|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 28 2016 01:28 zlefin wrote:
My issue with Obamacare is that it makes health insurance into something that is no longer properly called insurance. it's simply a healthcare system. I'm fine with alternate health care systems; it's just no longer properly insurance.
this is not true. what makes it insurance is that it leaves the existing private insurance companies mostly intact, and at least officially is meant to have them in the system long term.
|
On October 28 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 00:20 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 00:06 biology]major wrote:On October 27 2016 23:35 KwarK wrote:On October 27 2016 22:25 biology]major wrote:
It's not that it is beyond the pale of our ability to conceive but rather that it does not come naturally for us to be intelligent in that way and so we do not respect it. Most people on TL are probably analytical and very systematic, less right brain oriented, it's just the type of crowd it attracts sorry. Alternative perspective. His business success was due to being the heir of a successful business and has been average, with some notable failures. Decisions in which he has had his hand in personally have backfired significantly while his core business keeps him afloat. His obsession with running small time scams, from claiming shit like small business recovery grants in the wake of 9/11 that were only worth thousands of dollars to trying to bully out individual tenants, have displayed an unworthy pettiness. Trump succeeds in spite of himself, not because of himself. The momentum of being born into that kind of aristocracy was so much that even Trump couldn't derail it, despite continually starting feuds with everyone he interacts with, from the city of Palm Beach to Scottish farmers to poor tenants to his own contractors, none of which represented good business. Trump was seduced by his own propaganda. He started to believe his own myth and this election is him being shown that the Emperor has no clothes. Trump is shit got it He starts dumb fights all the time for dumb reasons and it holds back his political success, his business success and his personal success. With the number of honest dollars he already has he shouldn't need to engage in this petty small time shit to get a few more dishonest ones but he still does it. The failings of his companies mirror perfectly the failings we've seen elsewhere from him, he can no more let go and stop fighting with individual tenants than he can ignore a tweet he doesn't like while all his strategists are telling him that he needs to pivot and appear more appealing to women. This isn't some kind of next level intelligence that somehow allows him to become rich but suck at politics. We see him held back by the same personality traits over and over in all areas of his life. Everything he has achieved he has achieved in spite of himself, not because. I can't understand his mentality. If you have fuck you money why would you bother with any of the stuff he bothers with? It defies logic. I'm so rich I don't have to care what you or anyone on the planet thinks of me. I can ignore all the peasants and their stupid petty problems and live my perfect life, untouchable in my ivory tower, but instead.... I'm going to pick fights with everyone over the tiniest pettiest minutia. I'm going to feed into all these things that literally can never benefit me only hurt me. I don't get it man. But I guess there's nothing to get, at this point there's no way he can be making a conscious effort to do it. Its a mental defect in the man he can't help. If he could actually do something about it and stop he'd have to have done it by now but he obviously doesn't have the ability to stop himself from jumping into the mud and being petty as fuck.
Many personal accounts of Trump paint him as a wildly insecure person who massively relies on his fame and image as a way of keeping him afloat.
|
On October 28 2016 01:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 28 2016 00:20 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 00:06 biology]major wrote:On October 27 2016 23:35 KwarK wrote:On October 27 2016 22:25 biology]major wrote:
It's not that it is beyond the pale of our ability to conceive but rather that it does not come naturally for us to be intelligent in that way and so we do not respect it. Most people on TL are probably analytical and very systematic, less right brain oriented, it's just the type of crowd it attracts sorry. Alternative perspective. His business success was due to being the heir of a successful business and has been average, with some notable failures. Decisions in which he has had his hand in personally have backfired significantly while his core business keeps him afloat. His obsession with running small time scams, from claiming shit like small business recovery grants in the wake of 9/11 that were only worth thousands of dollars to trying to bully out individual tenants, have displayed an unworthy pettiness. Trump succeeds in spite of himself, not because of himself. The momentum of being born into that kind of aristocracy was so much that even Trump couldn't derail it, despite continually starting feuds with everyone he interacts with, from the city of Palm Beach to Scottish farmers to poor tenants to his own contractors, none of which represented good business. Trump was seduced by his own propaganda. He started to believe his own myth and this election is him being shown that the Emperor has no clothes. Trump is shit got it He starts dumb fights all the time for dumb reasons and it holds back his political success, his business success and his personal success. With the number of honest dollars he already has he shouldn't need to engage in this petty small time shit to get a few more dishonest ones but he still does it. The failings of his companies mirror perfectly the failings we've seen elsewhere from him, he can no more let go and stop fighting with individual tenants than he can ignore a tweet he doesn't like while all his strategists are telling him that he needs to pivot and appear more appealing to women. This isn't some kind of next level intelligence that somehow allows him to become rich but suck at politics. We see him held back by the same personality traits over and over in all areas of his life. Everything he has achieved he has achieved in spite of himself, not because. I can't understand his mentality. If you have fuck you money why would you bother with any of the stuff he bothers with? It defies logic. I'm so rich I don't have to care what you or anyone on the planet thinks of me. I can ignore all the peasants and their stupid petty problems and live my perfect life, untouchable in my ivory tower, but instead.... I'm going to pick fights with everyone over the tiniest pettiest minutia. I'm going to feed into all these things that literally can never benefit me only hurt me. I don't get it man. But I guess there's nothing to get, at this point there's no way he can be making a conscious effort to do it. Its a mental defect in the man he can't help. If he could actually do something about it and stop he'd have to have done it by now but he obviously doesn't have the ability to stop himself from jumping into the mud and being petty as fuck. since when are people logical? also, much as armchair diagnosis is bad, we can point you to a potential diagnosis if you want.
Its not even necessarily logic. I think most stupidly rich people seem to do a pretty good job of just ignoring the outside world and what they think about you. They don't get into fights with random plebs. Oh no Joe Sixpack said something mean about me, I'm going to sit here on my yacht and not give a shit. I don't even think that's a logic issue, it's just a matter of I can't hear you over all this money! He needs a better bubble honestly.
I know all the armchair diagnoses. There's plenty of merit to some of them it would appear.
|
On October 28 2016 01:17 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2016 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
it's not really hate, but the type of goal sought. a radical vision that has total transformation of society as a goal is usually also one that sees a macro level order as radically evil. for leftists, it may be corporate capitalism, for democratic revolutionaries, autocratic power and so on. only strong idealists develop these strong hates from ideological vision. Well it depends also a bit what you really want. I used to support the idea of the revolutionary left, as I thought that capitalism was simply not viable and that reformism was doomed to fail, but I always considered the moderate left to be people with the same goal but a disagreement on method. I think that's the case for most of the far left, and again I would quote Zizek, who actually considers that liberals need the brotherly help (that's his term) from revolutionaries. I think when your worst enemy is someone who share most of your vision but not completely, you have lost yourself. But then again, Assange is a different kind altogether. Sandernistas, even the most anti-Clinton ones, want the best for America, even if they are imo, unproductive. Assange is an enemy of America, and just wants to harm its institutions as badly as possible. That's a completely different story. it's kind of like ideological tunnel vision. if you see the world in terms of grand ideological systems, then a moderation may simply be enabling evil, by assisting the system's survival. placing the destruction of the enemy system above improvement in actual lives is a cognitive feature of deontic morality. a lot of attention to information of the consequence kind drops out, and instead we deal in morally charged properties. not all of the far left is of this camp, the hardcore ideologues are, but the more practically minded and less theory-addled can still fall under bias in a different but more pervasive way. basically this is a prior bias of intentions that makes people interpret the action of moderates in a very negative way. the moral contamination flows from Character, which is basically an understanding of a person's fundamental motivations. once the character of a person is thought to be corrupted, his or her actions become suspect. this kind of thinking explains a lot about why basically good natured and good intentioned americans adopt a radical evil view of hillary clinton. the character attacks reallly do stick, especially negative ones. obama and his neoliberal ways is another familiar target. but the left is equally vulnerable. we have our demonic characters around too. some are genuinely that bad, like cruz, but i have to recognize the basic cognitive process as similar. i suggest joshua greene for more on the dual process of ethical thinking. obviously i'm not saying one should reject idealism and so on, but be clear about the blindspots.
its interesting that you chose ted cruz as an example of liberal deontic morality judgment rather than the simple reversal of bernie sanders. no doubt because then your whole post would dissolve into a foamy relativism.
the bolded part is the peg upon which your entire critique hangs yet most leftists would not agree to such terms
it's always those other people who "see the world in terms of grand ideological systems".
|
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect.
|
On October 28 2016 02:02 JinDesu wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect.
If they build a narrative that is only encouraged by Trump TV, they will go to Trump TV
|
On October 28 2016 01:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:28 zlefin wrote:
My issue with Obamacare is that it makes health insurance into something that is no longer properly called insurance. it's simply a healthcare system. I'm fine with alternate health care systems; it's just no longer properly insurance.
this is not true. what makes it insurance is that it leaves the existing private insurance companies mostly intact, and at least officially is meant to have them in the system long term.
Insurance is also the appropriate name for the service it actually provides which is namely
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.
it is a form of savings whereby you are putting money to the side (into the insurance companies coffers) in case something happens so that you can use it yourself. fortunately with insurance you are typically guaranteed compensation for more than what you actually spend (because your health is subsidized by the other policy holders that are currently healthy in the hopes that you will cover them when they are ill).
|
United States41979 Posts
On October 28 2016 02:02 JinDesu wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect.
As I've said before over and over, Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive states to win. It doesn't matter if Hillary is losing votes in all 6 (she's not, Florida is a fortress), she's still got this.
|
On October 28 2016 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 02:02 JinDesu wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect. If they build a narrative that is only encouraged by Trump TV, they will go to Trump TV
If they did establish a news network, which I wouldn't be surprised by, i wonder how long it would last. how many advertisers would be willing to buy the adspace and support that kind of channel? I guess if they get alot of viewers the almighty dollar might have a bigger sway than the views of the particular companies, but it would be interesting to see what happens.
|
On October 28 2016 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 02:02 JinDesu wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect. As I've said before over and over, Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive states to win. It doesn't matter if Hillary is losing votes in all 6 (she's not, Florida is a fortress), she's still got this.
I understand that. What I am saying is that articles are being written with a narrative that deliberately make it sound as though Hillary has no chance and people are voting for Donald in the early voting states. While it is clear to me that these articles are either outright lying or obfuscating the truth, people on my facebook are sharing them without doing outside research. Since I only know a few Trump supporters, the circle jerk in their friends lists of these false articles leads me to think that if Hillary wins, they absolutely won't believe it and any documentation to prove her win will be considered fabricated.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 28 2016 02:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:17 oneofthem wrote:On October 28 2016 01:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2016 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
it's not really hate, but the type of goal sought. a radical vision that has total transformation of society as a goal is usually also one that sees a macro level order as radically evil. for leftists, it may be corporate capitalism, for democratic revolutionaries, autocratic power and so on. only strong idealists develop these strong hates from ideological vision. Well it depends also a bit what you really want. I used to support the idea of the revolutionary left, as I thought that capitalism was simply not viable and that reformism was doomed to fail, but I always considered the moderate left to be people with the same goal but a disagreement on method. I think that's the case for most of the far left, and again I would quote Zizek, who actually considers that liberals need the brotherly help (that's his term) from revolutionaries. I think when your worst enemy is someone who share most of your vision but not completely, you have lost yourself. But then again, Assange is a different kind altogether. Sandernistas, even the most anti-Clinton ones, want the best for America, even if they are imo, unproductive. Assange is an enemy of America, and just wants to harm its institutions as badly as possible. That's a completely different story. it's kind of like ideological tunnel vision. if you see the world in terms of grand ideological systems, then a moderation may simply be enabling evil, by assisting the system's survival. placing the destruction of the enemy system above improvement in actual lives is a cognitive feature of deontic morality. a lot of attention to information of the consequence kind drops out, and instead we deal in morally charged properties. not all of the far left is of this camp, the hardcore ideologues are, but the more practically minded and less theory-addled can still fall under bias in a different but more pervasive way. basically this is a prior bias of intentions that makes people interpret the action of moderates in a very negative way. the moral contamination flows from Character, which is basically an understanding of a person's fundamental motivations. once the character of a person is thought to be corrupted, his or her actions become suspect. this kind of thinking explains a lot about why basically good natured and good intentioned americans adopt a radical evil view of hillary clinton. the character attacks reallly do stick, especially negative ones. obama and his neoliberal ways is another familiar target. but the left is equally vulnerable. we have our demonic characters around too. some are genuinely that bad, like cruz, but i have to recognize the basic cognitive process as similar. i suggest joshua greene for more on the dual process of ethical thinking. obviously i'm not saying one should reject idealism and so on, but be clear about the blindspots. its interesting that you chose ted cruz as an example of liberal deontic morality judgment rather than the simple reversal of bernie sanders. no doubt because then your whole post would dissolve into a foamy relativism. the bolded part is the peg upon which your entire critique hangs yet most leftists would not agree to such terms it's always those other people who "see the world in terms of grand ideological systems".
i chose cruz as an example of true evil character.
it would be a mistake to attribute constant and unchanging way of thinking to individuals. i am not doing that here. i am describing currents of thought.
the last statement is not accurate either. i am also committed to a macro level vision. global liberal norms. with firm political rights and social cohesion, there will be economic justice in the long run. i can see my commitment leading to an alignment/bias with the u.s. against true threats such as china/russia, the resilient autocratic systems.
and generally i am not saying idealism sucks etc. i actually am a compatibilist about it all. however, one should be care to have the proper higher order view, understanding the limitations of ways of thinking. you are good to go if you see a world where the churchlands can happily discuss ethics with levinas
|
On October 28 2016 02:16 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 02:11 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 02:02 JinDesu wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect. As I've said before over and over, Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive states to win. It doesn't matter if Hillary is losing votes in all 6 (she's not, Florida is a fortress), she's still got this. I understand that. What I am saying is that articles are being written with a narrative that deliberately make it sound as though Hillary has no chance and people are voting for Donald in the early voting states. While it is clear to me that these articles are either outright lying or obfuscating the truth, people on my facebook are sharing them without doing outside research. Since I only know a few Trump supporters, the circle jerk in their friends lists of these false articles leads me to think that if Hillary wins, they absolutely won't believe it and any documentation to prove her win will be considered fabricated.
If the polls show you are losing and on the 8th you lose then reality happened
If you tell the people you are winning and on the 8th you lose then you can yell 'Rigged'.
You have to distort reality before you can sell people on a lie.
|
On October 28 2016 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 02:02 JinDesu wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that some Trump supporters on my facebook are reading articles that promotes the idea that Hillary is losing votes and her camp is expecting to lose key states. From reading this thread and watching the news, I don't see how that's possible. My takeaway is that Trump supporters are being sold some of these articles to promote the rigged election aspect. As I've said before over and over, Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive states to win. It doesn't matter if Hillary is losing votes in all 6 (she's not, Florida is a fortress), she's still got this.
I'm honestly wondering how the Republican party wins the presidency going forward when they need to flip at least one leaning Democrat state and none are trending towards them they are all trending away.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^this is why garland is important. executive power will most likely be the only way anything gets done for a while. the militarized house republicans wont budge
|
On October 28 2016 01:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:28 zlefin wrote:
My issue with Obamacare is that it makes health insurance into something that is no longer properly called insurance. it's simply a healthcare system. I'm fine with alternate health care systems; it's just no longer properly insurance.
this is not true. what makes it insurance is that it leaves the existing private insurance companies mostly intact, and at least officially is meant to have them in the system long term.
I disagree;
I consider insurance to be a hedge against future risk.
With guaranteed coverage even for preexisting conditions, it's no longer a hedge against risk (from an individual perspective).
the economics of insurance is supposed to be you spend some regular amount and in the event of an unlikely bad occurrence you're covered. the expected monetary value is a mild negative for everyone because of the costs involved, but it's worthwhile because a large expense at once can be ruinous and unaffordable.
I believe this sufficiently explains why I do not consider it to be insurance.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
how is it not about risk pooling? wut
|
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey.
|
On October 27 2016 22:05 Sadist wrote:
The people not buying insurance arent very smart though. One trip to the hospital or an expensive prescription and you are basically fucked.
I don't think this is a safe generalization unless you know why they aren't buying insurance.
If the premiums+deductible exceed the person's annual income, there's no point in buying insurance. The insurance goes away if they declare bankruptcy before maxing the deductible.
If the premiums mean they can't pay rent, they're better off skipping health care than taking the much larger health impacts from being homeless.
If the premiums mean they need to compromise on proper nutrition... well, that's a tossup until the nutrition problems lead to medical complications too severe to ignore, at which point they'd better hope that their drug coverage includes nutritional supplements.
I'm not quite in any of the above categories, but I have been in a position where I've needed to skip doctor visits because I couldn't afford the deductible and the premium in the same month.
|
An insurance company's cancellation of coverage incident to a filing of bankruptcy by a claimant is barred by the automatic stay that activates at the moment of petition filing. Work on your hypo.
|
On October 28 2016 03:12 zlefin wrote:
It's not you buying insurace; it's essentially government insuring everyone (which can be a good thing); which is different from you having insurance. I'm not sure how to explain it better if you're not getting what i'm trying to convey.
How is it government insuring me if I'm going to a company and giving them my money and the only 2 ways the government is involved is that they supply the marketplace you can shop on and they subsidize it if you for not make a lot. The actual insurance and everything about it is private.
The private company does have to abide by the rules but they always have had to the pre existing condition law was just a new regulation to add onto the pile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
