**** Elections thread *****

[boost]

I'm confused. Savy, what terminology do you think Jack Sawyer is using loosely?

[Savy]

I'm confused. Savy, what terminology do you think Jack Sawyer is using loosely?

Echo chamber, in that it is currently a buzzword relating to media, be that news sites, social media.

As to his more general use of the word I agree with parts of what he is saying but I also think that a lot of this can be attributed to various things not just echo chambers (in my wording above) and is why it's a bit of a nonsense. I wonder if anyone will ever do the research (I'm looking at you poop) as to the blaming of echo chambers for results of things by various echo chambers to further strengthen the echo chamber.

It's hard to get a long term depression diagnosis. Your average high street doctor doesn't give a fuck and will happily sign you off for a month or two to get you out of his office. This won't work for long though, not unless you're prepared to keep lying about your mental health, pretend to take the pills he's prescribing, and go and see shrinks and whoever else he tells you to see, while filling in forms saying how your mental disability affects you ability to work.

I should rephrase. It's really hard to get a depression diagnosis long term and not tread very dangerously into outright benefit fraud territory.

I think this is somewhat more down to the fact that at some point most people in their lives are going to get depressed to some degree and it isn't all that uncommon, whilst it can be debilitating to the point where it stops you working for periods of times for most people this isn't really the case.

Getting a depression diagnosis long term and not being depressed is obviously benefit fraud lol. I imagine I'd be quite safe in thinking that getting a false diagnosis for time off work is grounds for dismissal & would get the person who gave that diagnosis into a bit of shit.

[OngBonga]

You mentioned earlier that doctors get paid a salary. FALSE.

I mean it's almost like you think that the entire world is USA.

[OngBonga]

Who 'pretends to take pills'? Anti-depression drugs, are drugs! Just like weed, or anything else. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. The drugs the psychiatrist gives you makes you feel good. People take them. People like them. People get hooked on them. And when they run out, they go see their dealer/doctor, to get more. In order to prescribe more, the doctor has to charge you for more therapy sessions or office visits. Plus he probably gets some kind of commission or kickback on the drugs he prescribes.

Right, so because some people eat happy pills for breakfast, everyone who has depression can't fucking wait to eat these pills.

I have been diagnosed with depression before, and was given pills. I didn't like them. I do like ecstacy though. How curious that there's a person who exists that likes one drug but not another.

[OngBonga]

Even rephrased, you're monumentally wrong. It's easy to get a long term diagnosis and milk it for life. You'll have doctors confirming your diagnosis and possibly feeding you pills throughout your life if you want. It's not fraud if you believe it, and a doctor agrees with you.

If you believe you have depression, then you probably do. I mean honestly, you're just shouting "FALSE" at me without any shred of knwoledge about the system here in the UK. You seem to be applying the USA system to the rest of the world. It doesn't surprise me because that what's Americans do. But, here, doctors get salaries, paid for by the taxpayer, and long term depression sicknotes require either a genuine case of depression, or constant lying.

[BananaStand]

lol right this just shows that you don't actually have a fucking clue what depression is, so just shut up.

I know exactly what depression is. It's what an exploitative pharmaceutical industry uses to deal drugs.

I mean it's almost like you think that the entire world is USA.

So you're saying that salaried doctors have incentive to 'get people out of their office'. That's a pretty powerful argument AGAINST socialized medicine. Sorry for not addressing your shitty medical system.

Right, so because some people eat happy pills for breakfast, everyone who has depression can't fucking wait to eat these pills.

Right. Actually, abruptly stopping a lot of these medications has very bad consequences.

I have been diagnosed with depression before, and was given pills. I didn't like them. I do like ecstacy though. How curious that there's a person who exists that likes one drug but not another.

What's your point? Lots of people don't like oxycontin so they go out and shoot heroin. Some people, just stick with the oxy. The point is, people are hooked on using drugs to treat both real and perceived depression. If you're a drug dealer, you want more depressed people. the ultimate dream for a drug dealer is to be the one who determines if a person is depressed, and sell that person drugs.

If you believe you have depression, then you probably do.

Right, that's pretty much the clinical definition of depression. That's why so much of it us bullshit.

long term depression sicknotes require either a genuine case of depression, or constant lying.

It's not a lie if you believe it. And if you believe it (see above), it's genuine.

[Poopadoop]

Don't forget that if bananaman hasn't experienced something personally it's not a valid issue.

Ten years married to a psychologist and he still doesn't have a clue about what psychology is - that would be funny if it weren't kinda pathetic.

[BananaStand]

Ten years married to a psychologist and he still doesn't have a clue about what psychology is

It's a racket

[Poopadoop]

It's a racket

Like I said, no clue.

[wufwugy]

I really wish I saved that link of the meta analysis that found most neuro research is not what its claimed to be. It was things like >50% of replicated studies didn't find statistical significance, p-values correlated with journals the studies were published in, some other stuff.

[Poopadoop]

I really wish I saved that link of the meta analysis that found most neuro research is not what its claimed to be. It was things like >50% of replicated studies didn't find statistical significance, p-values correlated with journals the studies were published in, some other stuff.

There's a whole load of issues with so-called 'failures to replicate' that make the bolded statement a poor interpretation of what they mean. I've summarised these a couple of weeks ago in the physics thread, so if you want to have a look there.

[BananaStand]

You have a field of study that devotes 99.9% of it's time to treating bad feelings, while spending almost NONE cultivating good feelings.

I blows my mind that people give that any credibility.

[Poopadoop]

You have a field of study that devotes 99.9% of it's time to treating bad feelings, while spending almost NONE cultivating good feelings.

I blows my mind that people give that any credibility.

You're completely wrong, but whatever I can't be bothered to argue with a goalpost.

[Poopadoop]

One of the early treatments of long-term depression was electroconvulsive therapy - essentially running a large enough current through someone's brain that they forgot what was bothering them (and most of everything else they knew). That we've found better ways than this to treat depression is a clear sign that treatment has moved forward.

[OngBonga]

So you're saying that salaried doctors have incentive to 'get people out of their office'. That's a pretty powerful argument AGAINST socialized medicine. Sorry for not addressing your shitty medical system.

I find it amusing that this is your interpretation of socialised healthcare. Here, doctors have no incentive to sell drugs, because they get the same amount of money every year regardless of the amount of drugs they prescribe. The incentive to "get people out of their office" is a reference to those they think are just trying to milk the system. Doctors don't want to be wasting their time with some scruffy twat who can't get a job saying he's depressed. There's people in the waiting room with problems the doctor can help with.

In America, it seems, based on your comments, that doctors are incentivised to prescribe drugs. You seem to think they prescribe happy pills to make money. And it's our health system that's shitty?

Right, that's pretty much the clinical definition of depression. That's why so much of it us bullshit.

No, it's not. Clinical depression is distinct from depression. I have been diagnosed with depression in the past, but not clinical depression. If I had been diagnosed with the latter, I would have got more money, and a longer sicknote. The former, that's a temporary condition, perhaps brought about by the loss of a loved one. The latter, this is a different ballgame. This is where people are depressed because the chemistry in their brain is abnormal.

You seem to think that anyone claiming to be depressed is simply unhappy because of a specific event in their life. That's why you don't know what depression is, as demonstrated by your "clinical definition". You have no empathy for those who actually have fucked brain chemistry, it's easier for you to call them lazy and pathetic.

Ong....if you're listening....this is why weed is illegal. It's competition.

You're probably right about this. But it's not competition from the doctor's point of view, because here, the doctor does not get paid by the prescription, something which you seem to find cause for alarm. I'm confused why you think our system is shitty, to be honest, when you sit there and shout out the problems of privatised healthcare. The solution to the problems you cite, well one of them is to pay the doctor a salary instead of a commission, taking away the incentive for the doctor to diagnose things like depression.

[wufwugy]

It appears that it's possible I was totally wrong about Trump on Ryan's healthcare bill. It's looking more and more like this might be a tactic to expose Ryan and the GOPe and turn the primaries for the midterms into a referendum on the GOPe, and then get a much better bill with a much better Congress and Senate and less GOPe opposition.

[BananaStand]

I just saw Paul Ryan a few minutes ago explaining 'Phase 2' of the healthcare bill. He claims it won't be a legislative act. He didn't elaborate, but he was emphatic that the Secretary of HHS can implement insurance competition over state lines and pricing transparency on his own.

Sounds kinda promising.

[JimmyS1985]

I got back from the funeral just now.

"Well, I can assure you, without a doubt, that the way to stimulate job growth is NOT to dis-incentivize work by offering generous gov't support programs to anyone who wants them."

I'm not really a history buff. I know a "little" bit. But I do know that most social programs in place today, did not exist in 1932.

In 1932, you had no SNAP, Welfare, EITC, SCHIP, TANF, Meals On Wheels, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, GI Bill, Public Housing, and so on and so forth.

If you didn't work, you risked starving, or as today would put it "Food Insecurity" which is short of starvation, but still very bad. If you lost your job? You lost all your possessions, assuming you had loans out on them which most citizens did. You lost your car, your house, if you were a farmer you lost your farm. Upon getting fired, it didn't take long for you to find yourself out on the street.

With all these "incentives" to work in place, I don't know much about history, but I assume, 1932, was a golden economic boom year for the United States, because it's basically your ideal economy in action.

So, again, I don't know much about history, but I will look up 1932 and see what the economic conditions, just a quick google search...

Hmm...

Well, what can I say. This is "odd". I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance, I assumed with so many of your ideal economic forces in action, and a total lack of a safety net, that 1932, would have been one of the greatest years in the history of the US Economy.

Has anyone here ever heard of "The Great Depression"? I haven't. Lets see, we got 25% unemployment despite massive survival instincts to find "work". We have massive shanty towns called "Hoovervilles" where the homeless live outside of every major US City in wood shacks and cardboard boxes, without things as basic as heating, plumbing or electricity. Massive bank foreclosures on peoples houses, farms, and property. Bread lines and soup lines were the only means of obtaining food if you had no income in the day, and these had massive lines around the block. Actually, I hate to say it, but this sounds like, economically speaking, one of the WORST times in US History.

I just don't understand how the economy could have so much of your economic ideals in place, and then turn out mass homelessness. Fluke? I got no idea. It just stuns me, that your ideal economy, actually heralded the worst economic times in US History, for the ordinary American at least.

[BananaStand]

I'm not really a history buff. I know a "little" bit. But I do know that most social programs in place today, did not exist in 1932.

Dude, there are ALOT of things we have now that didn't exist in 1932.

In 1932, you had no SNAP, Welfare, EITC, SCHIP, TANF, Meals On Wheels, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, GI Bill, Public Housing, and so on and so forth.

So?

Upon getting fired, it didn't take long for you to find yourself out on the street.

Ok, so? I kinda wish it was that way today.

With all these "incentives" to work in place,...... I assume, 1932, was a golden economic boom year for the United States,

How glib can you be? You're equating the existence of social welfare policies with prosperity. Not so.

because it's basically your ideal economy in action.

No my friend. In my 'ideal economy' 9,000 banks would not have failed just three years before. Maybe there's more to the equation here hmmm?

So, again, I don't know much about history, but I will look up 1932 and see what the economic conditions, just a quick google search...

Do some more google searching. Did anything significant happen in 1929?

Well, what can I say. This is "odd". I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance, I assumed with so many of your ideal economic forces in action, and a total lack of a safety net, that 1932, would have been one of the greatest years in the history of the US Economy.

Rather than argue with this, let's just agree that economics is NOT your strong suit. How's that preventing you from getting a job today though?

Lets see, we got 25% unemployment

Do you think that was caused by a lack of social programs?

Bread lines and soup lines were the only means of obtaining food if you had no income in the day, and these had massive lines around the block.

So there actually were social welfare programs to feed the hungry?? And the worst part about it is that the line was long. Boo....friggen.....hoo buddy. Sorry that in 1932 they didn't have EBT cards, sheesh.

It just stuns me, that your ideal economy, actually heralded the worst economic times in US History

See you're just filtering what you want to hear, ignoring the rest, and hopelessly misconstruing 'my ideal economy'.

First of all, the stock market crashed, and NINE THOUSAND BANKS FAILED in 1929. Of course unemployment was high. That's what happens when businesses don't have access to capital. Same thing happened in 2008, just on a smaller scale. We had massive unemployment then too, and by then, welfare was already a thing. So what's your point?

Your entire premise here is that a lack of social safety nets = high unemployment. That's positively absurd. How does giving free rides to people increase employment??

For the record, I know I mentioned somewhere in this thread that I DO support expansions of social welfare programs in times of crisis. Expanding federal unemployment benefits in 2009 is a fine example. If the government fucks things up resulting in high unemployment, then as stewards of the economy, it's the government's job to fix it.

But that's all based on NEED. My whole point with you Jimmy, is that you don't NEED shit.

You just don't like working, and you expect the rest of us to carry your ass.

It's pathetic.

[wufwugy]

I got back from the funeral just now.

"Well, I can assure you, without a doubt, that the way to stimulate job growth is NOT to dis-incentivize work by offering generous gov't support programs to anyone who wants them."

I'm not really a history buff. I know a "little" bit. But I do know that most social programs in place today, did not exist in 1932.

In 1932, you had no SNAP, Welfare, EITC, SCHIP, TANF, Meals On Wheels, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, GI Bill, Public Housing, and so on and so forth.

If you didn't work, you risked starving, or as today would put it "Food Insecurity" which is short of starvation, but still very bad. If you lost your job? You lost all your possessions, assuming you had loans out on them which most citizens did. You lost your car, your house, if you were a farmer you lost your farm. Upon getting fired, it didn't take long for you to find yourself out on the street.

With all these "incentives" to work in place, I don't know much about history, but I assume, 1932, was a golden economic boom year for the United States, because it's basically your ideal economy in action.

So, again, I don't know much about history, but I will look up 1932 and see what the economic conditions, just a quick google search...

Hmm...

Well, what can I say. This is "odd". I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance, I assumed with so many of your ideal economic forces in action, and a total lack of a safety net, that 1932, would have been one of the greatest years in the history of the US Economy.

Has anyone here ever heard of "The Great Depression"? I haven't. Lets see, we got 25% unemployment despite massive survival instincts to find "work". We have massive shanty towns called "Hoovervilles" where the homeless live outside of every major US City in wood shacks and cardboard boxes, without things as basic as heating, plumbing or electricity. Massive bank foreclosures on peoples houses, farms, and property. Bread lines and soup lines were the only means of obtaining food if you had no income in the day, and these had massive lines around the block. Actually, I hate to say it, but this sounds like, economically speaking, one of the WORST times in US History.

I just don't understand how the economy could have so much of your economic ideals in place, and then turn out mass homelessness. Fluke? I got no idea. It just stuns me, that your ideal economy, actually heralded the worst economic times in US History, for the ordinary American at least.

The Great Depression was a result of the country's favorite monopoly (the Federal Reserve) conducting monetary policy that collapsed the price level and created instability. There is not a thing in the world anybody can do when the condition of money doesn't allow them. You can have perfect fiscal and regulatory policy in every imaginable way, but if the money monopoly fucks up, havoc will ensue.

[JimmyS1985]

The Great Depression was a result of the country's favorite monopoly (the Federal Reserve) conducting monetary policy that collapsed the price level and created instability. There is not a thing in the world anybody can do when the condition of money doesn't allow them. You can have perfect fiscal and regulatory policy in every imaginable way, but if the money monopoly fucks up, havoc will ensue.

Yea?

Well I looked up the history of Depressions in this country.

Andrew Jackson ended the centralized bank in place during his tenure. We had "The Panic of 1837" "The Panic of 1857" "The Panic of 1873" "The Panic of 1893" and "The Panic of 1907". No centralized bank the whole time. Since the FED came into place, we've had ONE depression, but believe me just because these other ones weren't nearly as bad, they were still massive economic suffering. And by 1907, the politicians of the era, were getting sick of having a depression every 20 years. I think to argue to disband the FED, is essentially arguing in favor, of having a Depression every 20 years in this country, because that's essentially what we had without the FED in place.


I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

[Savy]

I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

So if every country has something it must be a good thing?

Aids.

[wufwugy]

Yea?

Well I looked up the history of Depressions in this country.

Andrew Jackson ended the centralized bank in place during his tenure. We had "The Panic of 1837" "The Panic of 1857" "The Panic of 1873" "The Panic of 1893" and "The Panic of 1907". No centralized bank the whole time. Since the FED came into place, we've had ONE depression, but believe me just because these other ones weren't nearly as bad, they were still massive economic suffering. And by 1907, the politicians of the era, were getting sick of having a depression every 20 years. I think to argue to disband the FED, is essentially arguing in favor, of having a Depression every 20 years in this country, because that's essentially what we had without the FED in place.


I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

A topic change used as a refutation is often a tell for cognitive dissonance.

[BananaStand]

Well I looked up the history of Depressions in this country......I can not name a single developed country on planet earth, that doesn't have a centralized bank.

Dude.....what are you trying to prove here? A little bit ago, it was Republicans 'fucking you over'. Now you want to talk about banks in 1907?"

I really don't know what your problem is. America isn't perfect, but it's certainly provides more than enough opportunity for someone like yourself to enjoy a prosperous life. If you're gonna roll your eyes and go on foolishly believing that the system is stacked against you, you're going to be fucking miserable forever.

[wufwugy]

I've heard that can be done and can't be done. I don't know which is which.

[CoccoBill]

Only had to go back 12 years to find a partial sample of having paid some taxes, nice.

That reminds me, someone explain why corporate operating losses are tax deductible?

[BananaStand]

That reminds me, someone explain why corporate operating losses are tax deductible?

Same reason that corporate profits are taxable

[CoccoBill]

Same reason that corporate profits are taxable

Then why aren't my poker losses tax deductible?

[BananaStand]

Then why aren't my poker losses tax deductible?

They are

[Savy]

Why should people be paying for your healthcare though? If someone wants to then fair enough but if they don't they certainly shouldn't be.

I'm fairly hungry, someone fancy sending me $15 on paypal? I mean I have money but my phone contract finishes soon and I'd like an upgrade. In fact all paypal me $1, that's fair.

[JimmyS1985]

Why should people be paying for your healthcare though? If someone wants to then fair enough but if they don't they certainly shouldn't be.

I'm fairly hungry, someone fancy sending me $15 on paypal? I mean I have money but my phone contract finishes soon and I'd like an upgrade. In fact all paypal me $1, that's fair.

Every developed country has guaranteed healthcare. We're an exception in that it isn't guaranteed for everyone. Further more I'm guaranteed treatment regardless of finances if I show up to the ER, you can blame Reagan for that. It's part of living in a developed country.

[Savy]

Every developed country has guaranteed healthcare. We're an exception in that it isn't guaranteed for everyone. Further more I'm guaranteed treatment regardless of finances if I show up to the ER, you can blame Reagan for that. It's part of living in a developed country.

This doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked you. I'll single it out of my previous post now for you.

Why should people be paying for your healthcare though?

[JimmyS1985]

This doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked you. I'll single it out of my previous post now for you.

Why should people be paying for your healthcare though?

Because having a healthy population is in your best interest. Societies where people die in the streets, because the citizens can't afford health care of all things, aren't known as great countries.

A healthy populace also contributes to the national defense, if everyone is overweight, and obese, and has diabetes, we're in a precarious position to fight WWIII, unlike WWII.

What do you propose? Instead of a healthcare system, just have a charity like Doctor's without Borders provide our poor all their healthcare needs?

Even Donald Trump repeatedly said on the campaign trail, he plans to implement health insurance for everyone in this country.

[wufwugy]

Because having a healthy population is in your best interest.

How does forcing people to pay for other people do that?

[Savy]

Because having a healthy population is in your best interest. Societies where people die in the streets, because the citizens can't afford health care of all things, aren't known as great countries.

A healthy populace also contributes to the national defense, if everyone is overweight, and obese, and has diabetes, we're in a precarious position to fight WWIII, unlike WWII.

What do you propose? Instead of a healthcare system, just have a charity like Doctor's without Borders provide our poor all their healthcare needs?

Even Donald Trump repeatedly said on the campaign trail, he plans to implement health insurance for everyone in this country.

I'm not getting political here, I don't care about Trump, I don't care about Hillary. I'm also not saying anything in terms of what should or shouldn't happen.

I'm just asking you a question. To which your response has been really bad. I imagine this is because you're somewhat emotional about the subject rather than just thinking about the question and answering it.

[BananaStand]

Because having a healthy population is in your best interest.

Are we unhealthy now? You keep talking about how great thing are in other countries, but that's definitive bullshit. 52 of the top 100, and 8 of the top 10 hospitals in the world are American. Socialized medicine is fucking great if you have a simple problem like a broken leg. But if you get a serious disease that require a complex treatment plan, you had better hope to fucking god you're not currently in Europe.

Societies where people die in the streets, because the citizens can't afford health care of all things, aren't known as great countries.

Which street are you talking about? People aren't dying in the streets. you made that up

A healthy populace also contributes to the national defense, if everyone is overweight, and obese, and has diabetes, we're in a precarious position to fight WWIII, unlike WWII.

Drones do the bulk of the fighting now. Fat guys can drive drones

What do you propose?

I liked the system we had. Work, earn, buy insurance. That worked fine for me. And for those that can't earn...tehre's medicare.

If that's insufficient, it's because medicare wastes too much money. 60% of their spending goes to treat condition that end up killing people anyway. My own grandfather got 7-bypass heart surgery and medicare paid. Doctors gave him 10 years to live after that. That was in the early 90's, more than 20 years ago. He's still alive.

Yet for those 20 years, he didn't exercise, eat right, or take care of himself anywhere close to as well as he should have. And three years ago, he needed surgery again. Medicare put up six figures to help this guy squeeze out a few more years.

To me, that's bullshit. He already got one bite at the apple. Medicare should have let him die.

There's other things that can be done. 87% of illegal immigrant households are using medicaid, that's not awesome.

Also, the government seems to be paying for benefits to people like Jimmy, who are totally capable of earning their own way.

Jimmy - you still havent' answered savy's question. Why should people pay for your healthcare. A better question, is why can't you pay for it yourself.

Nothing youve posted demonstrates a shred of personal responsibility. You don't see a problem with that?

[Poopadoop]

Why should people be paying for your healthcare though? If someone wants to then fair enough but if they don't they certainly shouldn't be.

If that's the case, then I shouldn't be paying for NHS because I've only been to the doctor twice in the last 12 years, and I'm clearly getting screwed on the deal.

I think you're kinda missing the point of socialized healthcare here.

[Poopadoop]

And while we're on the topic, why should I pay taxes so you have a functioning water treatment plant that gives you safe drinking water? How do I get anything from that? Or a road in front of your house? That doesn't help meeee.

[Savy]

If that's the case, then I shouldn't be paying for NHS because I've only been to the doctor twice in the last 12 years, and I'm clearly getting screwed on the deal.

I think you're kinda missing the point of socialized healthcare here.

I'm not but you'll probably have to trust me on that one. And I agree you shouldn't if don't want to.

And while we're on the topic, why should I pay taxes so you have a functioning water treatment plant that gives you safe drinking water? How do I get anything from that? Or a road in front of your house? That doesn't help meeee.

I pay for my water. The road in front of my house wasn't paid for by you & I don't drive so I wouldn't miss it. Also I agree don't if you don't want to.

[wufwugy]

I think you're kinda missing the point of socialized healthcare here.

What is the point of socialized healthcare?

[Savy]

If having a healthy population is in peoples best interest why would people opt out their choice to be pat of something?

[BananaStand]

drive the fucking speed limit.

Make sure your headlights are operational

use your blinker when you change lanes

problem solved.

DUH

[Savy]

[JKDS]

I know a lot of people, like my mom, who got royally fucked by the ACA. Lost the good insurance they had, and the new insurance was absolutely terrible. It's upsetting that she might lose her insurance...But she seriously contemplated cutting it anyway.

[BananaStand]

I know a lot of people, like my mom, who got royally fucked by the ACA. Lost the good insurance they had, and the new insurance was absolutely terrible. It's upsetting that she might lose her insurance...But she seriously contemplated cutting it anyway.

Word

My mom is walking around with a broken toe right now hoping it will just heal on its own. Before ACA she would just go to the doctor, pay her copay, and get patched up.

Now, because of ridiculous deductibles, she pretty much has to pay for the x rays and treatments entirely out of pocket, and the cost is prohibitive. So she walks around with a broken fucking toe.

All cause Jimmy likes to sleep in.

God bless America huh?

[wufwugy]

Word

My mom is walking around with a broken toe right now hoping it will just heal on its own. Before ACA she would just go to the doctor, pay her copay, and get patched up.

Now, because of ridiculous deductibles, she pretty much has to pay for the x rays and treatments entirely out of pocket, and the cost is prohibitive. So she walks around with a broken fucking toe.

All cause Jimmy likes to sleep in.

God bless America huh?

An irony (and one reason why statistics are such lies) is that even more people don't have insurance after the ACA than before, due to skyrocketing deductibles. Your story is an example of somebody being on Obama and the Democrats list of "yay they're insured" who effectively isn't insured in important ways.

[wufwugy]

It's good practice to use CBO estimates as toilet paper.

[JKDS]

Statistics are crazy important, in a wide array if industries. People proficient at them make good money, and are highly sought after.

Except when they're used by the media, where they are routinely misleading or otherwise incorrect.

[wufwugy]

Statistics are crazy important, in a wide array if industries. People proficient at them make good money, and are highly sought after.

Except when they're used by the media, where they are routinely misleading or otherwise incorrect.

Yes statistics are very constructive intra-industry. When I poo poo stats it's when they're used for macro-economics-politics stuff. A company knowing the gun ownership rate of its clientele is valuable information from which they can derive meaningful things. But good luck deriving meaningful information from gun ownership rates on an international scale.

[BananaStand]

Without stats, you're uninformed

With stats, you're misinformed.

[CoccoBill]

Statistics are just a tool, it all depends how and for what you use it for. The bad thing is they're not very intuitive and generally poorly understood by gen pop, so it's both easy to make mistakes if you don't know what you're doing, and mislead if you do. I think basic education should have more emphasis on teaching it instead of like calculus.

[BananaStand]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...er-be-resolved

I agree it will probably never be resolved. But what's the O/U on how long it takes for it to stop being a story?

The article is a pretty interesting, fact based, presentation of how Trump's claims and Liberals claims cancel each other out.

Either, they did monitor Trump Tower because they had really strong reasons to suspect Russian collusion. Or...they didn't have strong reasons to investigate Russian collusion and instead used that as a cover for political spying.

Either Trump is a Russian agent, or Obama is a diabolical 'wire-tapper'. It's got to be one or the other.

But as long as there is no evidence of either, then both can be true.

[JKDS]

This story is moderately interesting. Let's slap on the "gate" suffix and call it a day. Well done gentlemen.

--Said every blogger and wanna-be reporter ever.

Anyway, I can't believe Rachel got so owned by Trump. She must have been forced to play her cards the way she did. Why would you ever flaunt a boring tax return from 2005?

[BananaStand]

Anyway, I can't believe Rachel got so owned by Trump. She must have been forced to play her cards the way she did. Why would you ever flaunt a boring tax return from 2005?

Maddow hyped her 'scoop' pretty hard, which drew ratings for NBC. People tuned in, and were assaulted with a 20 minute tirade about why she wants to see his tax returns so bad. She got everyone paying attention to her (MSNBC's ratings are in the toilet overall), and used that soapbox to stir up this tax issue all over again.

Her show wasn't about the tax returns she had. Those were just an excuse to rant about the tax returns she didn't have.

Now, 'Trump's tax returns' is a headline again.

Not sure this is a great development for Trump

[Poopadoop]

Everyone on MSNBC news is so passionately and blatantly anti-Trump that it almost makes me like him more, not less.

The fact that they also routinely take waaaay too much time to build up every story doesn't help their ratings I'm sure.

[BananaStand]

they also routinely take waaaay too much time to build up every story doesn't help their ratings I'm sure.

To be quite honest, a huge part of the reason Fox is #1, is because all of their female anchors are mega-babes. Rachel Maddow looks like she came in second place in a shovel fight.

[Poopadoop]

To be quite honest, a huge part of the reason Fox is #1, is because all of their female anchors are mega-babes. Rachel Maddow looks like she came in second place in a shovel fight.

I could deal with her ugliness if it wasn't for all the 'Hey. Get a load of this (snort). Donald Trump (guffaw). You're president (smirk). OUR president (high-pitched giggle).'

Just tell us what you have to say ffs.

[wufwugy]

This story is moderately interesting. Let's slap on the "gate" suffix and call it a day. Well done gentlemen.

--Said every blogger and wanna-be reporter ever.

Anyway, I can't believe Rachel got so owned by Trump. She must have been forced to play her cards the way she did. Why would you ever flaunt a boring tax return from 2005?

My theory is that they believe at the very core of their being the stuff they spew. So, when there's a verified Trump tax return, they KNOW for a fact that it will include all the tasty nasty shit they KNOW about Trump that they have been TELLING EVERYBODY about for years. There is NO WAY this can blow up in their face because THEY ARE SMART AND TRUMP IS STUPID.

[Poopadoop]

If one were to ascribe to NBC the same Machiavellian shrewdness they apply to Trump every time he does something stupid, the story would probably go that by drawing attention to his taxes they made his taxes an issue that everyone talks about for awhile. The fact they had nothing of interest in those particular tax returns is secondary, if it's even relevant at all.

[wufwugy]

I approve of that "Machiavellian shrewdness". The tax thing is now wonderful for Trump. It wasn't before, now it is.

[Poopadoop]

I approve of that "Machiavellian shrewdness". The tax thing is now wonderful for Trump. It wasn't before, now it is.

I doubt it. Showing that he made a good sum of money and paid taxes one year out of the last twelve begs the question of why he isn't sharing the other years.

If that's good for Trump then the wiretapping thing being shown to be false is good for Obama.

Neither of those is as good for the person in question as having never had the respective issue brought up in the first place.

[wufwugy]

I doubt it. Showing that he made a good sum of money and paid taxes one year out of the last twelve begs the question of why he isn't sharing the other years.

For some people. Most are much more detached and see only the surface. The main message they receive is that Trump's taxes are a supposed enormous deal and then when released he paid loads of taxes and there was nothing bad.

It will be fun to watch all the cognitive dissonance play out. It was immediately apparent that this was a huge Trump win and that Maddow fucked up big, and it was only after the initial impact when rationalizations came about and we began seeing these cognitive dissonance responses. Remember Trump IS STUPID and Trump's taxes ARE HIDING SOMETHING TERRIBLE and he IS A FOOLISH PERSON WHO COULD NEVER ORCHESTRATE SOMETHING THAT HURTS GODDESS MADDOW; therefore Trump's antagonists have only two choices: acknowledge that they are wrong and have been wrong for a long time, or find some sort of dismissive explaining-away cognitive dissonance rationalization that allows them to maintain their self-image and worldview.

[Poopadoop]

You're missing my point. According to the logic people use when Trump does something dumb, Trump's enemies at NBC aren't worried about looking stupid themselves, their goal was to get people talking about Trump's taxes in general.

It was 'last night in Sweden' for the MSM.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Maddow, MSNBC, standard shitlibbery BTFO themselves.

[wufwugy]

Above I'm on record saying the more we talk about Trump's taxes now the better for Trump. The release turned the tables. I'm happy that MSNBC tried to up it's game from tic-tac-toe-with-just-one-box-and-Trump-goes-first, but 3d chess is just too big a jump for them.

Please, more Trump tax talk. More more more.

[Poopadoop]

Where's the rest of his tax returns for the other years? When do we find out where all his business conflicts of interests lay? What is he hiding?

NBC 2-0 Wuf

[OngBonga]

Where's the rest of his tax returns for the other years? When do we find out where all his business conflicts of interests lay? What is he hiding?

Haha I wonder when this comment will look stupid?

[wufwugy]

All but those who hate Trump no matter what view that as beating a dead horse after the Maddow fiasco. We were told for many months that he was hiding something, we were made to anticipate anything at all that could lead to uncovering the secret, we then got exactly that, and it made Trump look great. We (meaning, all people who don't hate Trump no matter what) now no longer care, we think MSNBC was possibly lying to us for a long time (or just being terrible journos), and we're tired of the issue. The more it's in the news, the more shitlibs btfo themselves.

[Poopadoop]

If that's true then the more it was talked about that 'last night in Sweden' never happened, the more Trump btfo himself.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's a good move when Trump does it and good when NBC does it, or it's bad when either does it.

[wufwugy]

If that's true then the more it was talked about that 'last night in Sweden' never happened, the more Trump btfo himself..

What do people think about now when they think of "last night in Sweden"? They think about all the horrible shit that's going on in Sweden. That statement is an example of pre-suasion, of an anchor with predictive power. It got eyes on Sweden in a way that reporting actual facts on Sweden does not, and then later it was "confirmed" to many people the truth about Sweden the next time something bad happened.

That was also a Trump win. If I could go back in time, I would have him say the same thing. Shit, the very next day, riots broke out in Sweden. Guess what every person who isn't lockstep anti-Trump already thought about that? "I guess he was right, Sweden's a mess..."

[Poopadoop]

Ok, let's say the riots were viewed differently because he said that.

You can make the same argument about the NBC report. It had no substance, but it drew attention to his taxes specifically and his finances in general. So the next time there's some news about a conflict of interest or some shady deal (and we know there will be) it's going to make people who aren't lockstep pro-Trump think "I guess they were right, Trump's a crook..."

It's precisely the same logic as you've used explain Trump's stupid pronouncements. The difference is now you are the one saying it's stupid and I am the one saying there's a method to their madness.

[wufwugy]

I agree with that, as long as there's credibility in the claim and it's during the "pre-suasion window". If, for example, tomorrow a new tax story broke with some nasty shit revealed in his taxes, it would probably more powerfully make Trump look bad than if it just appeared on its own.

If it appeared on its own, a lot of defenders or people on the fence would just say "but what did we expect, we already figured if his taxes were released they would look bad." So, a bad release is already baked into public opinion. However, in your scenario, it would be a lot of people saying "there's nothing to see here, you showed us, we listened, nothing to see....BOOM omg he REALLY was hiding something all along." This scenario could influence people that wouldn't be influenced by the others.

That's my guess at least.

[Poopadoop]

There's news, fake news, and clever propaganda.

[BananaStand]

There's news, fake news, and clever propaganda.

Which of the three is Trump's 'wiretapping' claim?

Hint: It's not fake news.