EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8742
| 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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
It is of course well known that the White House phones are really cell phones dressed up to look like landlines. #fakephones Trump was always going to lie about why he didn't call. I'm honestly surprised he didn't go with something like "my schedule was full" since that would at least work for his base. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 15 2017 12:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I generally interpret universal coverage as by definition being affordable. Universal coverage doesn't make it affordable it's what countries have demanded accountability and justification for price through various means. It's been the main flaw with the US healthcare debate, coverage won't lower price without regulation, many countries have universal insurance based coverage but they also have things like insurance companies have to operate as nonprofits. The reason the US healthcare is unusually expensive is the medical supply industry isn't regulated for price just safety and the medial insurance industry isn't forced to operate as nonprofits, frankly all insurance industries should operate as nonprofits, profiting off people's misfortune/lack thereof is just janky otherwise. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Apparently he said this during a speech. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
On September 15 2017 13:09 ticklishmusic wrote: insurance companies effectively take on the risk for the other people. they should have some sort of compensation for that, otherwise why would they be in the business? sure there are plenty of non profits (a bunch of the blues) but our world doesn't tick based purely on a "yeah sure i'll do this for free" model. and not every single insurance company has a warren buffet at the helm investing the float. In The Netherlands all health insurers except for one are non profit. You pay a premium for coverage (like any other insurance). Everyone pays the same premium but poor people get support from the government. Employers have to pay in as well. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Turkey’s recent purchase of an advanced Russian anti-air weapons system may have violated a U.S. law that would require an automatic imposition of sanctions on the NATO member, a top Democratic lawmaker said today. The letter, sent by Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin to Trump administration officials, warns that Ankara’s purchase of Moscow’s S-400 air defense system, which finalized on Tuesday, violates congressional sanctions against Russia signed into law last month. The legislation imposes sanctions “on any person that conducts a significant transaction with the Russian Federation’s defense or intelligence sectors,” wrote Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Trump White House resisted the sanctions as a congressional intrusion on presidential diplomacy. “These are mandatory sanctions and constitute a commitment by the United States to deter Russia from attacking the United States and its allies in the future,” said Cardin’s letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. “As a U.S. ally, it is unfortunate that Turkey has appeared to align itself with Moscow during this critical time,” Cardin added. The S-400 is Russia’s most advanced anti-air missile system and was originally designed to intercept U.S. strategic aircraft. It has a range of nearly 250 miles and can reportedly hit 80 targets at once. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/14/turkey-russia-purchase-may-trigger-sanctions-242725 | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 15 2017 13:57 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/908463512565030913 Apparently he said this during a speech. Technically the distinctions are blurring. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 15 2017 10:12 Slaughter wrote: Is Danglers really getting his panties in a twist because they covered a statue in a shroud? Not even damaging it? Remind me who the easily triggered snowflakes are again? Out: The statue thing is about neonazis and the confederacy. In: So BLM puts a black shroud on a founding father, what of it? The slippery slope and attendant slippery standards is the rule, not the exception. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23208 Posts
On September 15 2017 15:27 Danglars wrote: Out: The statue thing is about neonazis and the confederacy. In: So BLM puts a black shroud on a founding father, what of it? The slippery slope and attendant slippery standards is the rule, not the exception. Some of the statues are about neonazis and the confederacy, some are about the white washing and hero worship of historical figures, both happen to be rooted in white supremacy. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 15 2017 15:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Some of the statues are about neonazis and the confederacy, some are about the white washing and hero worship of historical figures, both happen to be rooted in white supremacy. You sound pleased BLM took a black shroud over the statue of Thomas Jefferson. They charged he was a racist and rapist. Slippery slope bro. And if liking Thomas Jefferson is born out of white supremacy, you're getting to the point where white supremacy is the reason you stubbed your toe this morning. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 15 2017 15:46 Danglars wrote: You sound pleased BLM took a black shroud over the statue of Thomas Jefferson. They charged he was a racist and rapist. Slippery slope bro. And if liking Thomas Jefferson is born out of white supremacy, you're getting to the point where white supremacy is the reason you stubbed your toe this morning. A casual inspection of Jefferson's Wikipedia page says nothing about him being a rapist. However, it does indicate that the charge of racism has sufficient basis to be at least credible, which is the more relevant charge with respect to "white supremacy" anyway. Given that, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to say that "white supremacy" plays a non-zero part in the reason why Jefferson has the amount of respect which he does. Postscript 1: Personally I don't really consider "founding father" to be a particularly virtuous title inherently, it's just a statement of historical fact. I'm not an American, though, so I imagine at least some of you feel differently. Postscript 2: I'm explicitly not saying that Jefferson isn't worthy of respect, I'm saying that he might have some amount less if not for "white supremacism" and analogous concepts. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On September 15 2017 12:12 LegalLord wrote: ... why exactly? Dawg really. You should understand this. If you spin for Trump, this should make sense. True Red Conservatives, not the fuckheads who talk about immigrants and the browns, understand that government is the real enemy. Tillerson is making good on the Koch agenda and moving to destroy the efficacy of the government to prove the point that government is always evil. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. This is a core value of non-Trumpkin conservatism. Did you read Ayn Rand? Collective action is always bad, right? If the government does something effective, that hurts the entrepreneurial spirit if you read Ayn Rand seriously. Playing dumb here just reveals your bad faith. EDIT: This is the real conservatism. Not bullshit about family values that no one takes seriously anymore. The real stuff. "i don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On September 15 2017 16:46 Aquanim wrote: A casual inspection of Jefferson's Wikipedia page says nothing about him being a rapist. However, it does indicate that the charge of racism has sufficient basis to be at least credible, which is the more relevant charge with respect to "white supremacy" anyway. Given that, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to say that "white supremacy" plays a non-zero part in the reason why Jefferson has the amount of respect which he does. Postscript 1: Personally I don't really consider "founding father" to be a particularly virtuous title inherently, it's just a statement of historical fact. I'm not an American, though, so I imagine at least some of you feel differently. Postscript 2: I'm explicitly not saying that Jefferson isn't worthy of respect, I'm saying that he might have some amount less if not for "white supremacism" and analogous concepts. Read the sally Hemings section, you cant consent to sex with that power dynamic. I like a lot about Thomas Jefferson I find him interesting, also his house is pretty cool if you get a chance to visit it , but perfect hero person he was not. The criticism put forth by BLM is completely justified. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 15 2017 19:12 BlueBird. wrote: Read the sally Hemings section, you cant consent to sex with that power dynamic. I like a lot about Thomas Jefferson I find him interesting, also his house is pretty cool if you get a chance to visit it , but perfect hero person he was not. The criticism put forth by BLM is completely justified. I'll pay that as sufficient basis to be plausible that consent was not reasonably obtained, sure. I'll also point out that draping a black cloth over a statue is a long way from inflicting permanent vandalisation or destruction on it. Furthermore the argument made was that ... Jefferson's statue was "an emblem of white supremacy" that should be "re-contextualized with a plaque to include that history". not that the statue should be removed. I think that indicates a feeling that the statue has some value despite being "an emblem of white supremacy". tl;dr: I don't think the "slippery slope" argument has much merit. | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7220 Posts
On September 15 2017 19:12 BlueBird. wrote: Read the sally Hemings section, you cant consent to sex with that power dynamic. I like a lot about Thomas Jefferson I find him interesting, also his house is pretty cool if you get a chance to visit it , but perfect hero person he was not. The criticism put forth by BLM is completely justified. Regarding the rape thing and power dynamic, i think its a bad idea to compare todays standards of rape, which i dont think society has even agreed on currently, with the 1700 or 1800s. Depending on your definition of rape, you could argue every woman was constantly raped back then. I get hemmings being a slave takes the power dynamic to the extreme, but realistically none of us know if she felt raped or not. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On September 15 2017 15:27 Danglars wrote: Out: The statue thing is about neonazis and the confederacy. In: So BLM puts a black shroud on a founding father, what of it? The slippery slope and attendant slippery standards is the rule, not the exception. I don't recall your position on this, so I thought I'd just ask: what do you think about removing statues in general? I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't like removing statues of Lee, but more broadly, when is it okay/good to remove statues? Does it just depend on how bad the historical figure (that is, is it okay to take down statues of Hitler? What about Nathan Bedford Forrest?)? Does it matter at all when the statue was erected, and by whom? Or maybe it's less about the merits of individual statues, and more about pushing against the slippery slope (e.g. "We shouldn't take down Nathan Bedford Forrest statues because if we do, soon people will be taking down statues of Washington/Jefferson"). | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
my bad, three times already this year that i've found on a ten second glance. where's the outrage? | ||
| ||
