To be fair, that’s mostly only in Toronto and the surrounding area. Small towns and rural areas have trouble having enough doctors for everyone. Of course they do in the US as well…
I think it really was doctored. It wasn’t deepfaked out of nothing, but they took a video which showed the reality of what happened and then changed it to be less representative of reality. I think that’s what “doctoring” a video means.
Sheesh. At least Trump didn’t doctor any videos to show how big his crowds were.
It was just a ‘toy’ example . As you point out, the reality is that deciding the will of the people, and therefore the appropriate candidate, is not necessarily simple, which is why some form of human intervention is not in and of itself a bad idea. How that should best get done is a matter of discussion, and has been discussed in the Democratic Party since the 1960s.
Of course, anyone unhappy with the final outcome will inevitably scream that the system is unfair or corrupt. That’s going to happen whatever the system. (Last round we even had people screaming this after the clear majority winner was given the nomination.) People get really deeply invested in their candidate, and it can be a punch in the gut when they lose.
They used a form of transferrable vote in Iowa and everyone had a problem with that! It is a social problem with any multistage alternative to FPTP, people are so in love with the idea that whoever gets the most votes wins that when you do a second round they still want to report the first round and declare that result the win.
Of course, people who don’t like the process and don’t like the final candidate are under no obligation to vote for them.
Thank you for coming out and saying that!
Well, it is an undeniable truth. People who hate the Democratic party’s process and selection can even just thumb their nose and vote for Trump. However, they take the risk that everyone will just interpret their vote as a vote of approval for Trump. Certainly Trump will. Alternately, people can vote for nobody at all, withdrawing their approval from all candidates, but then most people will interpret their vote as sheer apathy. In either case, they aren’t innoculated against the results of their decision: you still get the end of the world through global warming, you still get Roe v. Wade thrown out, you still get increasing normalization of racism and sexism.
The alternative is to vote strategically for someone who can beat the worst candidate, and try to keep pushing the system in the direction you want it to move.
That’s very much not what everyone had a problem with. I think you’ll find a lot of support for transferable voting systems like Maine’s amongst those here who also think that caucuses are stupid, and the media circus of criticism around the result of the caucus had nothing to do with the transferable vote part of the process there and everything to do with the fact that the people running the show were hopelessly incompetent at it.
And the fact that assuming it was just incompetence is pretty charitable.
Yeah, but when an example seems to show the opposite of what it was meant to show, it makes me wonder if there actually is a better example. The details of superdelegates are details. I think the bigger issue is that people genuinely disagree on having these appointed wise people who are given a disproportionate say in the matter. Someone thought that superdelegates were a good idea because they might prevent the selection of a really disastrous candidate. But what a lot of people are worried about is that the kind of people who are made into superdelegates are the kind of people who think Sanders is a really disastrous candidate.
I’ve never heard a good example where I thought they’d really make things better. It’s like they exist “just in case” and when you say, “just in case of what?” it’s crickets.
Or you can vote for a protest/third party candidate, which people will interpret as a vote of no-confidence in both parties.
I’m well aware of that.
Any time you try to reduce a situation to two choices, it is a false dichotomy. There are a whole lot of unstated, implicit assumptions in everything you just said.
Personally, I think starting wars of aggression is nothing more than state-sanctioned mass murder, no matter what kind of spin anyone tries to put on it. I think that is wrong, and not wrong like “I disagree about what the top income tax bracket should be, but wrong the same way that slavery is wrong. I will unapologetically say that I would sooner watch the entire system burn to the fucking ground than support that.
Sanders is voting strategically for me. I disagree with him about a lot of things, but I trust him not to engage in state-sanctioned mass murder, even if he has to tell all of his advisers, and everyone in the Washington establishment, to go to hell in order to stop it, and that alone is enough, not only for me to support him, but give his campaign a lot of money.
That’s not not what doctoring is. When you doctor a video, you have edited the video to make it less representative of reality and then present it as reality. Deception is a core tenant of doctoring something, and while editing for a joke does require making a thing that happened appear different from the reality it is not presented as a fact.
For this video to be considered a deception, we would have to believe that the debate stage pumped in cricket sound effects. Obviously the humor behind the meme is meant to have a “funny because it’s true” impact on the viewer, but there’s nothing here that would indicate this is being presented as an unedited clip of the debate.
that’s actually one of my very few concerns with medicare for all. currently, most people fortunate enough to have insurance have a particular health system they are forced to work with. those systems help “curate” primary care doctors and specialists.
who the heck helps you find a doctor ( or specialist ) when you have hundreds and hundreds of choices?
Yelp?
I think they’re counting on riding that line, just like Trump does. The payoff being a blend of “I was trolling and you took it” and [aside] “enough rubes and loonies will buy it as genuine, or at least be pulled toward a false ‘the truth is somewhere in between’ impression, that we’ll have gotten away with it.”
in case of mcgovern, basically. that’s when they were introduced i think. to stop a candidate ostensibly popular with democrats, but not at all with the general public.
of course, ive heard more than one talking head say that’s the exact problem with sanders being a (democratic) socialist
( truth is of course, the socialist label will be used against whomever wins - just like has happened every election. so might as well have someone who can own it. )
Yes - he lost that vote - but to be fair - he left the party when he would have had the maximum leverage to change things if he disagreed.
I’m not implying - I’m directly stating that he is working the same delegate system in the same way as all the other candidates are. As they all have to by saying they’re members of the party. You either run independently or get the support to change the system before the election.
The edit being called out was not sound effects, it was the length of the pause. The facial expressions made by candidates taken from other parts of the debate being presented as ones that they made in response to that question. It’s intentional deception.
Yeah, basically they lost some elections and said “we need to do something.” Basically they put in an override function on the primary system. But if they actually were to exercise that function 100 times, how many of those times would it win them the election an dhow many would it lose them? There’s no evidence, there can’t be any evidence. I think if Sanders wins and they say, “Well, this is what superdelegates are for” then the superdelegates will be more likely to lose the election for the Democrats than win it. But that appears to be the only real-life scenario of their use that seems remotely likely.
The effectiveness of the basically-never-used superdelegates rests entirely on the wisdom of the superdelegates themselves. I guess I just don’t have faith in their wisdom.
Seriously - who gives a fuck who one guy will vote for? Where’s my headline?
It’s not like he represents a large base of people here. He represents 6-7 other billionaires here.
But Trump doesn’t ride that line, he regularly presents doctored footage or just says something untrue. Like constantly. He’s also shared a few memes, but people don’t go after Trump for every meme he posts - just the extremely racist and sexist ones.
Adding crickets to a clip of footage is hacky but it’s not retweeting a far right group posting about muslims, or memes implying a Jewish cabal is keeping Hillary out of jail, or even just posting photos presented as factual that have been obviously cropped or phootshopped.
I won’t agree that this was in no way trying to be presented as a clip of the debates.
This is the guy “centrists” think can beat Trump. This guy.
Sure.
So the assumption is that they added crickets to the video for comedic effect but otherwise would leave the video untouched? That doesn’t make sense to me whatsoever, and has been a common thing to do as a visual gag for decades. I don’t see where this could be considered a presentation of reality in any way.
If you don’t want to find your own doctor, you can ask the province to do it for you. My only complaint is that they don’t seem to have an online list of doctors seeking patients, just a general directory.
For specialists, it’s usually referral from your family doctor.
Correction: This is the guy “centrists” thought could beat Trump. Turns out his wet fart of a debate performance only impressed Dems who self-identify as conservative. And even then, not by much.
I still have no idea where they find people willing to answer poll questions about presidential primary politics but who also have no idea who Mike Bloomberg is.
