|
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. |
Trump really believes Obamacare is bad. Republicans merely want to repeal it so people only get the health care they can afford on the free market.
Trump wants to give people more and better coverage under his new plan, and he thinks that is possible. However, Republicans are blocking him.
So Trump's 'solution' is to wait until Obamacare fails so so badly, that it will create extreme backlash against the democrats, and Trump can say 'I told you so'.
However, Republicans aren't so eager, for obvious reasons.
Yes, Trump is apparently that delusional.
|
On March 12 2017 11:24 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 10:08 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right but you keep going on about trump and the truth. There's not much of a relationship between the two. He's mostly just a con. Brother, I mentioned the media twice and specifically without Trump, and both times you brought up Trump. So you tell me who keeps going on and on about Trump. You're really just projecting the insecurities you wish everybody talked about more. It's just funny to hear a trump supporter criticize "credibility capital" without saying anything about trump. I think we're making forward progress by you finally accepting a_flayer's claims about the media so we can continue to what this means about Trump's rhetoric and the rest. I just expected more opposition than acceptance out of you and I hope more will follow your example.
|
On March 12 2017 11:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 11:24 Doodsmack wrote:On March 12 2017 10:08 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right but you keep going on about trump and the truth. There's not much of a relationship between the two. He's mostly just a con. Brother, I mentioned the media twice and specifically without Trump, and both times you brought up Trump. So you tell me who keeps going on and on about Trump. You're really just projecting the insecurities you wish everybody talked about more. It's just funny to hear a trump supporter criticize "credibility capital" without saying anything about trump. I think we're making forward progress by you finally accepting a_flayer's claims about the media so we can continue to what this means about Trump's rhetoric and the rest. I just expected more opposition than acceptance out of you and I hope more will follow your example.
On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right Stop trolling, Danglars.
|
On March 12 2017 11:54 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 11:48 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 11:24 Doodsmack wrote:On March 12 2017 10:08 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right but you keep going on about trump and the truth. There's not much of a relationship between the two. He's mostly just a con. Brother, I mentioned the media twice and specifically without Trump, and both times you brought up Trump. So you tell me who keeps going on and on about Trump. You're really just projecting the insecurities you wish everybody talked about more. It's just funny to hear a trump supporter criticize "credibility capital" without saying anything about trump. I think we're making forward progress by you finally accepting a_flayer's claims about the media so we can continue to what this means about Trump's rhetoric and the rest. I just expected more opposition than acceptance out of you and I hope more will follow your example. Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right Stop trolling, Danglars. Lay off it or read the original. Seriously. I don't care if he has in his mind the media charges are so ruinous that he'd better shift to talking about Trump. And then claim "you keep going on about trump." That's up to how much whataboutism he likes spewing. What I do find interesting is how everything is almost immediately accepted, like he knows how dead-on the criticism really is because he'd rather instantly shift to parallels. I didn't say anything about Trump, yet he claims I keep going on about Trump. I talked about a_flayer's critique of the media, but he doesn't even dip his pinkie toe in that pond. Clearly, we need some actual focus here and not repeated deflection.
|
On March 12 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 11:54 Aquanim wrote:On March 12 2017 11:48 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 11:24 Doodsmack wrote:On March 12 2017 10:08 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right but you keep going on about trump and the truth. There's not much of a relationship between the two. He's mostly just a con. Brother, I mentioned the media twice and specifically without Trump, and both times you brought up Trump. So you tell me who keeps going on and on about Trump. You're really just projecting the insecurities you wish everybody talked about more. It's just funny to hear a trump supporter criticize "credibility capital" without saying anything about trump. I think we're making forward progress by you finally accepting a_flayer's claims about the media so we can continue to what this means about Trump's rhetoric and the rest. I just expected more opposition than acceptance out of you and I hope more will follow your example. On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right Stop trolling, Danglars. Lay off it or read the original. Seriously. I don't care if he has in his mind the media charges are so ruinous that he'd better shift to talking about Trump. And then claim "you keep going on about trump." That's up to how much whataboutism he likes spewing. What I do find interesting is how everything is almost immediately accepted, like he knows how dead-on the criticism really is because he'd rather instantly shift to parallels. I didn't say anything about Trump, yet he claims I keep going on about Trump. I talked about a_flayer's critique of the media, but he doesn't even dip his pinkie toe in that pond. Clearly, we need some actual focus here and not repeated deflection. I have read the original. Doodsmack never said anything which indicated an opinion in either direction on a_flayer's argument. You asserted that he did, he corrected you, and yet you're still trying to assert that he did.
Your desire to appear that you are being convincing or that you have a good argument, and ignoring the facts which don't correspond to that desire, is not making you look good to anybody else here Danglars.
|
On March 12 2017 12:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 11:54 Aquanim wrote:On March 12 2017 11:48 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 11:24 Doodsmack wrote:On March 12 2017 10:08 Danglars wrote:On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right but you keep going on about trump and the truth. There's not much of a relationship between the two. He's mostly just a con. Brother, I mentioned the media twice and specifically without Trump, and both times you brought up Trump. So you tell me who keeps going on and on about Trump. You're really just projecting the insecurities you wish everybody talked about more. It's just funny to hear a trump supporter criticize "credibility capital" without saying anything about trump. I think we're making forward progress by you finally accepting a_flayer's claims about the media so we can continue to what this means about Trump's rhetoric and the rest. I just expected more opposition than acceptance out of you and I hope more will follow your example. On March 12 2017 10:02 Doodsmack wrote: I didn't say anything about whether a_flayer has it right Stop trolling, Danglars. Lay off it or read the original. Seriously. I don't care if he has in his mind the media charges are so ruinous that he'd better shift to talking about Trump. And then claim "you keep going on about trump." That's up to how much whataboutism he likes spewing. What I do find interesting is how everything is almost immediately accepted, like he knows how dead-on the criticism really is because he'd rather instantly shift to parallels. I didn't say anything about Trump, yet he claims I keep going on about Trump. I talked about a_flayer's critique of the media, but he doesn't even dip his pinkie toe in that pond. Clearly, we need some actual focus here and not repeated deflection. I have read the original. Doodsmack never said anything which indicated an opinion in either direction on a_flayer's argument. You asserted that he did, he corrected you, and yet you're still trying to assert that he did. Your desire to appear that you are being convincing or that you have a good argument, and ignoring the facts which don't correspond to that desire, is not making you look good to anybody else here Danglars. Who needs to make any argument when people prefer to talk about Y when I comment on X? I find it extremely troubling to always deflect to Y when X is brought up, so I'm forced to believe that X is far too damaging to admit that whataboutism enters in. Listen, when we have an election there are two candidates so it's as much a question of why you're voting for the first guy as why you're not voting for the second guy. But if you're so backward to demand a conversation on topics you would rather prefer to discuss, then open up that discussion with content and don't troll around with nonresponses. It's insulting and conversation skimmers that won't engage with the topic are equally insulting. I'm all ears if you want to bring a developed, cogent argument about why side topics matter to the specific topic. Otherwise you're just shouting comments from the peanut gallery like so many fake news reporters at press briefings to be perfectly honest.
|
On March 12 2017 11:43 Philoctetes wrote: Trump really believes Obamacare is bad. Republicans merely want to repeal it so people only get the health care they can afford on the free market.
Trump wants to give people more and better coverage under his new plan, and he thinks that is possible. However, Republicans are blocking him.
So Trump's 'solution' is to wait until Obamacare fails so so badly, that it will create extreme backlash against the democrats, and Trump can say 'I told you so'.
However, Republicans aren't so eager, for obvious reasons.
Yes, Trump is apparently that delusional.
What Trump clearly does not understand is that if Obamacare sticks around and gets worse in the next couple of years it will be him and the Republicans who are blamed not the Democrats. This is because they had complete control and couldn't get it fixed. Can't blame anyone else when the ball is in your court.
|
Based on responses such as "I can't believe I actually agree with a_flayer", I'm pretty sure everyone just outright dismisses my views unless they explicitly state otherwise.
|
republican campaign slogan 2018. "we ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare but despite majorities in both the senate and house it's still broken and what we passed arguably made it worse and raised all your premiums by thousands of dollars but elect us because we need to fix the mess Obama made."
Dems still need to start getting some positive platforms to run on though. off the top of my head childhood hunger, veteren reintegration and support, and fighting opioid addiction are be pretty universally popular. Mental health reform also.
|
also another crazy white guy. This reminds me a bit of the episode of flight of the concords where someone was super racist to them because he thought they were from Australia instead of New Zealand.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/11/us/muslim-florida-store-fire/index.html
(CNN)A 64-year-old Florida man tried to set a convenience store on fire because he thought the owners were Muslim, St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara said.
Richard Lloyd told deputies he wanted to "run the Arabs out of our country" so he pushed a dumpster in front of the Port St. Lucie store and set the contents on fire, Mascara said in a news release posted on Facebook
Lloyd told detectives he assumed the owner was Muslim and that angered him because of "what they are doing in the Middle East," Mascara said. "It's unfortunate that Mr. Lloyd made the assumption that the store owners were Arabic when, in fact, they are of Indian descent," Mascara said. The sheriff said Lloyd's mental health will be evaluated and the state attorney's office will decide if this was a hate crime. The fire at the Met Mart in Port St. Lucie was quickly put out Friday morning and did not cause much damage, Mascara said. The store was closed and protected by security shutters.
|
On March 12 2017 14:12 Danglars wrote: Who needs to make any argument when people prefer to talk about Y when I comment on X? I find it extremely troubling to always deflect to Y when X is brought up, so I'm forced to believe that X is far too damaging to admit that whataboutism enters in.
On March 12 2017 14:31 a_flayer wrote: Based on responses such as "I can't believe I actually agree with a_flayer", I'm pretty sure everyone just outright dismisses my views unless they explicitly state otherwise. I don't think there is any worth in discussing anything with people who make up things that the other person did not say in order to score cheap points.
Which is probably also why nobody wants to talk about X with you, Danglars.
Do have a nice day.
|
|
Can someone explain to me what purported means in this instance? Cause it seems like it makes it illegal to call someone your spouse if your legally married to someone else which seems to be a violation of the first amendment. Or do they just mean purported in terms of claiming legal status. I mean if it's legal to pretend to be a military veteran shouldn't it also be legal to say someone's your wife even if you already have one?
(CNN)By the narrowest of margins, a bill expanding Utah's anti-bigamy law passed the state Senate just before a midnight deadline Thursday.
The bill changes the wording of what makes someone a bigamist in the state and adds penalties for cases that involve abuse, fraud and human trafficking, according to the text of the bill. Kody Brown and his four wives, the stars of the reality TV show "Sister Wives," sued Utah in 2011, saying its law was unconstitutional. The polygamists won in US District Court in 2013 but the decision was overturned on appeal last year. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah state Rep. Mike Noel, a Republican, proposed changes to the anti-bigamy law after reviewing the Brown case. His goal with rewording the law is to avoid any potential lawsuits, he told CNN affiliate KTSU in February. The law would now say that a person is guilty of bigamy if he or she lives with a purported spouse while legally married to someone else. The current law says bigamy occurs when a married man weds someone "spiritually" or when he cohabitates with someone.
According to KTSU, the office of Utah's attorney general has said it will prosecute polygamy cases only if they involve other crimes.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/11/politics/utah-bigamy-law/index.html
|
Seems like you haven't lived in Florida for long. As a native, everything under the sun happens in Florida.
|
considering it's miami and road rage happens I don't see that being too crazy. A massive overreaction yes, but not that crazy.
wasn't the guy who wanted to blow up target to tank their stocks from florida?
|
On March 12 2017 14:39 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: republican campaign slogan 2018. "we ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare but despite majorities in both the senate and house it's still broken and what we passed arguably made it worse and raised all your premiums by thousands of dollars but elect us because we need to fix the mess Obama made."
Dems still need to start getting some positive platforms to run on though. off the top of my head childhood hunger, veteren reintegration and support, and fighting opioid addiction are be pretty universally popular. Mental health reform also. Considering it's the party that ran on the idea that Obama was responsible for doubling up the debt and having the slowest recovery from a recession while simultaneously blocking every attempt he made, I don't think they are too afraid of being shameless. And since it worked I don't see why they wouldn't try again.
Hopefully the people's willingness to blame whoever is in charge will actually work for the democrat this time.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China?
|
On March 12 2017 17:01 LegalLord wrote: By the way, does anyone think we'll ever have a president who reduces the national debt? Or are we going to increase debt-to-GDP in perpetuity until the country starts to be owned by China?
You will probably increase the debt until money becomes pointless at which point it will slowly start to be exchanged for something else and the debt will taper off and die. This could take a hundred years or so though. US debt today is more or less like a tax the rest of the world pays to you, it's way to big to fail because it would ruin the entire world economy completely.
|
|
Other than Trump's firing of Preet Bharara and the slow burn undergirding the failed healthcare bill, the news cycle is pretty quiet this weekend.
|
|
|
|