| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
I mean sure an undergrad doesn’t confer expertise consummate to a proper policy wonk, but most of those cats aren’t exactly down with the Don either. It’s this strange Jimmy hinterland where the general consensus of actual economists, who I mean are the experts here can be discarded, but Harris isn’t enough of an expert? I mean someone with a biology undergrad who works in another field ain’t a scientist, but they’re higher up the expertise scale than some bloke denying evolution or vaccines. | ||
|
Billyboy
1419 Posts
The reality is that Trump, who doesn't understand how percentages work, doesn't understand how tariffs work, and thinks that you need an ID to buy groceries is better suited for the staring roll in Sureal life two than the presidency. If Biden said any of the stuff that Trump does daily or acted as he does in front of foreign dignitaries they would be calling for his impeachment for senility. I guess with Trump always being so incredibly dumb and out of touch it is harder to prove he's slipping. There is really no where to fall. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On November 09 2025 11:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You're not going to be taken seriously with responses like this. It's not like she got her degree from a fraudulent company like Trump University. To be fair, hes a software engineer or something, this makes him a preeminent authority on what qualifies as expertise in the world of economics. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2777 Posts
On November 09 2025 07:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: he remains more economically literate than Kamala Harris though. Trump doesn't understand how percentages work; there are 5 year olds more economically literate than Trump. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22073 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18206 Posts
On November 09 2025 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote: The ACA did enshrine profits for insurance providers into law, so some measurable part of the subsidy is effectively being pocketed as profit by insurance companies and their shareholders. The righteous anger that fact engenders is something that sort of rhetoric is aiming to take advantage of. I think he's expressing hostility to health insurance at the conceptual level. Advocating for direct to consumer healthcare instead. Sounds like that's at least what I'd guess the person that he got that idea from was trying to explain to him. I'm sure someone who does know how subsidies work tried to explain something to him. And we both agree ACA isn't perfect. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the quote you posted, where Trump is saying that the Republicans should bypass the filibuster and then, to cut the legs out from under the Democrats, take the "billions of dollars" that the Democrats want to spend on subsidies for ACA, and instead send them to people who have to purchase healthcare and let them spend it on healthcare. I mean, there's a hell of a lot wrong with that sentence, but I was mostly focusing on the very small and easy to understand but where it seems he thinks he's pwning the libs if he takes the money that they want to use in subsidies and gives it to the American people "directly". That said, if you insist we can talk about banning insurance companies and expecting average Americans to pay for their own healthcare. I mean, it's true that the median American will save money over the span of their lifetime. The problem with that, however, is twofold: (1) the heavy lifting the word median is doing: some unfortunate people will get cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's or one of thousands of other afflictions that require very expensive treatment. The median American wouldn't be able to afford that treatment. However the median American doesn't need costly treatment. It is entirely unknown what American might suddenly need it, though. So health insurance works by collectivising the risks across an entire population. 10 people pay health insurance so that 4 of them can afford cancer treatment.at some point in their lives. The other 6 "overpay", but because none of the 10 know who the 4 unlucky ones will be, and none of them can afford cancer treatment on their own, it's a fair deal to share that cost. The median healthcare cost, however, is the cost for someone who doesn't get cancer at all... (2) The heavy lifting the word "lifetime" is doing. A 20-year-old American is extremely unlikely to spend a lot on healthcare. That same American is very likely to spend a lot on healthcare. If the 20-year-old didn't plan for that and start putting money aside, then they cannot actually afford the care they need during their lifetime. Instead of requiring such fiscal responsibility from 20-year-old Americans, we instead have a system that collectivises the costs: the 20-year-old American pays insurance. Most of that doesn't go to their own healthcare. It goes to the healthcare of current 80-year-olds. And then, in 60 years, the expectation is that they are still paying for their insurance, but now there are 20-year-olds who are paying for their own health. Another way of looking at it is that as a 20-year-old they were making an advance payment for their own future healthcare needs. The median American is 39. That means that for the median American most of their healthcare costs are in the future, and if they are not setting money aside for it (and let's face it, they aren't), they will not be able to afford their lifetime healthcare costs. Between the two, it'll work fine and cut costs. Healthcare only being available to the rich will obviously bring the costs down. There are far fewer rich people than poor! You would also have to accept that the poor people die from preventable conditions. But yeah, I reckon Trump would neither comprehend that nor give a crap. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1108 Posts
"FUCK YOU. I am rich important and connected, so I am not going to pay for that, sue me." That's the spirit of Tariffs, cheating contractors out of payment or denying SNAP benefits or healthcare subsidies to people, even with a court order telling you to. Or handing 40k Million dollars of bailouts to your friend's friend in Argentina. If Chuck Schumer, over the outlook that most commercial planes in the US are going to be grounded in a few weeks ruining rich people´s holidays, is going to cave, somebody need to persue the Idra approach. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45247 Posts
On November 09 2025 16:41 Gorsameth wrote: Im sure JJR means Trumps many business success, like bankrupting a casino. Multiple times, by the way! Trump's casinos went bankrupt like 3 or 4 times lol. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On November 09 2025 18:53 Acrofales wrote: Not just Trump, but Republicans, "socially liberal, economically conservative centrists", and "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" generally love that kinda nonsense.+ Show Spoiler + I'm sure someone who does know how subsidies work tried to explain something to him. And we both agree ACA isn't perfect. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the quote you posted, where Trump is saying that the Republicans should bypass the filibuster and then, to cut the legs out from under the Democrats, take the "billions of dollars" that the Democrats want to spend on subsidies for ACA, and instead send them to people who have to purchase healthcare and let them spend it on healthcare. I mean, there's a hell of a lot wrong with that sentence, but I was mostly focusing on the very small and easy to understand but where it seems he thinks he's pwning the libs if he takes the money that they want to use in subsidies and gives it to the American people "directly". That said, if you insist we can talk about banning insurance companies and expecting average Americans to pay for their own healthcare. I mean, it's true that the median American will save money over the span of their lifetime. The problem with that, however, is twofold: (1) the heavy lifting the word median is doing: some unfortunate people will get cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's or one of thousands of other afflictions that require very expensive treatment. The median American wouldn't be able to afford that treatment. However the median American doesn't need costly treatment. It is entirely unknown what American might suddenly need it, though. So health insurance works by collectivising the risks across an entire population. 10 people pay health insurance so that 4 of them can afford cancer treatment.at some point in their lives. The other 6 "overpay", but because none of the 10 know who the 4 unlucky ones will be, and none of them can afford cancer treatment on their own, it's a fair deal to share that cost. The median healthcare cost, however, is the cost for someone who doesn't get cancer at all... (2) The heavy lifting the word "lifetime" is doing. A 20-year-old American is extremely unlikely to spend a lot on healthcare. That same American is very likely to spend a lot on healthcare. If the 20-year-old didn't plan for that and start putting money aside, then they cannot actually afford the care they need during their lifetime. Instead of requiring such fiscal responsibility from 20-year-old Americans, we instead have a system that collectivises the costs: the 20-year-old American pays insurance. Most of that doesn't go to their own healthcare. It goes to the healthcare of current 80-year-olds. And then, in 60 years, the expectation is that they are still paying for their insurance, but now there are 20-year-olds who are paying for their own health. Another way of looking at it is that as a 20-year-old they were making an advance payment for their own future healthcare needs. The median American is 39. That means that for the median American most of their healthcare costs are in the future, and if they are not setting money aside for it (and let's face it, they aren't), they will not be able to afford their lifetime healthcare costs. Between the two, it'll work fine and cut costs. Healthcare only being available to the rich will obviously bring the costs down. There are far fewer rich people than poor! You would also have to accept that the poor people die from preventable conditions. But yeah, I reckon Trump would neither comprehend that nor give a crap. It's also part of what makes ending the filibuster just to pass a "clean CR" and reopen the government seem more reasonable by comparison. It also helps make Democrats choosing to take a promise from Republicans to negotiate after reopening seem like their only reasonable choice, despite how it would result in "Democrats never having power again" as micro put it. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3291 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On November 10 2025 02:00 ChristianS wrote: Nah, if they wanna nuke the filibuster let em. The “promise to negotiate” thing is worth exactly nothing, and by the time you’re accepting total capitulation just to prevent nuking the filibuster you’ve already lost wherever power the filibuster gives you. Yeah, this will be popular with "radical leftists" but not sensible mature libs/Dems/ilk that understand you can't always get everything you want and democracy is about compromise. Republicans won and that has consequences. You can't just allow Republicans to keep the government permanently shut down until/unless you get your way on perpetuating a subsidy policy that was made as a response to COVID (not healthcare prices generally). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45247 Posts
On November 10 2025 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, this will be popular with "radical leftists" but not sensible mature libs/Dems/ilk that understand you can't always get everything you want and democracy is about compromise. Republicans won and that has consequences. You can't just allow Republicans to keep the government permanently shut down until/unless you get your way on perpetuating a subsidy policy that was made as a response to COVID (not healthcare prices generally). I do wonder what proportion of people are currently in each of those two (tongue-in-cheek) categories, and if it changes based on how serious the argued issue is (or whether or not the issue hits very close to home for some people). Perhaps more and more people will gradually move from the latter group into the former group, as each person encounters their own personal final straw of trying to be diplomatic and fair to a lying, stealing, cheating Republican party. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3291 Posts
On November 10 2025 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, this will be popular with "radical leftists" but not sensible mature libs/Dems/ilk that understand you can't always get everything you want and democracy is about compromise. Republicans won and that has consequences. You can't just allow Republicans to keep the government permanently shut down until/unless you get your way on perpetuating a subsidy policy that was made as a response to COVID (not healthcare prices generally). I don’t understand, is this LibHorizons talking? Or MAGAHorizons? I would have even thought LH would be more in line with my thinking than what you’re saying. Edit: I think we might be getting the rare utterance from “DemHorizons,” a centrist Democrat who believes in gradualism and the Median Voter Theorem. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45247 Posts
On November 10 2025 04:19 ChristianS wrote: I don’t understand, is this LibHorizons talking? Or MAGAHorizons? I would have even thought LH would be more in line with my thinking than what you’re saying. Edit: I think we might be getting the rare utterance from “DemHorizons,” a centrist Democrat who believes in gradualism and the Median Voter Theorem. I think he's being sarcastic/facetious. He's stating what the self-named "sensible, mature" side would say, as they would promote what they perceive to be retaining the moral high ground while real people died all around them and the world burned (pushed by Republicans, but tacitly accepted and shrugged off by the self-named "sensible, mature" subset of Democrats who would never, ever consider stooping down to the low level of the dirty Republicans just to stop them from ruining everything). | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3291 Posts
On November 10 2025 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think he's being sarcastic/facetious. He's stating what the self-named "sensible, mature" side would say, as they would promote what they perceive to be retaining the moral high ground while real people died all around them and the world burned (pushed by Republicans, but tacitly accepted and shrugged off by the self-named "sensible, mature" subset of Democrats who would never, ever consider stooping down to the low level of the dirty Republicans just to stop them from ruining everything). I mean sure, barring his account getting hacked it’s obviously not sincere. But he’s got a lot of recent experience attempting to embody other political viewpoints and speak as them, I’m just wondering what viewpoint he’s embodying here, satirical or not. Like, every “mainstream Dem” I’m seeing out there is saying “don’t capitulate.” | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45247 Posts
On November 10 2025 05:59 ChristianS wrote: I mean sure, barring his account getting hacked it’s obviously not sincere. But he’s got a lot of recent experience attempting to embody other political viewpoints and speak as them, I’m just wondering what viewpoint he’s embodying here, satirical or not. Like, every “mainstream Dem” I’m seeing out there is saying “don’t capitulate.” Fair enough! Would you respond differently, depending on his persona? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On November 10 2025 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I do wonder what proportion of people are currently in each of those two (tongue-in-cheek) categories, and if it changes based on how serious the argued issue is (or whether or not the issue hits very close to home for some people). Perhaps more and more people will gradually move from the latter group into the former group, as each person encounters their own personal final straw of trying to be diplomatic and fair to a lying, stealing, cheating Republican party. Me too. It's a significant part of why I spent so much time and effort trying to get people to think about and discuss where their "personal final straw" was. It's also a significant part of why I advocate/d getting organized so that they have/had plans/capabilities for when it is/was. I failed to convince most of you, but I shouldn't have to. You're all plenty smart and capable enough to have recognized this. Most of you refused simply out of petulant spite. This covid-induced healthcare subsidy is a weird "final straw" imo, but it doesn't seem like anyone has any argument for how this isn't theirs (yet *sigh*). On November 10 2025 05:59 ChristianS wrote: I mean sure, barring his account getting hacked it’s obviously not sincere. But he’s got a lot of recent experience attempting to embody other political viewpoints and speak as them, I’m just wondering what viewpoint he’s embodying here, satirical or not. Like, every “mainstream Dem” I’m seeing out there is saying “don’t capitulate.” Yeah, DPB mostly gets it. That would basically be the voice of "ThirdHorizons" though. It's basically speaking for these Democrats: Several Senate Democrats are signaling a willingness to vote to reopen the government if they secure some final key concessions from the White House, a sign that a major breakthrough could be within reach amid the longest shutdown in US history, according to a person involved in the talks. The emerging deal would include a new stopgap measure to extend government funding until January and be tied to a larger package to fully fund several key agencies. The broader legislation would include three full-year appropriations bills that deal with military construction and veterans affairs, the legislative branch and the Department of Agriculture. That includes $203.5 million in new funding to enhance security measures and protection for members of Congress in addition to $852 million for US Capitol Police, per a summary provided by top Democratic appropriator Sen. Patty Murray of the bill to fund the legislative branch. The deal would not include an extension of the expiring enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies www.cnn.com If/when Democrats take the deal, variations of that will basically be the rhetoric of anyone still trying to rationalize supporting Democrats. This despite everyone here knowing Democrats are functionally hopeless if/when they take the deal. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3291 Posts
On November 10 2025 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Me too. It's a significant part of why I spent so much time and effort trying to get people to think about and discuss where their "personal final straw" was. It's also a significant part of why I advocate/d getting organized so that they have/had plans/capabilities for when it is/was. I failed to convince most of you, but I shouldn't have to. You're all plenty smart and capable enough to have recognized this. Most of you refused simply out of petulant spite. This covid-induced healthcare subsidy is a weird "final straw" imo, but it doesn't seem like anyone has any argument for how this isn't theirs (yet *sigh*). Yeah, DPB mostly gets it. That would basically be the voice of "ThirdHorizons" though. It's basically speaking for these Democrats: www.cnn.com If/when Democrats take the deal, variations of that will basically be the rhetoric of anyone still trying to rationalize supporting Democrats. This despite everyone here knowing Democrats are functionally hopeless if/when they take the deal. Ah, hadn’t seen the news that Dems look to be about to cave. Hm, I tried to keep in mind from the start that absolute cowardice is always the most likely outcome from elected Dems, but I have to admit I’m still pretty disappointed. Not over til it’s over, I guess, but geez. It increasingly feels like the opposition to this administration is an incredibly broad coalition of a pretty good majority of Americans, but unfortunately, does not include almost anybody in a position of power, private or public. I’ve seen some thinkpieces lately on the critical failure of the elites in all this, and that certainly feels pretty stark right now. Not quite sure what to do with that information, though. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
I am genuinely kind of surprised its happened so quickly after a pretty dominating win, its hard not to be conspiratorial when they seem to really seriously actually hate the idea that they might win in something other than a fucking nailbiter, like they have to kill their support when it feels like they might be getting too much of it. EDIT: Looking like one of my state senators is gonna be responsible. Tim Kaine can go fuck himself permanently and I hope people finally wise the fuck up and primary every single vaguely moderate Democrat out there because they are the damn problem. EDIT: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/abigail-spanberger-democrats-election-shutdown-healthcare-virginia-rcna242859 Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, said Sunday that Democrats in the Senate should join a majority of Senate Republicans to vote to reopen the government, regardless of whether both sides reach a deal on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies. God I hate these people with all of my god damned heart. In case anyone wonders why Im way more sympathetic to the likes of GH than any center/left of center types here this shit is why. | ||
|
Razyda
896 Posts
On November 09 2025 11:33 WombaT wrote: What track record of economic literacy does Trump have? What work are you referring to? I mean sure an undergrad doesn’t confer expertise consummate to a proper policy wonk, but most of those cats aren’t exactly down with the Don either. It’s this strange Jimmy hinterland where the general consensus of actual economists, who I mean are the experts here can be discarded, but Harris isn’t enough of an expert? I mean someone with a biology undergrad who works in another field ain’t a scientist, but they’re higher up the expertise scale than some bloke denying evolution or vaccines. He were able to count money his campaign had for starters  . Like, you know, didnt end up with 20kk deficit. | ||
| ||
|
|
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
