Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Dem Primary: Shut Up About 2016

1545557596091

Posts

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Well they were promising an "on the ropes" rebuttal from Biden that was going to just "pummel" Trump on the issue. I guess they had to means test the response first hence the 2 week delay.

    wanderingJulius
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    -Tal wrote: »
    There's also good old fashioned knocking on doors

    That's not free. Identifying what doors to knock on, coordinating volunteers, paying staff to coordinate, liability coverage, vetting, even the packets cost money.

    edit
    There's also limited evidence that it does much in general elections

    So a study found that canvassing does not affect voter's choice of candidate in general elections.

    Which is not really a surprise, and only an issue if you thought that was the point of canvassing in the first place. But only someone entirely ignorant of the state of US politics, human nature, and politics in general would think that. Obviously talking to some random person at your door for a couple minutes is not going to make you change the values and beliefs you hold that determined your choice of candidate! The point is not to get the other side to vote for you, it is to get your side to vote for you. The goal is to convince people who align with the Democratic party to actually go out and vote for the Democratic candidate.

    And I note that the article says that that is effective. So as far as I can tell -Tal is right.

    wanderingAstaerethStyrofoam SammichSo It GoesGennenalyse RuebenFencingsaxLabelTofystedethNobeardtynicKristmas Kthulhu
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Joe Biden wrote:
    "I want to take that vision and yes take the plans and – but that’s enough – it takes proven ability to get things done. We’re not electing a planner."

    This is a pretty lame attack, especially considering the CFPB is a thing that exists. And which I think he opposed as VP.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    RchanenZonugalMrMisterArdolCentipede DamascusElldren38thDoe
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Yeah, Biden not immediately reaching for the rage box about Trump isn’t the issue, but his want to return to the politics that allowed Trump to come to power in the first place.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    CantidoRchanenQuidElJeffeToxLoisLaneHeirCommander ZoomGennenalyse RuebenBloodsheedTrajan45TofystedethNobeardbrynhrtmnElldrenabotkinNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    CantidoSyphonBlueArdolRchanenGennenalyse RuebenLoisLaneToxFencingsaxshrykeThe SauceJaysonFourQuidSorceShadowfiredurandal4532Centipede DamascusTrajan45CommunistCowTofystedethNo-QuarterElldren38thDoeabotkinNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    edited October 10
    Julius wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    -Tal wrote: »
    There's also good old fashioned knocking on doors

    That's not free. Identifying what doors to knock on, coordinating volunteers, paying staff to coordinate, liability coverage, vetting, even the packets cost money.

    edit
    There's also limited evidence that it does much in general elections

    So a study found that canvassing does not affect voter's choice of candidate in general elections.

    Which is not really a surprise, and only an issue if you thought that was the point of canvassing in the first place. But only someone entirely ignorant of the state of US politics, human nature, and politics in general would think that. Obviously talking to some random person at your door for a couple minutes is not going to make you change the values and beliefs you hold that determined your choice of candidate! The point is not to get the other side to vote for you, it is to get your side to vote for you. The goal is to convince people who align with the Democratic party to actually go out and vote for the Democratic candidate.

    And I note that the article says that that is effective. So as far as I can tell -Tal is right.

    i don't know how it works in american general elections but you can definitely swing the votes of random people on the door by talking to them for a couple of minutes. i have personally done it many times

    but it might work better when you're talking about local issues, and also the democrats might not be campaigning the right way. there's specific kinds of conversations that work very well and other kinds that don't work at all. which is what the article suggests

    edit: a lot of the people you talk to when you're doorknocking don't pay any attention to politics at all, and their values and beliefs are extremely lightly held - they're basically just voting at random. so they might as well vote randomly for you as for anyone else, especially if you can figure out the stuff they do care about and appeal to them on that basis

    Crimson King on
    shryke
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    i followed a link in that article to this other article, about a study which proved that doorknocking can be extremely effective under specific circumstances
    The key difference between Fleischer's technique, sometimes called "deep canvassing," and the standard model is that Fleischer has voters do most of the talking.

    this is the real shit

    voter conversations don't work if you're just throwing statistics at people, or picking fights, or directly contradicting their preconceived ideas. what you do is carefully and non-judgmentally encourage them to talk themselves into agreeing with you

    i'd like to see more research into this. it'd be cool if we could measure the different approaches and prove that one was dramatically better than the other

    AstaerethJuliusNobeardqwer12
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    A bit in the past, but this CNN opinion on Sanders' health from last evening expresses some of my underlying reservations about the strategic rationale of how it affects primary politics. Read it if you're interested.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    It's an interesting take, but I don't think the concern is of an ablest nature but of actually living to see his policy goals enacted. No physician would, in good conscience, suggest to a 78 year old man who just had a heart attack to take up one of the most stressful jobs in the country.

    I mean, hell. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair for most of his presidency and he was one of our best leaders. If this were a more minor issue, I would be behind the author's logic a bit more.

    SyphonBlueSleepjoshofalltradesFencingsaxlonelyahavaNobeardElldren
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    A bit in the past, but this CNN opinion on Sanders' health from last evening expresses some of my underlying reservations about the strategic rationale of how it affects primary politics. Read it if you're interested.

    I don’t think Bernie needs to step aside and quit now, but I think this opinion piece is creating a bit of a straw-man.

    It positions the discussion around whether or not it’s fair to expect “pristine” health from our leaders. But that’s not what people are concerned about. There’s a difference between a concern about a man who is nearly 80 having a heart attack and disqualifying him because his health isn’t pristine.

    It also equates peoples concerns about his health with ableism and compares it to Trump mocking a handicapped journalist during the last election...which is quite a stretch.

    SyphonBlueCelestialBadgerBigJoeMEncjmcdonaldQuidQanamilCentipede DamascusForarToxStabbity StyleDoctorArchjoshofalltradesMillZonugalFencingsaxTofystedethNobeardElldrenGennenalyse RuebenSorceGnizmoabotkinNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    It's an interesting take, but I don't think the concern is of an ablest nature but of actually living to see his policy goals enacted. No physician would, in good conscience, suggest to a 78 year old man who just had a heart attack to take up one of the most stressful jobs in the country.

    I mean, hell. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair for most of his presidency and he was one of our best leaders. If this were a more minor issue, I would be behind the author's logic a bit more.

    Roosevelt was partially paralyzed from the waist down before he was even elected.
    Roosevelt convinced many people that he was improving, which he believed to be essential prior to running for public office again.[102] He laboriously taught himself to walk short distances while wearing iron braces on his hips and legs by swiveling his torso, supporting himself with a cane.[103] Roosevelt was careful never to be seen using his wheelchair in public, and great care was taken to prevent any portrayal in the press that would highlight his disability.[104] However, his disability was well known before and during his presidency and became a major part of his image. He usually appeared in public standing upright, supported on one side by an aide or one of his sons.[105]

    I am not sure this is comparable to an older man who had a heart attack going into the stressful job. In the end the Presidency did kill Roosevelt but that was after a decade in office.

    Also with the care Bernie receives as a Senator and President he could make 4 years. 8 is not likely for Joe or Bernie.

    03x29di.png
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Yeah not wanting someone who just had a heart attack in the most stressful position in the world isn't ableism. I also wouldn't want someone who has Stage 4 cancer as president either. I don't have a problem with someone who's in a wheelchair as president, for instance.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    MarathonCelestialBadgerEncPreacherjmcdonaldQuidQanamilShadowfireCentipede DamascusToxkimeYoutubeStabbity StyleDoctorArchjoshofalltradesMillCommander ZoomZonugalIncenjucarFencingsaxNobeardJaysonFourNo-QuarterElldrenGennenalyse RuebenLabelSanguinius666264Ardol38thDoeabotkinNiryaKristmas Kthulhu
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Yeah not wanting someone who just had a heart attack in the most stressful position in the world isn't ableism. I also wouldn't want someone who has Stage 4 cancer as president either. I don't have a problem with someone who's in a wheelchair as president, for instance.

    We should also note that the press hid Roosevelt's illness, and the voters did not get a chance to make the decision about this. That meant that, by running in poor health and dying in his final term, Roosevelt ended up leaving the presidency in the hands of a man who got bullied into the Cold War by his generals and advisors.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    In other fun news. It seems that Tulsi is contemplating now whether or not to boycott the October debate because, you guessed it, she’s saying it’s being rigged.



    “ I am seriously considering boycotting October 15 debate to bring attention to DNC/corporate media’s effort to rig 2020 primary. Not against Bernie this time, but against voters in early states Iowa, New Hampshire, South…”

    Time to go away forever Tulsi.

    (I brought this up to be critical of Tulsi, not to bring any kind of attention to her claims regarding the previous primary, we all know the rules about that.)

    CelestialBadgerMorganVNo-Quarter
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Oh no, Tulsi! Please don’t boycott an already overloaded debate panel! That would be awful! And you with your precious following of paranoiacs and disingenuous Republicans.

    MarathonThe SauceKamarKayne Red RobeshrykeAbsalonPreacherjmcdonaldRMS OceanicKwoaruKruiteIlpalaShadowfireEmperorSethCentipede Damascusdurandal4532MagellBloodsheedToxFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudkimeYoutubeStabbity StyleAbsoluteZeroDoctorArchjoshofalltradesShortyMorganVMillCommander ZoomTrajan45a5ehrenZonugalFencingsaxtynicDee KaeTofystedethragnarok7331JaysonFourNo-QuarterElldrenRchanenKraintwanderingGennenalyse RuebenLabelArdolSorce38thDoeGnizmoabotkinNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited October 10
    The Biden camp sent a letter to Dean Baquet calling him out for the newspaper's constant running of right-wing smears and false attacks, and essentially calls the newspaper "clickbait."

    Money quote: "This leaves us with a critical question: are you truly blind to what you got wrong in 2016, or are you deliberately continuing policies that distort reality for the sake of controversy and the clicks that accompany it?

    We submit that the Times should publicly answer for these failures in reporting on this pressing issue fairly, accurately, and in a way that prioritized the truth and judiciousness over sensationalism, as well as why, after the glaring mistakes of 2016, the Times has again given an underhanded hack [Peter Schweizer, or possibly Ken Vogel....or maybe both!] the validation of its platform. We also believe that these occurrences speak to the urgent need for a restoration of a public editor at the paper.


    CNN reporter

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    PreachershrykeMazzyxAngelHedgiePolaritieSpoitjmcdonalddurandal4532QanamilShadowfireKruiteCentipede DamascusJragghenForarToxStabbity StyleApogeeAbsoluteZeroDarkPrimusDoctorArchThe SauceiTunesIsEvilMillSo It GoesCommander ZoomIncenjucartynicFencingsaxCommunistCowlonelyahavaNobodyAimJaysonFourbrynhrtmnNo-QuarterElldrenRchanennever diewanderingGennenalyse RuebenArdolSorceDark Raven X38thDoeGnizmoabotkinNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Wow I totally agree with Biden's camp, I like how they avoid fake news and call it click bait instead.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    AngelHedgiejmcdonaldQanamilShadowfireKruiteCentipede DamascusKayne Red RobeJragghenToxStabbity StylemilskiShortyiTunesIsEvilMorganVMillCommander ZoomZonugalIncenjucartynicFencingsaxlonelyahavaTofystedethJaysonFourbrynhrtmnNo-QuarterElldrenRchanennever dieGennenalyse RuebenLabelArdolMr RayDark Raven XGnizmoabotkinNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited October 10
    Marathon wrote: »
    In other fun news. It seems that Tulsi is contemplating now whether or not to boycott the October debate because, you guessed it, she’s saying it’s being rigged.



    “ I am seriously considering boycotting October 15 debate to bring attention to DNC/corporate media’s effort to rig 2020 primary. Not against Bernie this time, but against voters in early states Iowa, New Hampshire, South…”

    Time to go away forever Tulsi.

    (I brought this up to be critical of Tulsi, not to bring any kind of attention to her claims regarding the previous primary, we all know the rules about that.)

    Dare I even ask what the "substance" of her complaint is? In what sense are Iowans and New Hampshirites being disenfranchised? (Other than all the poor and disabled Iowans who can't make it to the caucus, obviously, but somehow I doubt this is about that)

    MrMonroe on
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Tulsi can't accept that people are not going to vote for her to be the nominee.

    PreacherSleepjmcdonaldMarathonToxYoutubeStabbity StyleAbsoluteZeroMillTrajan45ZonugalFencingsaxTofystedethragnarok7331JaysonFourbrynhrtmnElldrenGennenalyse RuebenGnizmoNiryaA Kobold's KoboldKristmas Kthulhu
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Wow I totally agree with Biden's camp, I like how they avoid fake news and call it click bait instead.

    Yes. It isn’t fake at all, it’s just biased to give a misleading sense of being fair to both sides.

    Republicans aren’t fooled either.

    No-Quarter
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Kruite wrote: »
    Tulsi can't accept that people are not going to vote for her to be the nominee.

    It’s because people just love wars so much they can’t deal with her calling out the military-industrial complex and have to mount an elaborate conspiracy against her.

  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know Texas booniesRegistered User regular
    "They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten.

    In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process."

    It's bullshit.

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu/Auldhaerz Swygkhansyn (both on Mateus), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Ilpala wrote: »
    "They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain, not inform or enlighten.

    In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process."

    It's bullshit.

    well, she's not exactly wrong about the media circus arranging these debates, but her mistake in saying that this is new and that she specifically is being bullied out.

    SleepshrykeSpoitJuliusNobeardJaysonFourElldrenRchanenGennenalyse RuebenSorceGnizmoKristmas Kthulhu
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    i followed a link in that article to this other article, about a study which proved that doorknocking can be extremely effective under specific circumstances
    The key difference between Fleischer's technique, sometimes called "deep canvassing," and the standard model is that Fleischer has voters do most of the talking.

    this is the real shit

    voter conversations don't work if you're just throwing statistics at people, or picking fights, or directly contradicting their preconceived ideas. what you do is carefully and non-judgmentally encourage them to talk themselves into agreeing with you

    i'd like to see more research into this. it'd be cool if we could measure the different approaches and prove that one was dramatically better than the other

    I'm not 100% certain but isn't that the technique that's had muddled results, in part due to some genius deciding to fake the data on a replication?

    I feel like it has a bit of resonance with my own canvassing experience, though. Skip the folks who are instant hard nos, talk a bit to the people who like to hear themselves talk and encourage them to come around, directly hand the pamphlet to the people who are already on board.

    I do wish that political canvassing had a more professional class of people doing it though, I saw my work for an environmental group get way better over time as I practiced and developed my techniques and internalized a lot of the stuff we were trying to sway people on. For political canvassing I had like a session where people told us basically here's a list of nice things the candidate wants to do and good luck! Doing some practice and drilling is really helpful, even if I hated it at the time.

    It's part of the reason I'm in favor of unions for this sort of work. Trying to spin up a bunch of volunteers and underpaid interns every time just isn't the most useful way to spend money.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    Kayne Red RobeSpoittynicElldrenRchanenLabelKristmas Kthulhu
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    A bit in the past, but this CNN opinion on Sanders' health from last evening expresses some of my underlying reservations about the strategic rationale of how it affects primary politics. Read it if you're interested.

    What an idiotic take. Taking health concerns into account is not ableism. Someone who has an IQ of 80 should also not be President. Ableism is when you think some one is less worthy if human dignity because of their capabilities, especially health based ones. The entire point of selecting someone for any job, but especially President, is to find who has the capability to be a good office holder for your definition of good. When the condition is directly related to the fitness for the job, calling it ableism is a shameful attempt to suppress legitimate concerns under the guise of being anti-prejudice.

    Someone without use of their legs can work an office job, but can't work as a nurse who has to physically move patients as part of their job responsibilities. Someone who can't handle stress shouldn't be an air traffic controller. Sanders health and the health of every candidate is absolutely a valid concern.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    SyphonBluePreacherjmcdonaldCelestialBadgerA Dabble Of TheloniusIncenjucarForarFencingsaxNobeardMild ConfusionNo-QuarterElldrenGennenalyse RuebenSorceKristmas Kthulhu
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    A bit in the past, but this CNN opinion on Sanders' health from last evening expresses some of my underlying reservations about the strategic rationale of how it affects primary politics. Read it if you're interested.

    What an idiotic take. Taking health concerns into account is not ableism. Someone who has an IQ of 80 should also not be President. Ableism is when you think some one is less worthy if human dignity because of their capabilities, especially health based ones. The entire point of selecting someone for any job, but especially President, is to find who has the capability to be a good office holder for your definition of good. When the condition is directly related to the fitness for the job, calling it ableism is a shameful attempt to suppress legitimate concerns under the guise of being anti-prejudice.

    Someone without use of their legs can work an office job, but can't work as a nurse who has to physically move patients as part of their job responsibilities. Someone who can't handle stress shouldn't be an air traffic controller. Sanders health and the health of every candidate is absolutely a valid concern.
    Eh to some degree yeah but we also get into some pretty weird biological essentialisms regarding ability to function that are specious at best so I would be cautious about how far we can dive into each person's abilities based on perceived health.

    milskiJuliusThe SauceElldrenGnizmo
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    A bit in the past, but this CNN opinion on Sanders' health from last evening expresses some of my underlying reservations about the strategic rationale of how it affects primary politics. Read it if you're interested.

    What an idiotic take. Taking health concerns into account is not ableism. Someone who has an IQ of 80 should also not be President. Ableism is when you think some one is less worthy if human dignity because of their capabilities, especially health based ones. The entire point of selecting someone for any job, but especially President, is to find who has the capability to be a good office holder for your definition of good. When the condition is directly related to the fitness for the job, calling it ableism is a shameful attempt to suppress legitimate concerns under the guise of being anti-prejudice.

    Someone without use of their legs can work an office job, but can't work as a nurse who has to physically move patients as part of their job responsibilities. Someone who can't handle stress shouldn't be an air traffic controller. Sanders health and the health of every candidate is absolutely a valid concern.

    The type of impairment must be specifically related to the nature of the job. To make a decision regarding this matter is difficult for me, and while I am not the world's expert, I do know more about the data needed to make an informed decision than the layman, who has not asked for such information or demonstrated the understanding needed.

    It's ok to have concerns. But ableism is a very insidious and challenging prejudice that society is currently unprepared to address. I'm willing to tolerate concerns about early mortality and how it will affect political strategy - though I still disagree with the concept in the long run - but denying Mr. Sanders' ability to assume great responsibility given his medical condition is, in my opinion, denying him the dignity of his self-determination to be a candidate. Assuming you know his disabilities better than he does is a form of disrespect that is commonly tolerated in society.

    When I am accused of having a prejudice, I reflect on myself. I have racist tendencies; I have sexist tendencies. I minimize them as much as I can, but I do not deny them if there is good external and internal cause for them to exist within me. I do not wish to discourage others from doing the same and righting their own moral compass even if society doesn't require them to.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    JuliusKwoaruGnizmo
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    People who are prissily calling "ableism" about concerns about Sanders' age have no problem calling Trump's fitness into office for question because he seems to be suffering mental health issues.

    MonwynSpoitjmcdonaldFencingsaxNobeardNo-QuarterGennenalyse RuebenChaosHat
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Even with the heart attack I am less concerned about bernie and bidens ability to handle one term as president both likely could with modern medicine and health care. But both would be old enough that the chance they could handle a second term would be low to non existent. Voting in a candidate now who is basically guaranteed to squander the incumbency advantage if they get elected seems like a poor idea.

    CelestialBadgerSpoitAtlas in Chains
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    People who are prissily calling "ableism" about concerns about Sanders' age have no problem calling Trump's fitness into office for question because he seems to be suffering mental health issues.

    I don't know about other people, but I recall being miffed that people were calling Mr. Trump's questionable behaviors dementia. I realize some medically trained people were also doing so, and I call that idle speculation and more than a bit irresponsible if publicly shared. Same with Mr. Biden, here in this thread I believe. I try to be consistent about this.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    JuliusViktor WaltersGnizmo
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Health matters more when people are voting more for that person in particular as part of personality politics. If they weren't, it would mostly be whether they think the VP continue the same policies.

    I don't think Sanders will nominate a Palin.

    Styrofoam SammichJulius
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular

    Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.

    SyphonBlueZonugalForarTrajan45DarkPrimusQuidThe SauceShadowfireToxTofystedethFencingsaxNobeardJaysonFourAbsalonkimeMazzyxNo-QuarterRchanennever diewanderingGennenalyse RuebenKamarSanguinius666264qwer12ArdolSorceElldrenMr Ray38thDoeViktor WaltersGnizmoNiryaA Kobold's KoboldabotkinKristmas Kthulhu
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    He’s a 78 year old man who just had a heart attack. I don’t think ableism is involved when some people think hmmm maybe not a great pick for a four year job that is incredibly stressful and which he won’t actually start until he’s 80.

    MarathonStabbity StyleAngelHedgiePreacherZonugalCelestialBadgerAstaerethVishNubZomroIncenjucarA Dabble Of TheloniusEncjoshofalltradesCommander ZoomQanamilRMS OceanicCommunistCowlonelyahavaForarjmcdonaldMillTrajan45Centipede DamascusKoopahTroopahQuidShadowfireToxshrykeFencingsaxNobeardAbsalonkimebrynhrtmnMild ConfusionNo-QuarterElldrenRchanenknitdanGennenalyse RuebenKamarLabelSanguinius666264ArdolMr RayiTunesIsEvil38thDoeViskodNiryaA Kobold's KoboldAegisabotkinYoutubeNyysjanKristmas Kthulhu
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.

    Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.

    Couscous
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.

    Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.

    Decriminalization in this context usually means that there are no criminal charges for the prostitutes, but pimps, sex traffickers, and others involved in the business end still get arrested.

    ShortyJuliusFencingsaxJaysonFourElldrenGennenalyse RuebenKristmas Kthulhu
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.

    Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.

    It means that prostitutes can expect protection from police if they are assaulted or abused rather than arrest.

    As to why, see below:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Little

    AngelHedgieJaysonFourNo-QuarterElldrenGennenalyse Rueben
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I understand the president can establish what they think policy should be, and can attempt to change federal rules on sex work, but ultimately wouldn't decriminalization be up to the states? Like most sex crime wouldn't be a federal matter right?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Monwyn
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I understand the president can establish what they think policy should be, and can attempt to change federal rules on sex work, but ultimately wouldn't decriminalization be up to the states? Like most sex crime wouldn't be a federal matter right?

    In this case the goal would be to follow the drinking age example, tying federal money to decriminalization.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CouscousTrajan45DoodmannFencingsaxZonugal
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I understand the president can establish what they think policy should be, and can attempt to change federal rules on sex work, but ultimately wouldn't decriminalization be up to the states? Like most sex crime wouldn't be a federal matter right?

    In this case the goal would be to follow the drinking age example, tying federal money to decriminalization.

    Makes sense, but again ultimately its up to the states to actually pass the laws they are asking for right?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    Does decriminalization in this context just mean something like what is usually meant by the Nordic model? Moving towards actual legalization would be pretty significant.

    Got the same question. "Well, prostitution is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't"....means that prostitution is still illegal.

    Decriminalization in this context usually means that there are no criminal charges for the prostitutes, but pimps, sex traffickers, and others involved in the business end still get arrested.

    no charges for prostitutes, and also their clients

    it also typically means that there's very little if any regulation, in the way of licensing and whatnot, which is why sex workers are often very particular about using the word "decriminalize" over "legalize"

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    JuliusLadaiRedTideElldrenYoutube
Sign In or Register to comment.