|
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. |
On July 20 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:
@Doodsmack and Plansix
If you're looking to reduce waste in an efficient (non-partisan) manner, you rank where you can make the biggest impact (in terms of $$) per dollar, and you allocate your "government efficiency" resources to those areas/programs/departments starting at the top of the list. Because the resources that you have to accomplish said efficiency tasks are finite.
You don't just run around swatting every fly you see.
So we cannot address hunger in the US until we solve hunger in other countries with larger starving populations? We must cure the most lethal form of cancer before curing other less lethal cancers?
And the goal isn’t to stop government waste. It is to prevent politicians from using tax payer funds to cover their bills. There are really strict rules about doing that and they should be enforced.
|
On July 20 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:
@Doodsmack and Plansix
If you're looking to reduce waste in an efficient (non-partisan) manner, you rank where you can make the biggest impact (in terms of $$) per dollar/unit of effort, and you allocate your "government efficiency" resources to those areas/programs/departments starting at the top of the list. Because the resources that you have to accomplish said efficiency tasks are finite.
You don't just run around swatting every fly you see.
So is your argument "it is okay if he is doing something shitty because there are other shittier things going on?"
It's cool that you punched me in the face! that other dude hit me with a car last week so a little punch to the face does not bother me anymore
|
I'm not sure what resources are required to address the problem of these attorneys being paid by the government. That sounds like you made up something to fit your argument.
|
|
|
re: fixing waste - i think the point moz is making is that there are a lot of problems, but we can prioritize the big ones. OTOH, while the dollar amounts for trump's legal defense may be relatively small, it would be fairly ridiculous for the bills to be made out to the fed and there's a really simple fix to that. other sources of waste might be harder to fix.
|
I thought this repeal vote wouldn't go into affect until 2019? Are they saying that those numbers will happen within 1 year of it starting or that next year, even before the repeal really takes effect, we'll still see this huge loss in coverage because of the knowledge that it will be gone?
|
On July 20 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:
@Doodsmack and Plansix
If you're looking to reduce waste in an efficient (non-partisan) manner, you rank where you can make the biggest impact (in terms of $$) per dollar, and you allocate your "government efficiency" resources to those areas/programs/departments starting at the top of the list. Because the resources that you have to accomplish said efficiency tasks are finite.
You don't just run around swatting every fly you see. So we cannot address hunger in the US until we solve hunger in other countries with larger starving populations? We must cure the most lethal form of cancer before curing other less lethal cancers?
No, addressing hunger in the US requires much less resources than solving it worldwide. Not to mention, resources don't necessarily scale linearly in terms of impact on the task at hand. There's also a judgment to be made on much to value American hunger vs non-American hunger.
I didn't (at all) say "focus on the largest problems first." I said that you focus on the problems that maximize utility given your finite resources. The probability that Trump's lawyer is near the top of that list (for the entire federal government) is surely near zero.
On July 20 2017 06:22 IyMoon wrote:
So is your argument "it is okay if he is doing something shitty because there are other shittier things going on?"
It's cool that you punched me in the face! that other dude hit me with a car last week so a little punch to the face does not bother me anymore
I never said it was or wasn't a good thing that he can use tax dollars to fund his legal defense. If there's laws in place allowing it, at least a group of legislators thought there was a good reason to permit/require it at some point. That may or may not apply in the present situation, but I'm not rushing to conclusions with basically no knowledge of the letter or spirit of said law.
If it's actually illegal, then it's the worst crime ever because government money is audited and he'll be caught.
On July 20 2017 06:23 Doodsmack wrote:
I'm not sure what resources are required to address the problem of these attorneys being paid by the government. That sounds like you made up something to fit your argument.
It requires resources (of some kind) to do anything. If paying with tax dollars is indeed permitted by law, then you have to have legislators repeal the law. In terms of dollar saved per hour of legislator attention, it's almost certainly a terrible investment. And that's assuming the law isn't in place for good reason anyway.
If it is illegal, as I said above he'll likely be held accountable.
|
Don't worry, they'll replace it before that happens. With a plan that covers everyone and is better, it'll be really great, the best. They just need a couple more years to figure it out. So vote now to repeal and replace it in 2019.
|
On July 20 2017 06:29 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought this repeal vote wouldn't go into affect until 2019? Are they saying that those numbers will happen within 1 year of it starting or that next year, even before the repeal really takes effect, we'll still see this huge loss in coverage because of the knowledge that it will be gone?
most of the insurers are taking an underwriting loss in the individual markets. only like 5 of the states have a profitable/ sustainable market - florida, alaska, indiana and a couple others. the reason they're willing is because they look at it as an investment in the future - one day they will make money, and also are hoping that the government will help them out a little more there. under the repeal, the individual markets will be toxic and will pretty much never be profitable so i guess they pull out sooner rather than later.
|
On July 20 2017 06:29 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought this repeal vote wouldn't go into affect until 2019? Are they saying that those numbers will happen within 1 year of it starting or that next year, even before the repeal really takes effect, we'll still see this huge loss in coverage because of the knowledge that it will be gone?
well if you ran a business that was going to have to change the way it operated in 2 years, you would probably get a head start on it.
|
On July 20 2017 06:29 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought this repeal vote wouldn't go into affect until 2019? Are they saying that those numbers will happen within 1 year of it starting or that next year, even before the repeal really takes effect, we'll still see this huge loss in coverage because of the knowledge that it will be gone?
The master plan is to repeal the ACA and make sure everything takes effect after an election cycle so they can blame the democrats. It isn't a very good plan, but that is the plan.
The GOP has encountered the problem of tapping into the conservatives to obtain a majority. NPR ran a story how the GOP went from the party of good, lean and mean management to the party of “NO”. And its hard to govern as the party of “NO”. What the conservatives want is the opposite of good, responsible governance.
|
On July 20 2017 04:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
I visited the very flat state of Ohio this weekend and saw some of my very liberal friends there. They are all professors at Ohio State. We got into a bunch of discussions about politics and what we agree and disagree with. Several of them are from academic family backgrounds, while my wife and I are firmly from blue collar families(less so me, but my family all worked in our tiny factory). On the internet, people would consider that to be an echo chamber of people that agree, since we are all liberal. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth, since we all had very different viewpoints on educational, labor, regulation and pretty much everything else. And the view points were even broader when we visited my wife’s remaining family. But I know how everyone in that group voted during the election.
The left and right dynamic is a trap that will make you miss out on really understanding people’s political views and ideas.
If that's the only place you sound out your political views, you're living in an echo chamber. It doesn't refer to the self-evaluated size and scope of the disagreements, but rather to how many big picture ideas and understandings of the world are taken for granted ("very liberal" usually refers to a broad set). I absolutely know many insulated Californian liberals that were appalled anyone would vote for Trump, but would also bristle at being called an echo chamber--because they disagree with incrementalism, education, corporate taxation, and foreign affairs. Then they all get out and haven't talked to a single Trump voter about politics seriously and go off on the racism/sexism/stupidity diatribes just as before. So it really sounds like echo chamber is "close to the truth" instead of "couldn't be farther from the truth" Yes, in 37 years on this earth, all my political opinions were formed and are still formed by talking to those 4 people only. That is it, no others. I live in a self imposed echo chamber to assure my purity of thought. It is sort of impressive how you so completely missed the entire point of that post.
One more try. You self-evaluate the size of disagreement on your views to declare you and yours not part of the echo chamber. It's myopic to think you're a good observer and judge of how many differing viewpoints you're allowing to see the light of day.
|
On July 20 2017 04:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
I visited the very flat state of Ohio this weekend and saw some of my very liberal friends there. They are all professors at Ohio State. We got into a bunch of discussions about politics and what we agree and disagree with. Several of them are from academic family backgrounds, while my wife and I are firmly from blue collar families(less so me, but my family all worked in our tiny factory). On the internet, people would consider that to be an echo chamber of people that agree, since we are all liberal. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth, since we all had very different viewpoints on educational, labor, regulation and pretty much everything else. And the view points were even broader when we visited my wife’s remaining family. But I know how everyone in that group voted during the election.
The left and right dynamic is a trap that will make you miss out on really understanding people’s political views and ideas.
If that's the only place you sound out your political views, you're living in an echo chamber. It doesn't refer to the self-evaluated size and scope of the disagreements, but rather to how many big picture ideas and understandings of the world are taken for granted ("very liberal" usually refers to a broad set). I absolutely know many insulated Californian liberals that were appalled anyone would vote for Trump, but would also bristle at being called an echo chamber--because they disagree with incrementalism, education, corporate taxation, and foreign affairs. Then they all get out and haven't talked to a single Trump voter about politics seriously and go off on the racism/sexism/stupidity diatribes just as before. So it really sounds like echo chamber is "close to the truth" instead of "couldn't be farther from the truth" The conclusion that a lot of Trump voters are racist and sexist is not from lack of exposure to Trump voters. It's from the opposite.
I'm a little happy that people like you arrive at the conclusion that a lot of Trump voters are racist and sexist. He had a hair less than half the country vote for him, but the line you take is that exposure to their views just confirms that this is a huge constituency. Which means what you call racist and sexist is overly broad (common among thread liberals) or you're incapable of fair judgement (the other side isn't just wrong, they're racist sexist bigoted scumbags). It's a useful link to why liberals are so hated and actually bring it on themselves from their own unforced actions.
|
Corruption is one of the major problems that can really break the legitimacy of a government, and once entrenched, is really hard to get rid of. If the head of the executive of a country uses public means for his own personal gain, that is a very big problem in my opinion. But on the other hand, it is Trump, so it is basically just another Monday.
For comprehension, i would like to mention some major scandals we have had in Germany over the last decades:
-An Ex-chancellor got into major trouble for accepting campaign donations in an incorrect way, and not paying taxes for that money. He got basically removed from the party over this. (The amount of money in question was about 2.1Million DMark (1.3 Million $ or so))
-Another ex-chancellor got hired by gazprom after he was voted out of office.
-The president (He basically doesn't have a lot of say in germany, mostly representative) got into trouble for maybe or maybe not accepting gifts from a filmmaker friend when he was (basically governor) of Niedersachsen. We are talking about accepting a credit of 500k€ with kind of good conditions, a vacation on Sylt, things like that. He abdicated over the media fallout from this (He called the BILD and asked them not to publicize any of this, which they promptly publicized as an attack on the freedom of the press), and is basically not doing anything anymore with regards to government. He got accused in court over this, but was eventually found not guilty.
It might well be possible that Trump does more horribly corrupt things in one week than the entirity of the German political class in a decade. Just for perspective.
|
On July 20 2017 06:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 04:40 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
I visited the very flat state of Ohio this weekend and saw some of my very liberal friends there. They are all professors at Ohio State. We got into a bunch of discussions about politics and what we agree and disagree with. Several of them are from academic family backgrounds, while my wife and I are firmly from blue collar families(less so me, but my family all worked in our tiny factory). On the internet, people would consider that to be an echo chamber of people that agree, since we are all liberal. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth, since we all had very different viewpoints on educational, labor, regulation and pretty much everything else. And the view points were even broader when we visited my wife’s remaining family. But I know how everyone in that group voted during the election.
The left and right dynamic is a trap that will make you miss out on really understanding people’s political views and ideas.
If that's the only place you sound out your political views, you're living in an echo chamber. It doesn't refer to the self-evaluated size and scope of the disagreements, but rather to how many big picture ideas and understandings of the world are taken for granted ("very liberal" usually refers to a broad set). I absolutely know many insulated Californian liberals that were appalled anyone would vote for Trump, but would also bristle at being called an echo chamber--because they disagree with incrementalism, education, corporate taxation, and foreign affairs. Then they all get out and haven't talked to a single Trump voter about politics seriously and go off on the racism/sexism/stupidity diatribes just as before. So it really sounds like echo chamber is "close to the truth" instead of "couldn't be farther from the truth" The conclusion that a lot of Trump voters are racist and sexist is not from lack of exposure to Trump voters. It's from the opposite. I'm a little happy that people like you arrive at the conclusion that a lot of Trump voters are racist and sexist. He had a hair less than half the country vote for him, but the line you take is that exposure to their views just confirms that this is a huge constituency. Which means what you call racist and sexist is overly broad (common among thread liberals) or you're incapable of fair judgement (the other side isn't just wrong, they're racist sexist bigoted scumbags). It's a useful link to why liberals are so hated and actually bring it on themselves from their own unforced actions.
the number of voters doesn't really say much about the assertion though, if a belief can't be bad by virtue of half of a nation holding it we'd all be living in a utopia
|
On July 20 2017 06:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 04:38 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
I visited the very flat state of Ohio this weekend and saw some of my very liberal friends there. They are all professors at Ohio State. We got into a bunch of discussions about politics and what we agree and disagree with. Several of them are from academic family backgrounds, while my wife and I are firmly from blue collar families(less so me, but my family all worked in our tiny factory). On the internet, people would consider that to be an echo chamber of people that agree, since we are all liberal. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth, since we all had very different viewpoints on educational, labor, regulation and pretty much everything else. And the view points were even broader when we visited my wife’s remaining family. But I know how everyone in that group voted during the election.
The left and right dynamic is a trap that will make you miss out on really understanding people’s political views and ideas.
If that's the only place you sound out your political views, you're living in an echo chamber. It doesn't refer to the self-evaluated size and scope of the disagreements, but rather to how many big picture ideas and understandings of the world are taken for granted ("very liberal" usually refers to a broad set). I absolutely know many insulated Californian liberals that were appalled anyone would vote for Trump, but would also bristle at being called an echo chamber--because they disagree with incrementalism, education, corporate taxation, and foreign affairs. Then they all get out and haven't talked to a single Trump voter about politics seriously and go off on the racism/sexism/stupidity diatribes just as before. So it really sounds like echo chamber is "close to the truth" instead of "couldn't be farther from the truth" Yes, in 37 years on this earth, all my political opinions were formed and are still formed by talking to those 4 people only. That is it, no others. I live in a self imposed echo chamber to assure my purity of thought. It is sort of impressive how you so completely missed the entire point of that post. One more try. You self-evaluate the size of disagreement on your views to declare you and yours not part of the echo chamber. It's myopic to think you're a good observer and judge of how many differing viewpoints you're allowing to see the light of day.
Due to the amount of time it took you to respond, I have to assume you didn’t read that careful. The post was part of a larger discussion about political polarization, left vs right and how those label are artificial. My post was highlighting that there were differences between three groups of liberals and we all brought something to the table to discuss.
You mistakenly believe that there is nothing to be gained from this “echo chamber” as you call it. This could not be more incorrect or short sighted. Discussions with people you agree with on many subjects can help you better understand your own viewpoints and others. The belief that these “echo chambers” are worthless is common on the internet, and only fierce debate with “the other side” is meritorious. So I am not surprised you are critical of these discussions and my review of them. It also fits into your ongoing performance as the peek of the self critical conservative that tells all the liberals how misguided they are.
And to quote my wife’s 10 year old god daughter, “Worry about yourself”, when it comes to self critique.
|
|
|
On July 20 2017 06:30 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:
@Doodsmack and Plansix
If you're looking to reduce waste in an efficient (non-partisan) manner, you rank where you can make the biggest impact (in terms of $$) per dollar, and you allocate your "government efficiency" resources to those areas/programs/departments starting at the top of the list. Because the resources that you have to accomplish said efficiency tasks are finite.
You don't just run around swatting every fly you see. So we cannot address hunger in the US until we solve hunger in other countries with larger starving populations? We must cure the most lethal form of cancer before curing other less lethal cancers? No, addressing hunger in the US requires much less resources than solving it worldwide. Not to mention, resources don't necessarily scale linearly in terms of impact on the task at hand. There's also a judgment to be made on much to value American hunger vs non-American hunger. I didn't (at all) say "focus on the largest problems first." I said that you focus on the problems that maximize utility given your finite resources. The probability that Trump's lawyer is near the top of that list is surely near zero. Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 06:22 IyMoon wrote:
So is your argument "it is okay if he is doing something shitty because there are other shittier things going on?"
It's cool that you punched me in the face! that other dude hit me with a car last week so a little punch to the face does not bother me anymore I never said it was or wasn't a good thing that he can use tax dollars to fund his legal defense. If there's laws in place allowing it, at least a group of legislators thought there was a good reason to permit/require it at some point. That may or may not apply in the present situation, but I'm not rushing to conclusions with basically no knowledge of the letter or spirit of said law. If it's actually illegal, then it's the worst crime ever because government money is audited and he'll be caught. Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 06:23 Doodsmack wrote:
I'm not sure what resources are required to address the problem of these attorneys being paid by the government. That sounds like you made up something to fit your argument. It requires resources (of some kind) to do anything. If paying with tax dollars is indeed permitted by law, then you have to have legislators repeal the law. In terms of dollar saved per hour of legislator attention, it's almost certainly a terrible investment. And that's assuming the law isn't in place for good reason anyway. If it is illegal, as I said above he'll likely be held accountable.
It seems more likely that the campaign or the party would be the ones to pay, not the taxpayers. If they try to get the taxpayers to pay, it's an addressable and fixable problem.
|
Based on shooting from the hip, I'd peg the racist/misogynist portion of Trump's base at 20%. There was a reputable poll that said 20% of republicans believe voting rights have gone too far in the country. To claim that there's no racism involved in the birther in chief following the first black president is implausible.
|
On July 20 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 02:44 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 02:39 Diavlo wrote:On July 20 2017 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 02:12 Wegandi wrote:On July 20 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:
The entire discussion from Kickboxer seems to be based around him arguing with some fictional version of TL. Like the topic of pronoun usage has not been discussed before. Or that 90% of the site is "leftist" and he is presenting a unique perspective. The whole thing seems set up for him to claim he is being attacked/repressed/misrepresented, right down to the demand that we watch 10 hours of video before responding to him. He is talking at us, not to us. To be fair, that 90% number isn't too far off. TL is extremely progressive. I think we might be closer to 50/50 than you think, even though many TL members might consider themselves progressive/liberal. I remember the endless threat of people yelling about the rainbow horse, gay marriage and Mephisto hilarious post that being against gay marriage was all about "Gay men kissing kills my boner". Like most video game communities, we are more diverse in opinions that people might think. Considering the amount of Europeans I don't think TL is far from being 90% liberal, at least by US standard. There is definitely a vocal conservative minority so that might skew your perception of the distribution. I do get your point about the conservatives feeling attacked/misrepresented tho. For people who like to call liberal "special snowflakes" they sure like to paint themselves as victims... It's pretty exhausting and takes a lot more time to have to argue against 4+ leftists with each post you make. Where as a leftist in this thread, you usually have one (if any) right-leaning opponents to your view posting at a given time to respond to (if you choose). Given that view, I don't think it's surprising at all the that right-leaning posters feel attacked and misrepresented... 4x the opponents means 4x the opportunity for misrepresentation, all else equal. It's not the leftist posters' fault at all, but it's a reality of the thread's heavy leftward skew. I don't feel to bad for the conservative posters. They ham it up pretty wells and sometimes take great pride in tweeking the nose of the left leaning posters. And there are differences between the conservatives posters. LordofAwesome is a find person to have a discussion with and manages to avoid "take that liberals" style posting.
Well thanks for saying that lol. I don't comment much on a lot of issues, but I try to be informed and keep an open mind about the ones I do talk about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
