, just doing the motions / making a show of it so that others think it is legitimate.
At least that is my understanding of Kangaroo court.

[TheBiggerFish]

Yes, but which courts, arbitration?

[Frumple]

Presumably, yeah. Fair few colleges that have student governance type stuff where some (usually elected, iirc) get called in to arbitrate violations of the school policy. Usually with some oversight by staff, near as I can recall. Not sure if that's what strife's talking about, but I'm guessing it is. It... doesn't really have much or anything to do with actual legal stuff, though, so far as I'm aware, save when it sends stuff off to the cops for actual/suspected violations of the law as opposed to just school policy.

Haven't paid much attention to it, personally. Stuff was pretty low key in the schools I went to, and I had other things on the mind.