Tulsi’s now a rounding mistake.
3 Likes
Instituted by the left-leaning Workers’ Party, not the Milton Friedman Party.
I’m going to guess the 70k represents only the people who were purged and subsequently bothered to re-register. There were probably more who were eligible to re-register but didn’t bother.
1 Like
I know statistics and all that works but it’s always amazing to me how your presidential hopes lay in the balance of what ultimately is just a handful of people relative to the entire population. For example Gabbard got 14/399 in that Suffolk poll referenced above. I think if I was ever polled in one of these and it had debate implications I would vote for someone who needed help that I wanted to make the debates still. For example if I was polled I would likely respond Yang as my pick to be the nominee, for purely gamesmanship reasons.
What I don’t understand is why this is a qualifying poll for Gabbard. If the DNC’s intention for a qualifying poll is greater than 3.5%, they should specify that. 3.508 is not greater than or equal to 4. I supposed they decided long ago that they were fine with rounding up. They should clarify that in their qualifications then.
2 Likes
It’s supposed to help laid-off factory workers and it does that by giving me money for videogames.
It’s supposed to help remove the distinction between “people” and “poor people”.
1 Like
Also worth noting that 2nd place in the poll is actually undecided at 18%. I wish poll reporters would start including that in the list of results as it helps paint a picture of just how many votes are still up for grabs, aside from removing candidates from the pool or people changing their minds.
1 Like
agreed. Also, 57% of respondents are NOT dead set on their candidate and could be swayed.
1 Like
That seems like a much better approach.
About 52,000 people in the small Brazilian city of Maricá in the suburbs of Rio de Janeiro are set to receive a basic income
Maricá, a city of about 157,000
It’s about starting to decouple your worth as a human vs what you do for a living / social status.
1 Like
I’m not totally gung-ho on UBI though and would put other forms of non-means tested social welfare like education, health care, child care, food and housing ahead of it.
1 Like
so even after it all made the news–I’m going to lose money on predictit because of that, yep I’m tilted. Gonna take me a long time to get it back 
1 Like
Lol @ rounding up
You didn’t hit 4% sorry gtfo
2 Likes
Trollys mention of video games still hint at the fundamental issue a lot of people have with UBI.
They don’t trust poor people.
I’m with you on Health Care. We need a system to where when you get sick your only concern is getting better. Not how you are going to pay for it.
With everything else I would rather just redistribute the wealth in the form of cash and let people decide whats best for them.
It’s a bottom up solution rather than a top down solution. I trust people to decide what is best for themselves, families, and communities.
1 Like
Also poor people being able to afford video games is a good thing.
1 Like
You guys missed the point of the video game thing.
The money should go to the people who need it instead of guys like me who have comfy jobs. I mean, a basic income and a a smart idea, but it should be distributed progressively.
Just last night I faced a decision with my daughter where the cost was a consideration in whether we decided to go to outside urgent care, ER, or wait for next day appointment (it’s really nothing serious, but probably not something she’d want me posting details on). And that reminds me, last time we went to the ER she had hit her head and it was like maybe a very very minor concussion, but maybe not even that. They did a CT scan and it costs us $3k. And I pay $1000/month in health insurance.
I think there’s room for a mix. Like you say with health care, but there are other things. There are 500k people or so living on the street every night and giving each of them $1k/month wouldn’t eliminate that. There legitimately are people for whom money is not the answer and if they are going to not sleep on the street and eat from trash cans, someone has to give them more help than just cash.
2 Likes
His margin of victory was ~55,000 and those weren’t the only shenanigans. They stole that election.
2 Likes
Who exactly are they polling in these poles? Everyone? registered voters? likely democratic caucusers/primary voters? How many people actually participate in each primary? It’s gotta be less than 10% of the population.
I guess I just don’t understand why they’re letting people who won’t win the primary on the debate stage, but then using what I would assume as a pretty much arbitrary way of choosing who gets on/gets left off. Like there’s a bunch of people within the margin of error of making it, right?