EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9712
| 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. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1943 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4751 Posts
Also Trump said he trusted the people in the meeting to come up with a good deal, but the one they came up with was garbage. Path to citizenship + chain migration for virtually no action on security (remember how excited people were in this thread?). I remember when the Democrats were in power I was told the minority party had to adjust expectations. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:34 ChristianS wrote: I'm confused. This is the September 2016 one, no? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/donald-trump-health.html?referer= And this is the most recent one: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-doctor-details-trump-health First says 6'3", 236 pounds. Second says 6'3", 239 pounds. That doesn't mean they're not lying, but where's the height change stuff coming from? Edit: I can understand the impulse to distrust that release, considering all the weird superlatives and politically convenient predictions (and Trump's general lack of credibility). I just worry this stuff is going a little in this direction: http://www.thebeatlesneverexisted.com/Heights/ It does not require knowing that in the past the majority of things coming out of the White House are lies or misleading to know this report is bunk. All it requires is two eyes and having lived on this planet for more than a year. Trump is objectively not 6"3 and he does not weigh 239lbs. Period. The doctors little press conference yesterday sounded more like a political speech than a medical report. Frankly, even if there was something grossly wrong with the president (any president), do you really think they would announce that to the world? Let's not be naieve here. The lying about his size and weight is just another stupid lie which shows how petty this administration is. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:26 ChristianS wrote: How can you judge who is at fault without looking at the deal being rejected? Suppose Democrats put together a "deal" consisting of: -universal healthcare, universal basic income -100% marginal tax rate over $100,000 -National gun registry created immediately -Trump is impeached All D's vote for it, All R's vote against, the government shuts down. Do we blame the Republicans for voting against the deal, thus forcing a shutdown? Assigning blame should be done based on who is more insistent on getting policy concessions, because they were more willing to risk a shutdown to get what they want. If the Republicans insist on a deal so far right that they can't even get all the Republican votes, let alone Democrats, it sounds like they're the ones more insistent on policy concessions. That said, I haven't seen the terms of this deal that Democrats and a few Republicans are apparently rejecting. From what I had seen, Democrats want: -legislative protection for DACA recipients (which supposedly Dems, many Republicans, and Trump all want) -CHIP funding (which supposedly Democrats, Republicans, and Trump all want) -otherwise clean budget extension Republicans apparently want: -more money for border security (which Republicans and Trump want, and Democrats seem willing to accept) -$19B for a border wall (which Republicans and Trump want, and Democrats vehemently don't want) -otherwise clean budget extension The deal I saw had both the Democrats' wishlist items, border security, something like $300M (iirc) for "fence construction" or something, and it funded the government. Trump initially supported the deal, now it sounds like he doesn't. If Republicans reject that deal because they want policy concessions, and then the government shuts down, it sounds like blame pretty naturally goes to the Republicans. Of course all that's off the top of my head, so I might have gotten something wrong. Have Republicans put together an alternate deal I haven't seen? As an interesting sidenote, the CBO recently concluded that extending CHIP for 10 years would actually reduce the budget deficit: The bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation has issued a report that seemed to suggest extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program with certain components — reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2022, extending the requirement that states keep eligibility levels that existed in 2010 and making the federal matching rate for the program the same as in 2010 — would not add to the federal deficit and could potentially improve it. “The agencies estimate that enacting such legislation would decrease the deficit by $6.0 billion over the 2018-2027 period,” the Jan. 11 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) letter to Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey), ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, stated. Source The reason is because if CHIP expires the sicker beneficiaries will move to the ACA exchanges, while the healthier ones will go without insurance, which is a feasible option now that the GOP has repealed the individual mandate. Providing insurance through the ACA exchanges is more expensive than it is to provide it through CHIP, so failing to renew CHIP actually costs the government more money. So basically the GOP is holding CHIP hostage solely as a bargaining strategy. | ||
KwarK
United States42688 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:34 ChristianS wrote: I'm confused. This is the September 2016 one, no? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/donald-trump-health.html?referer= And this is the most recent one: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-doctor-details-trump-health First says 6'3", 236 pounds. Second says 6'3", 239 pounds. That doesn't mean they're not lying, but where's the height change stuff coming from? Edit: I can understand the impulse to distrust that release, considering all the weird superlatives and politically convenient predictions (and Trump's general lack of credibility). I just worry this stuff is going a little in this direction: http://www.thebeatlesneverexisted.com/Heights/ https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-drivers-license-height-232948 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21685 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:42 Introvert wrote: Did everyone miss the part where this doctor has been around for a while and isn't a lackey. He's also been vouched for by people in the previous admin. Also Trump said he trusted the people in the meeting to come up with a good deal, but the one they came up with was garbage. Path to citizenship + chain migration for virtually no action on security (remember how excited people were in this thread?). I remember when the Democrats were in power I was told the minority party had to adjust expectations. Because we have every reason to suspect the doctor had been told to lie. And we have no reason to believe anything coming out of the White House since they have been caught lying constantly. And yes, by this reasoning everything is always a lie, that's what happens when you get caught lying repeatedly and no one trusts you anymore. At this point they could put him live on stage with a tape measure next to him and I will suspect they modified the tape measure before I believe them. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:42 Introvert wrote: Did everyone miss the part where this doctor has been around for a while and isn't a lackey. He's also been vouched for by people in the previous admin? The doctor said he is around Trump all day but has never heard him repeat himself. He is either bold face lying or is oblivious to the point of incompetence. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4751 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:42 Introvert wrote: Did everyone miss the part where this doctor has been around for a while and isn't a lackey. He's also been vouched for by people in the previous admin. Also Trump said he trusted the people in the meeting to come up with a good deal, but the one they came up with was garbage. Path to citizenship + chain migration for virtually no action on security (remember how excited people were in this thread?). I remember when the Democrats were in power I was told the minority party had to adjust expectations. re: doctor I did not miss that part; and it does give some credence, but there are considerable problems with the report provided which makes it seem suspect. it also does nothing to allay most of my actual medical concerns, as it simply did not address them. re: your comment just above, (assuming your casting aspersions on what others are saying on the topic) you have trump to thank for that, he's the source of the degradation in discourse. your comment is rather vague though. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
As I understand, conservative arguments against "free ____" is that it gives "good people's money" to "not as good people". It incentivizes laziness or whatever. But the reason I address kid's health/dental care is that there is truly nothing that they can ever do. They are 100% powerless and even with the best boot straps you've ever seen, they will not be able to get braces when they are 12 years old. There is no way that kids can feel incentivized to get healthcare. Either their parents are able to provide it or they are not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:51 Introvert wrote: What is going on in this thread right now (and across the left/media) is going to be great for the future, thanks guys. The White House constantly lying about provable facts worthy of discussion. The health report is clearly written to cater to the President's ego and views of himself, to the point where people can point out that it is fiction. They are not even trying. Again, this White House lied about the rain that we all watched fall on the President and people attending inauguration. They lied about the fucking weather. If they are willing to lie about that, they are willing to lie about anything. If you don't think we should discuss that, I'm not really sure what you would feel is worthy of discussion. Edit: There is video of what Trump said. He said he would sign any deal. Any deal and wouldn't ask for specific things. He said that out loud and people in this thread watched it. Please do not treat us like morons. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:42 Introvert wrote: Did everyone miss the part where this doctor has been around for a while and isn't a lackey. He's also been vouched for by people in the previous admin. It's not exactly that I think the doctor is a shill, I just haven't seen enough evidence that he wouldn't put out a slightly more favorable report if the president directly asked him to. If the president directly says "Look, declaring me 'obese' or saying I might not make it another 7 years would directly undermine my presidency. I need you to go tell those people I'm not obese and that I'll be fine for another 7 years," would he go along with it? I think a lot of people would fib a little like that for their boss, especially if he's the President. Otherwise, it seems very strange for a medical professional to say a 71 year old will definitely for sure be fine for another 7 years, particularly when you're already acknowledging he has high blood pressure, he's 1 lb off obese, and his diet is poor. Even if he's in perfect health, that's an age where shit can happen pretty frequently. Anybody wanna look up actuarial tables for Trump? If he went to get life insurance today, what would the premium be? Also Trump said he trusted the people in the meeting to come up with a good deal, but the one they came up with was garbage. Path to citizenship + chain migration for virtually no action on security (remember how excited people were in this thread?). I remember when the Democrats were in power I was told the minority party had to adjust expectations. I could see the path to citizenship and chain migration stuff being a bridge too far. Have Republicans put out an alternative? It's hard to know what Dems are supposed to do if they go into a room with Republicans, with the president's blessing, hammer out a deal, and then the Republicans just say "nope, nevermind." If they then put out some deal with a border wall in it and insist it's that or shutdown, this still seems pretty squarely on Republicans' shoulders. Especially when Trump has been kinda pro-shutdown before. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote: The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:47 KwarK wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-drivers-license-height-232948 Wait so it does match what they said in the campaign, just not what his driver's license said? I'm just trying to figure out what the claim is. Who exactly is claiming it's an old age growth spurt? I've been variously described as 6'4" or 6'5" and I usually don't correct people either way. I think I'm somewhere between the two, but it doesn't seem like it matters that much. I could definitely see Trump being the kind of guy who would be very eager for the higher number though, especially if it kept him out of the "obese" category. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote: I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. There was nothing private about that meeting. There were a ton of people in the room, from White House staff to all levels of congressional staff. Republican senators got in an argument with Trump about the comment. He blew up the deal they thought was a sure thing a week before the shut down. There is no way that encounter was not getting leaked to the press, they are in the same god damn building. The President called a bunch of our allied nations shitholes in a meeting with both parties, no one can sit on that. Republicans didn't even deny it because the president screwed them over so hard. I think you vastly underestimate how bad those comments were and how even some Republicans can't justify them. This is a forced error by Trump, but he is just too stupid to realize it. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 18 2018 02:54 Mohdoo wrote: I'm curious how people feel about free healthcare for kids. My healthcare situation growing up was pretty shitty. I was entirely reliant on my mom and in retrospect, there was truly nothing I could do to get better healthcare. Out of all social programs for helping kids, covering their healthcare feels like the least exploitable. In my eyes, every medical need that American children have should be covered. Same for dental care. I have known many people who have gotten braces in their 20s because their parents couldn't afford it growing up. Some people have some truly terrible teeth as a result. They are doing the best they can, but shit, this shouldn't have happened. As I understand, conservative arguments against "free ____" is that it gives "good people's money" to "not as good people". It incentivizes laziness or whatever. But the reason I address kid's health/dental care is that there is truly nothing that they can ever do. They are 100% powerless and even with the best boot straps you've ever seen, they will not be able to get braces when they are 12 years old. There is no way that kids can feel incentivized to get healthcare. Either their parents are able to provide it or they are not. I don't mind providing such; it seems to be a good ethical case; and the practical case is decent too iirc. (pending an actuarial assessment of costs of course, and there's always a lot of details about exactly what should be covered) | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote: I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. No functioning democracy should have a president like Trump (I work under the definition that somewhat informed voters and political parties at least attempting to represent their constituents interests are part of a functioning democracy). Expecting the democrats to play mature, after 8 years of pure obstructionist BS and a blatantly partisan president who has made it clear he isn't representing the country, just his supporters, is absurd. Absolutely ****ing ridiculous. You don't get to elect a child and then demand maturity from the opposition, that's just insane. Democrats are expected to be flawless politicians while Republicans can be competitive running flaming sentient garbage so long as it tows the party line. And while "private", it was still a professional environment, not his late night confessions to a group of close friends. Besides, it can easily be argued that not having the voting population be fully aware of the president's mindset and approach to diplomacy tangibly affects the entire country. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Personally I look forward to the debates 200 years from now about the Fitter Trump theory a la the Bigger Luke theory. I hope they think Steel Ball Run was inspired by him and he has access to Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, too. Would explain a lot, like how he's convinced New Jersey Muslims cheered during 9/11. | ||
| ||
