Kansas Crimson

Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information. If you want to get the most accurate pulse on what people are feeling towards a subject, it's your best bet. Gabbard and Yang were extremely popular on Youtube, as is Sanders. Guess who's not popular on Youtube? Biden, Butt, and the rest.

Anyone else read this?

I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.

and that so-called popularity translated to what for them, lobs?

lobster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:50 pm Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information. If you want to get the most accurate pulse on what people are feeling towards a subject, it's your best bet. Gabbard and Yang were extremely popular on Youtube, as is Sanders. Guess who's not popular on Youtube? Biden, Butt, and the rest.

https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/n ... orms-2018/

you’re wrong, unless things have changed in the past couple years. FB is twice as popular for news as is youtube

lobster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:50 pm Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information. If you want to get the most accurate pulse on what people are feeling towards a subject, it's your best bet. Gabbard and Yang were extremely popular on Youtube, as is Sanders. Guess who's not popular on Youtube? Biden, Butt, and the rest.

Lulz?

"Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information"?
It very well might be.
You're knowledgable about Youtube so will you please tell me what percentage of the of people posting and viewing SHIT on Youtube have ZERO knowledge about politics and what percentage you feel have more knowledge than someone who rarely views Youtube videos involving politics but gets their information from other sources.
I can assure you that should I choose, there are many other methods for me to educate myself besides watching Youtube videos. Including but not limited to access to research the "public" does not have. Before you smirk and roll your eyes, realize I have worked for Mayors, a Governor, and a President.
Like I said, Yang and Gabbard were (as you pointed out numerous times) extremely popular on Youtube to the point of your insisting because if it, they had a strong chance to win the nomination. That simply was not true. Right?
Now all of a sudden you are saying Sanders is popular on Youtube. Seems based on Yang's and Gabbard's popularity on Youtube, that and $2.25 doesn't get me (and Bernie?) much more than a ride on a bus.

https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/youtube-stats/

some interesting stats in there about what people ACTUALLY use youtube for

The YouTube algorithm has done much to radicalize

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:49 pm Holyfuck.

Biden's not gonna break 10%.

so if he does drop out, do we still get that republican investigation into his and his son’s activities in the Ukraine?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:59 pm

Grandma wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:47 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:37 pm

What about my free stuff?!?

I laughed.
Shame every Democratic candidate won't quit tonight.

It's gonna be Burnie until the DNC figures out a way to screw him out of the nomination yet again. Then it will be Bad Touch Joe.

so what’s your belittling nickname for Trump and his history of inappropriate contact?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:37 am https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/youtube-stats/

some interesting stats in there about what people ACTUALLY use youtube for

I cant imagine how much power it takes to power the servers to store all of those videos. Mind boggling.

I cant believe fucking Ryans toy reviews made 22 MILLION dollars.

Nate Silver has become, not unlike his spiritual cousin who got an ESPN-funded vertical of his own, a caricature of himself.



You know how the knot gets untied? The interloper who is simply not the right person for the job or the moment uses his money to back a horse.

And when do you expect that to happen?

And will it be soon enough?

I have no idea if it even will. I hope Bloomberg does not actually want to win the presidency (and, accordingly, would not completely fuck the race in Trump's favor by, directly or indirectly, dividing the non-Trump vote).

But, power attracts, man!

Yea i would hope bloomberg would be the guy to drop out and throw his millions behind the leading candidate. But, i dont know that it will happen in time to do much. He has invested millions and millions into the super Tuesday states.

Power attracts i suppose but man, i would not want to be president.

More directly i think bloomberg in the race helps Bernie. He needs to drop out for the democrats sake to stop Bernies momentum.

General election wise I think Trump beats Bernie. The party has to decide what they want.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:25 am More directly i think bloomberg in the race helps Bernie. He needs to drop out for the democrats sake to stop Bernies momentum.

General election wise I think Trump beats Bernie. The party has to decide what they want.

While we should be very hesitant to draw conclusions from Iowa and New Hampshire, it's interesting that the more moderate bloc is significantly outperforming the more progressive bloc. I'm not sure it's Bernie's momentum that needs to be stopped, as much as it's that the moderate bloc needs to settle into a two-horse race.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:28 am

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:25 am More directly i think bloomberg in the race helps Bernie. He needs to drop out for the democrats sake to stop Bernies momentum.

General election wise I think Trump beats Bernie. The party has to decide what they want.

While we should be very hesitant to draw conclusions from Iowa and New Hampshire, it's interesting that the more moderate bloc is significantly outperforming the more progressive bloc. I'm not sure it's Bernie's momentum that needs to be stopped, as much as it's that the moderate bloc needs to settle into a two-horse race.

Well, sure thats probably a better way to put it. As long as there are 4 moderate options bernie has the advantage. I expect Warren to drop out in the not too distant future and i assume many of her voters will swing over to Bernie.....maybe.

Probably? But I'd guess there would be a not-insignificant bump for Klobuchar in that event, also. If Biden really can't pick up steam, the moderate side (serious candidates-only division) could be whittled down to Klobuchar and Buttigieg in short order.

I know where my vote would go, both on policy and electability.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:17 am I have no idea if it even will. I hope Bloomberg does not actually want to win the presidency (and, accordingly, would not completely fuck the race in Trump's favor by, directly or indirectly, dividing the non-Trump vote).

But, power attracts, man!

It's interesting. To date, in the era of the modern presidency, we have never elected a president whose sole claim to the office was "I'm not the other guy." Kerry ran on that platform, as did Romney. And both lost, in part, because of the inadequacy of such a campaign. Trump certainly got a boost from the anti-Hillary contingent, but he brought his own die-hard fans as well. The closest we've come, I think, was the Dems convincing Johnson to drop out in '68. Beyond that, though, all elected presidents have had a forward-looking, positive agenda (loosely defined).

Other than Sanders, are there any Democrats in the race who can make the case that they have an agenda they believe in? Or are they all vying for the title of "Not Trump?"

I think that was Biden's biggest failing. He was a reluctant candidate who got in simply because donors and backers told him he could be elected in an anti-Trump/proximity-to-Obama race. He never could make a case for himself, separate from being Not-Trump.

The same, I think, goes for Bloomberg. Q: "Who are you?" A: "I'm the New York billionaire who is NOT Trump!" Oooookaaaay. And why do we care? I dunno.

Yang had a purpose and an identity distinct from Trump. And Sanders, obviously, has been pushing this same agenda for decades. But is there anyone else who can stand on his/her own?