EPTit seems like that would apply even more so now. it also might be rather moot depending on how the midterms go.
I wouldn't say ryan has nothing; as he's still a congressperson if he loses the speakership; or he could just retire from politics.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 92
| 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 | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
it seems like that would apply even more so now. it also might be rather moot depending on how the midterms go. I wouldn't say ryan has nothing; as he's still a congressperson if he loses the speakership; or he could just retire from politics. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 10 2018 00:44 Gorsameth wrote: Really? Did the Republican party fall in line while I wasn't looking? Last I heard they were repeatedly struggling to get a simply majority, which they themselves hold. No one wanted the job last time and they had to beg and plead Ryan to do it. There has been talking about replacing him for almost as long as he has been speaker. I don't see it happening. I see a difference between falling in line and being pro-Trump. At one point, the never-trump folks were able to be pretty openly defiant. Romney is a great example of how this dynamic has shifted. There are a few outspoken critics, like Flake, but compared to what we saw in the primary, Trump has essentially absorbed the party into himself. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 10 2018 00:20 PeTraSoHot wrote: Do you have anything to say about the specific video I posted there, or are you just conceding the hypocrisy it exposes and just moving on to trying to discredit the source? He posted a video called “The truth about the youtube shooter” around 24 hours after the shooting took place. He acts like it is breaking news, its really just him responding to all the bullshit speculation he found on the internet 24 hours after the shooting. Also, I can use the power of google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice To comfirm that the guy is a 9/11 truther that tried to mail DVDs to the troops in the field saying 9/11 was an inside job. So I would say that we can discredit pretty much all of his output without support from other sources based in reality. If you are going to post these types of videos, at be aware of what we will find when we type the authors name into a search engine. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On April 10 2018 00:20 PeTraSoHot wrote: Amazing... Am I the only one seeing the problem there? Truly amazing. Also, you can give money to a charity. Or do your own charity work. You'd probably spend the money more efficiently than you would by outsourcing your charity to government (while forcing everyone else to do the same). Do you have anything to say about the specific video I posted there, or are you just conceding the hypocrisy it exposes and just moving on to trying to discredit the source? That's not a genuine answer. Same problem as above. I'm only interested in a relevant response. It's ok if someone is rude to me while addressing my point. Maybe I'll have a more civil opening next time. We can hope. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I should donate 100 bucks to a charity? I should volunteer my time? How does that fix the healthcare problem? Even better, how does this help said problem in any way at all? I literally just got my first job as a nurse last week (and I'm still a student) so I'm still pretty poor. Hence my previous comments. I would much rather the government tax my 75k a year (along with everyone else) and provide coverage to everyone. You have no basis on which to assume that the government would fuck it all up other than your assumption. In fact, as a veteran, I have found the government run VA system to be excellent as of late. | ||
|
PeTraSoHot
0 Posts
On April 10 2018 00:56 Plansix wrote: He posted a video called “The truth about the youtube shooter” around 24 hours after the shooting took place. He acts like it is breaking news, its really just him responding to all the bullshit speculation he found on the internet 24 hours after the shooting. Also, I can use the power of google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice To comfirm that the guy is a 9/11 truther that tried to mail DVDs to the troops in the field saying 9/11 was an inside job. So I would say that we can discredit pretty much all of his output without support from other sources based in reality. If you are going to post these types of videos, at be aware of what we will find when we type the authors name into a search engine. I am fully aware that if I post verifiable content that is inconvenient to what you think is true, you will ignore that content entirely and attack the source. You have made it thoroughly clear. On April 10 2018 01:06 Ayaz2810 wrote: I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I should donate 100 bucks to a charity? I should volunteer my time? How does that fix the healthcare problem? Even better, how does this help said problem in any way at all? I literally just got my first job as a nurse last week (and I'm still a student) so I'm still pretty poor. Hence my previous comments. I would much rather the government tax my 75k a year (along with everyone else) and provide coverage to everyone. You have no basis on which to assume that the government would fuck it all up other than your assumption. In fact, as a veteran, I have found the government run VA system to be excellent as of late. "I'm still pretty poor" "It's as if you expect me to suddenly change my mind and decide I don't want to help others because it might cost me. " You're already not helping others because it will cost you. Also, I think it is illegitimate for you to argue "Why would I donate 100 bucks to a charity when I could let the government take tens of thousands from my 75k salary." That is a dishonest representation of the scenario. I don't know if you should volunteer you're time, but I don't know why you're asking that question sarcastically if you are a morally virtuous giver to the needy, as you seem to be claiming. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
What is your argument exactly? Just posting a random video won't do any good no matter what. The US healthcare system is creatinge worse results than most others. Most others are social-insurance or paid by tax. So, whats your alternative? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 10 2018 01:25 PeTraSoHot wrote: I am fully aware that if I post verifiable content that is inconvenient to what you think is true, you will ignore that content entirely and attack the source. You have made it thoroughly clear. You posted a 9/11 truther in the thread with almost no content to your post. This is a demand that we respond to him, rather than you and what you have to say. If you are going to make arguments, make them yourself. Don’t complain when the lazy argument you made is undercut by pointing out the source is a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
| ||
|
PeTraSoHot
0 Posts
On April 10 2018 01:33 Plansix wrote: If you are going to make arguments, make them yourself. Don’t complain when the lazy argument you made is undercut by pointing out the source is a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. It's a concise argument backed by proof. The person who posted the verifiable information is irrelevant, and your unwillingness to engage the argument is what is lazy here. If I posted the EXACT same clips from cspan or other sources you deemed credible, I wonder how you would have gone about dodging the argument. I'll make the argument myself if you insist, even though it is entirely unnecessary. Democrats have said that Trump's ideas on illegal immigration and a wall are stupid and cruel, yet they argued for the same things a few years ago. What changed since they made those statements? Why are those ideas bad ideas? Did everyone here consider them bad ideas when Obama, Hillary, and Schumer said them? What other Republican ideas have everyone upset? I'm not seeing many specifics on that in a few page scrolls. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On April 10 2018 01:25 PeTraSoHot wrote: I am fully aware that if I post verifiable content that is inconvenient to what you think is true, you will ignore that content entirely and attack the source. You have made it thoroughly clear. "I'm still pretty poor" "It's as if you expect me to suddenly change my mind and decide I don't want to help others because it might cost me. " You're already not helping others because it will cost you. Also, I think it is illegitimate for you to argue "Why would I donate 100 bucks to a charity when I could let the government take tens of thousands from my 75k salary." That is a dishonest representation of the scenario. I don't know if you should volunteer you're time, but I don't know why you're asking that question sarcastically if you are a morally virtuous giver to the needy, as you seem to be claiming. You think the free market will provide sufficient healthcare for a whole population? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11835 Posts
On April 10 2018 01:25 PeTraSoHot wrote: I am fully aware that if I post verifiable content that is inconvenient to what you think is true, you will ignore that content entirely and attack the source. You have made it thoroughly clear. "I'm still pretty poor" "It's as if you expect me to suddenly change my mind and decide I don't want to help others because it might cost me. " You're already not helping others because it will cost you. Also, I think it is illegitimate for you to argue "Why would I donate 100 bucks to a charity when I could let the government take tens of thousands from my 75k salary." That is a dishonest representation of the scenario. I don't know if you should volunteer you're time, but I don't know why you're asking that question sarcastically if you are a morally virtuous giver to the needy, as you seem to be claiming. You seem to have the idea that either the whole of the EU has the same healthcare system as the US, and people talking about universal healthcare are talking about some theoretical utopia, or that EU people are unhappy with their healthcare systems. The first one is obviously wrong, and the second one is also very incorrect. While people in the EU might sometimes moan a bit about their healthcare, a large majority would never even consider swapping to anything like a US system. Because our evil socialist systems simply work better than your wonderful capitalist individual system. People are already paying for other peoples healthcare here, and other people are paying for theirs. That is how stuff works here. And it works a lot better than the US system. Unless you are an absolute top earner, you get better healthcare cheaper and with less hassle in the EU. Furthermore, our evil socialist medicine systems even spend less public money than your individual system (But you also spend a lot of your own money, too!). So you are already paying for other peoples healthcare. You are just worse at it, and your system hides it better. Source | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On April 10 2018 01:43 Gahlo wrote: We in the US already pay more per capita in taxes towards healthcare than countries that have UHC. It would literally be a tax break if we emulated their system and would get more out of our jobs by not having to buy insurance individually or have wages artificially lowered because of benefits. Speaking lib to lib here, I was drawn to that talking point for a long time. But my experiences with the cancer system in the USA had me rethinking it. USA healthcare itself, not just the insurance, is staggeringly expensive. Much more expensive than elsewhere. And it isn't just that our insurance system is too weak and can't force down provider prices. USA healthcare is fancy and the customer demands luxurious care. A girl I dated for a long time got cancer and went to Saint John's in Santa Monica. If you spend some time in these hospitals, the luxury, the expertise, the doctoral pedigree, the huge salaries, the unlimited drugs, the random MDs wandering in to rack up some billables, all this stuff starts to pile up. If we had single payer ... would things be cheaper ... sure maybe over time. But boy, that transition is going to be rough. Think of all those huge costs at Saint John's. For our healthcare costs to get down to something that is just 50% higher than the rest of the West, there will be some painful downsizing of expectations of care at places like Saint John's. EDIT: and holy shit fuck UCLA medical. Fuck them all. My dad has a gimpy aorta. He has Kaiser. UCLA realized that they could do a 600k surgery with 10 doctors and send the bill to Kaiser. So allllll the docs start lining up to get their billables in. They end up getting a nice 30-50k bill going before my dad chickens out of the risky and largely uneeded surgery. My dad's story isn't an aberration. I hear about this stuff elsewhere. If we had single payer ... maybe the FEDGOV could keep UCLA in line? But the process of getting UCLA docs to stop trying to rack up billables is going to be a painful one for sure. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:12 PeTraSoHot wrote: It's a concise argument backed by proof. The person who posted the verifiable information is irrelevant, and your unwillingness to engage the argument is what is lazy here. If I posted the EXACT same clips from cspan or other sources you deemed credible, I wonder how you would have gone about dodging the argument. I'll make the argument myself if you insist, even though it is entirely unnecessary. Democrats have said that Trump's ideas on illegal immigration and a wall are stupid and cruel, yet they argued for the same things a few years ago. What changed since they made those statements? Are those ideas bad ideas? Did everyone here consider them bad ideas when Obama, Hillary, and Schumer said them? What other Republican ideas is everyone upset with? Trump and Republican? Blatant daily lies about everything (Ryan and Mcconnell are just as good as Trump at this) Border wall Tax bill Muslim ban Deregulation (this covers a large number of things) Dodd Frank Environment/EPA Voter suppression measures Gerrymandering (what Republicans tried to do in PA is a disgrace) Tariffs Bashing Nato Bashing allies in general Cozying up to Russia/dictators Repealing the ACA Proposing cutting social programs The awful budget/deficit Lack of push on infrastructure Blatant enrichment of elected officials through policy Transgender military ban Anything related to "deep state" bullshit (Jim Jordan/Nunes) Swamp cabinet HILLARY HILLARY BENGHAZI OBAMA HILLARY And that's just the shit I disagree with from 30 seconds of thought. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:12 PeTraSoHot wrote: It's a concise argument backed by proof. The person who posted the verifiable information is irrelevant, and your unwillingness to engage the argument is what is lazy here. If I posted the EXACT same clips from cspan or other sources you deemed credible, I wonder how you would have gone about dodging the argument. I'll make the argument myself if you insist, even though it is entirely unnecessary. Democrats have said that Trump's ideas on illegal immigration and a wall are stupid and cruel, yet they argued for the same things a few years ago. What changed since they made those statements? Why are those ideas bad ideas? Did everyone here consider them bad ideas when Obama, Hillary, and Schumer said them? What other Republican ideas have everyone upset? I'm not seeing many specifics on that in a few page scrolls. gonna need a cite that dems argued the same thing (the ACTUAL same thing, not a similar thing with obvious key differences which were glossed over). the poster is relevant because trash sources are usually so riddled with errors as to not even be worth the time to look at, and pointing out the flaws in every idiot who posts something dumb on the internet is infeasible. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:12 PeTraSoHot wrote: It's a concise argument backed by proof. The person who posted the verifiable information is irrelevant, and your unwillingness to engage the argument is what is lazy here. If I posted the EXACT same clips from cspan or other sources you deemed credible, I wonder how you would have gone about dodging the argument. I'll make the argument myself if you insist, even though it is entirely unnecessary. Democrats have said that Trump's ideas on illegal immigration and a wall are stupid and cruel, yet they argued for the same things a few years ago. What changed since they made those statements? Why are those ideas bad ideas? Did everyone here consider them bad ideas when Obama, Hillary, and Schumer said them? What other Republican ideas have everyone upset? I'm not seeing many specifics on that in a few page scrolls. Again, you need make arguments of substance that vaguely resemble reality. The video itself is an exercise in bad faith arguments at its finest. The main thrust is taking similar sounding quotes out of context and stringing them together to give the illusion the candidates are in political agreement. The substance of the matter could not be farther from the truth. The Democrats do not have an immigration policy that supports hyper aggressive deportations, quotas on immigration judges and allowing ICE to detain people, even if they are showing up to be a witness for the police or a child in a hospital for surgery. For god sakes, the current administration is preventing detained illegal immigration from getting abortions. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/31/598548617/trump-administration-cant-block-undocumented-immigrants-from-seeking-abortions So again, the video itself is completely crap made by a 9/11 truther with terrible understanding of the US political system. It is borderline insulting to the intelligence of the people in this thread that anyone would think we would buy the bullshit it is peddling. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:20 Wulfey_LA wrote: Speaking lib to lib here, I was drawn to that talking point for a long time. But my experiences with the cancer system in the USA had me rethinking it. USA healthcare itself, not just the insurance, is staggeringly expensive. Much more expensive than elsewhere. And it isn't just that our insurance system is too weak and can't force down provider prices. USA healthcare is fancy and the customer demands luxurious care. A girl I dated for a long time got cancer and went to Saint John's in Santa Monica. If you spend some time in these hospitals, the luxury, the expertise, the doctoral pedigree, the huge salaries, the unlimited drugs, the random MDs wandering in to rack up some billables, all this stuff starts to pile up. If we had single payer ... would things be cheaper ... sure maybe over time. But boy, that transition is going to be rough. Think of all those huge costs at Saint John's. For our healthcare costs to get down to something that is just 50% higher than the rest of the West, there will be some painful downsizing of expectations of care at places like Saint John's. EDIT: and holy shit fuck UCLA medical. Fuck them all. My dad has a gimpy aorta. He has Kaiser. UCLA realized that they could do a 600k surgery with 10 doctors and send the bill to Kaiser. So allllll the docs start lining up to get their billables in. They end up getting a nice 30-50k bill going before my dad chickens out of the risky and largely uneeded surgery. My dad's story isn't an aberration. I hear about this stuff elsewhere. If we had single payer ... maybe the FEDGOV could keep UCLA in line? But the process of getting UCLA docs to stop trying to rack up billables is going to be a painful one for sure. I'd be pretty surprised if Kaiser was just like "okay, we'll pay for that" especially if it was not deemed necessary. The way we pay for care, by volume, is fundamentally disconnected from what we care about, which is outcomes. Though that's at least beginning to change with like value-based payment systems. I think that's where the big potential cost-savings will be. | ||
|
PeTraSoHot
0 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote: The Democrats do not have an immigration policy that supports hyper aggressive deportations "Hyper aggressive" Right. So you like "moderately aggressive" deportations, just not when it's "hyper aggressive"? I see. Ayaz2810, I'll bicker with you about some of those topics later maybe if you have the time. Ty for discussion | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:50 PeTraSoHot wrote: "Hyper aggressive" Right. So you like "moderately aggressive" deportations, just not when it's "hyper aggressive"? I see. Can you even articulate the stances of the different camps within democratic party on the subject of immigration? Do you have an argument of any substance? | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9207 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On April 10 2018 02:50 PeTraSoHot wrote: "Hyper aggressive" Right. So you like "moderately aggressive" deportations, just not when it's "hyper aggressive"? I see. Ayaz2810, I'll bicker with you about some of those topics later maybe if you have the time. Ty for discussion Always happy to bicker lol. | ||
| ||
