| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:23 jcarlsoniv wrote: Here's to hoping season 4 is as weird as this election season I remember a Kevin Spacey interview where after filming he would wonder "will anyone believe this stuff? Is it too outlandish?" And then he'd open a newspaper and realize they didn't go far enough lol. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:20 Danglars wrote: Hell, why even make a post if you can simply say "nobody actually believes this" to whatever the straw man du jour is? I did laugh at the unintentionally funny line of "believe that the people are innately incapable." Your policies are what don't help, it doesn't take any belief. Observe the record of history. Your throwaway lines on laissez-faire and negative liberties and straw men on utterly incapable disadvantaged minorities are about as useful as the rhetoric I just directed back. I said it once and I say it again. Rhetoric on one side, the corresponding rhetoric on the other. Why would there even be two sides on this issue if each didn't cleave to their own explanations? What record of history are we talking about here? Social mobility is highest where active measures are taken against inequality. The Great Gatsby Curve is a thing. Crime goes down when education goes up. Teen pregnancies go down when sex education is done and contraception is provided. Women get into influential positions when old structures are broken up. Why do you think the record is on your side? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:24 oBlade wrote: Months ago people were nearly unanimous in condemnation of the Shkrelis of the world - including Trump. Are you not for competitive drug markets? That literally has nothing to do with what i said. Like, nothing. The "do you not want to donate for disabled and abandoned babies?" was cute though. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:13 jcarlsoniv wrote: Can someone explain the purpose and reality of the "state lines" healthcare shit? At first glance, I don't see why they'd be a thing. I'm in "chill" mode about this until I hear anything official from the FBI. I've made my case for why I think it could be a potentially big deal, but can't really make any judgements until the investigation concludes. Benefit to consumer is it allows segregation of market based on risk statistics among those on a state to state basis. For example if Nevada has a higher chance of serious healthcare complications before 30 as compared to California, it allows Californians consumers to have lower premiums because then they'd only be paying based on their own state risk assessment. Also, by limiting to state by state, it allows for smaller insurance companies to exist that can cover specific local based healthcare organizations without having to deal with nation wide healthcare organization. There are obvious negatives though as well, but it seemed like you were more interested in the positives. As far as the Hillary email thing. If this was anyone else, they would have been on trial and thrown in prison already. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Oregon’s governor on Wednesday signed trailblazing legislation that will raise the minimum wage to nearly $15 in six years, and do so through a three-tiered system that has not been tried anywhere else in the country. “I’m proud to sign into law my top priority of the 2016 Legislative session – raising the minimum wage,” Governor Kate Brown said in a statement. She said the new law “is a path forward – so working families can catch up, and businesses have time to plan for the increase”. President Obama said Congress needs to follow Oregon’s example and raise the federal minimum wage, now at $7.25 an hour. “I commend the Oregon Legislature and Governor Kate Brown for taking action to raise their state’s minimum wage,” Obama said in a statement. The president said 18 states and the District of Columbia have acted since he first called on Congress to increase the federal standard in 2013. Oregon’s plan follows moves in states such as Massachusetts, California and Vermont that recently boosted statewide minimums above $10. The Oregon increases over six years surpass those adopted by any other state so far. Oregon’s current minimum wage is $9.25 an hour. Source | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:20 Danglars wrote: Your policies are what don't help, it doesn't take any belief. Observe the record of history. The thing is -- that statement is just not true. The record, and dozens of scientific studies, show that affirmative action can very well have a positive impact, not only on the people who directly benefit from it, but on the entire communities they belong to (notably because it makes people believe in themselves and in the idea that their goals are attainable, in addition to numerous side-effects). | ||
|
oBlade
United States5900 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:30 m4ini wrote: That literally has nothing to do with what i said. Like, nothing. The "do you not want to donate for disabled and abandoned babies?" was cute though. What you yourself said was in no way relevant to the actual policy. You either agree with a candidate's policy or not, it's good or bad or neutral. It doesn't matter whether you believe there's some kind of irony in that you personally didn't expect the candidate to say it based on how you imagine him. On March 03 2016 12:27 Nyxisto wrote: What record of history are we talking about here? Social mobility is highest where active measures are taken against inequality. The Great Gatsby Curve is a thing. Crime goes down when education goes up. Teen pregnancies go down when sex education is done and contraception is provided. Women get into influential positions when old structures are broken up. Why do you think the record is on your side? Those things aren't affirmative action, though, right - I thought that's what you two were talking about? | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
Obviously for his plan to work he'd have to make costs transparent and competitive. That means fighting the health insurance lobbies and the big pharma lobbies. Good luck with that. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
NEW YORK — Wall Street is getting ready to go nuclear on Donald Trump. Terrified that the reality TV star could run away with the Republican nomination and bring his brand of anti-immigrant, protectionist populism to the White House, some top financiers are writing big checks to fund an effort to deny Trump a majority of delegates to the GOP convention. The effort is centered on the recently formed Our Principles PAC, the latest big-money group airing anti-Trump ads, which is run by GOP strategist Katie Packer, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney in 2012. The group, initially funded by $3 million from Marlene Ricketts, wife of billionaire T.D. Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, wants to saturate the expensive Florida airwaves ahead of the state’s March 15 primary with hopes of denying Trump a victory that could crush the hopes of home state Sen. Marco Rubio. A conference call on Tuesday to solicit donors for the group included Paul Singer, billionaire founder of hedge fund Elliott Management; Hewlett Packard President and CEO Meg Whitman; and Chicago Cubs co-owner Todd Ricketts, one of Joe and Marlene Ricketts’ three sons. Wealthy Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein is also expected to help fund the effort. Jim Francis, a big GOP donor and bundler from Texas, was also on the phone call on Tuesday. One person close to the Our Principles PAC said money will not be an issue. This person said Singer, who is worth close to $2 billion, is fully dedicated to making sure the group has all the funds it needs to inundate the airwaves in Florida and other states viewed as not entirely friendly to Trump, a group that includes Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Wisconsin and other states in the Northeast and West. Ohio could join the list if Trump moves ahead of the state’s governor, John Kasich, in the polls. Source | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Chickens coming home to roost for the GOP. The newly elected chair of the Republican Party in the county that includes the Texas Capitol spent most of election night tweeting about former Gov. Rick Perry’s sexual orientation and former President Bill Clinton’s penis, and insisting that members of the Bush family should be in jail. He also found time to call Hillary Clinton an “angry bull dyke” and accuse his county vice chair of betraying the values of the Republican Party. “The people have spoken,” Robert Morrow, who won the helm of the Travis County GOP with 54 percent of the vote, told The Texas Tribune. “My friends and neighbors and political supporters — they wanted Robert Morrow.” Morrow’s election as Republican chair of the fifth-largest county in Texas left several members of the Travis County GOP, including vice chair Matt Mackowiak, apoplectic. Mackowiak, a Republican strategist, immediately announced over social media that he would do everything in his power to remove Morrow from office. Source | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:30 wei2coolman wrote: Benefit to consumer is it allows segregation of market based on risk statistics among those on a state to state basis. For example if Nevada has a higher chance of serious healthcare complications before 30 as compared to California, it allows Californians consumers to have lower premiums because then they'd only be paying based on their own state risk assessment. I'm not sure I completely buy this, but I'm too tired at the moment to form a coherent argument in one direction or the other. Also, by limiting to state by state, it allows for smaller insurance companies to exist that can cover specific local based healthcare organizations without having to deal with nation wide healthcare organization. This makes sense I suppose. There are obvious negatives though as well, but it seemed like you were more interested in the positives. Well, I was more curious about the theory of it vs the reality, so negatives are worth mentioning as well. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5900 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is turning into a Trump campaign's wet dream. Source "Money can't buy me love." - The Beatles I thought this one was a sober piece: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-media-response-220033 | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote: Those things aren't affirmative action, though, right - I thought that's what you two were talking about? Well getting women into better jobs and equal pay are certainly similar policies I guess but I thought the argument was positive liberties vs. negative liberties in general. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:27 Nyxisto wrote: What record of history are we talking about here? Social mobility is highest where active measures are taken against inequality. The Great Gatsby Curve is a thing. Crime goes down when education goes up. Teen pregnancies go down when sex education is done and contraception is provided. Women get into influential positions when old structures are broken up. Why do you think the record is on your side? We can tango later, I think I've already posted the historical line of reasoning twice in this thread and considering the responses I'm a little hesitant to do it a third time. Superb starting graph though, I'm with oBlade. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:45 oBlade wrote: "Wait guys, it's not working this time" - The conglomeration of pundits rather successfully choosing the GOP nominees for the last decade."Money can't buy me love." - The Beatles I thought this one was a sober piece: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-media-response-220033 Remarkably introspective considering it's the Politico. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18218 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote: So you believe that you can pay people to be a family? That you can create the stability that is caused by functional 2 member house holds through extra monthly payments. Are there not sufficient incentives already to having a second person raising a child? Is a little extra money going to tip the scale? Do you really believe that will happen? Really, P6, you can't have it both ways. EITHER financial incentives can contribute to people staying together, OR it isn't. You can't claim that it will make disincentivize otherwise unhappy people from separating, yet at the same time claim that it won't help otherwise happy people stay together (due to less bickering over money). | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
How about this for sphincter tightening? Page 9, bottom poll, asked of Republican/Rep. leaning voters who are currently not supporting Donald Trump: If Donald Trump won the Republican Party’s nomination for the presidency, would you definitely support him in the general election in November, probably support him, probably NOT support him, or definitely NOT support him in the general election in November? Feb. 24-27 2016: Definitely support him: 25% Probably support him: 27% Probably not support him: 13% Definitely not support him: 35% No opinion: 1% It's a small sample and there's a big margin of error, but currently his numbers simply are not very good. There's obviously still a lot of time until the general election, though. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 03 2016 12:42 jcarlsoniv wrote: I'm not sure I completely buy this, but I'm too tired at the moment to form a coherent argument in one direction or the other. This makes sense I suppose. Well, I was more curious about the theory of it vs the reality, so negatives are worth mentioning as well. I mean the whole point of actuaries is to segregate risk in groups to predict likely outcomes based on groups. That's why we get different insurance premiums based on age, sex, race, income levels, rate of activity, location, etc etc. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18218 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:48 KwarK wrote: Externalities exist. It's cheaper to pay for someone's abortion than to live in a society with unwanted children. Not sure that's true either. There's plenty of reasons for being pro-choice without inventing your own new economics. I don't know what percentage of unwanted children end up costing more than they contribute to the economy, but even if it's 20% (an absurdly high number), those 20% will have to be a 4x greater burden per person than the other 80% gain for your statement to be true. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18218 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I love how while debating these topics especially regarding families everyone here is skirting around the issue they either don;t want to endorse or have never heard of. Basic Income. The economy would thrive, unemployment would become negligible and as a result benefits would no longer ot be needed, nor medicaid needed to be such high funding. Crime would go way down. I really doubt it. Most criminals don't steal because they can't even afford food. Basic income would do many great things, but I highly doubt it would do jack shit to the crime rate. Crime would go way down if you stopped having a stupid war on drugs, though. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs YoungYakov
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
