Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 94 of 94 FirstFirst ... 4484929394
Results 6,976 to 6,994 of 6994
  1. #6976
    I have a hard time seeing anybody other than Pence getting the GOP nomination in 2024. He's the only person who currently looks likely to run that could hold together the Trump coalition. An added benefit is that anti-Trump conservatives have always loved Pence and still do even as they hate Trump.

    Can't Fence the Pence
    Can't Box the Silver Fox
  2. #6977
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have a hard time seeing anybody other than Pence getting the GOP nomination in 2024. He's the only person who currently looks likely to run that could hold together the Trump coalition. An added benefit is that anti-Trump conservatives have always loved Pence and still do even as they hate Trump.

    Can't Fence the Pence
    Can't Box the Silver Fox
    It's really waaaaay to early to be having this debate, but I would say that Pence is a significant underdog. He's gonna have an executive branch record to run on. Which means he has a record that can be attacked. Every complaint anyone's ever had about Trump will get transferred right on to Pence.

    On the other hand, Peyton's clean as a whistle. And they really can't attack the guy for being inexperienced. Trump was inexperienced. But if his administration was so successful that his VP is now a formidable contender to succeed him....well then the inexperience wasn't really a problem was it?
  3. #6978
    I suspect your concern regarding Pence is more relevant in the general than the primary.

    Pence might be the only person who wouldn't get intense opposition from any faction in the party. Trumpettes love him, values-conservatives love him, and the establishment thinks he's at least decent.

    It's funny how this thread's OP was about how Pence was the man for 2016. Turns out he's the VP and could be the man for 2024.
  4. #6979
    BTW it's never too early to debate the next election. Shortly after I got redpilled out of my intense leftism (around 2013-14), I was saying Hillary would run and win the primary then lose the general.
  5. #6980
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    BTW it's never too early to debate the next election. Shortly after I got redpilled out of my intense leftism (around 2013-14), I was saying Hillary would run and win the primary then lose the general.
    Having a bold, or maybe not so bold prediction come true doesn't really validate the worthwhile-ness of the debate.

    If the election were held today, I think the most important issues to the voters would be different than the issues that voters cared about just a year ago. Imagining the political landscape 3 or 7 years from now seems impossible
  6. #6981
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    BTW it's never too early to debate the next election. Shortly after I got redpilled out of my intense leftism (around 2013-14), I was saying Hillary would run and win the primary then lose the general.
    Get a fucking grip.

    as an ex-poker player seriously you've made me think you are a retard (you aren't)
  7. #6982
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Get a fucking grip.

    as an ex-poker player seriously you've made me think you are a retard (you aren't)
    This isn't the first time you've said something along these lines. You're gonna have to explain exactly what you mean, because given what I think you mean, I am not making the point you think I'm making.
  8. #6983
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This isn't the first time you've said something along these lines. You're gonna have to explain exactly what you mean, because given what I think you mean, I am not making the point you think I'm making.
    You make statements about things which are so uncertain to happen then draw big conclusions from them.

    edit - To explain better for every statement you make about politics in the far off future you make about 200 completely wrong (& sometimes opposite) statements.
    Last edited by Savy; 09-30-2017 at 09:17 AM.
  9. #6984
    It's not quite that bad, but yes if you include every tier of statement I make, the set performs as well as random at best. That isn't unique to me. Regarding higher tier statements I make (ones I spend more brain time on and I think my analysis is better than random), they might perform slightly better than random but I don't know.

    Regarding the point I was trying to make, I don't believe that making a prediction and having it align with the results means the prediction was insightfully made. But it could have been.

    If you see me make contradictions in statements, let me know.
  10. #6985
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Let me know when you want to have a productive discussion instead.
    I'd sure as hell like to. With coherent arguments
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  11. #6986
    A cool thing about allowing purchase across state lines and private pooling (health insurance) is that it achieves the same risk-diluting benefit that single-payer does without the negatives of single-payer. The new executive order is supposed to help do that, but we'll see.

    What we need is something that incentivizes bypassing insurance altogether. Then we'd get prices up front and costs would plummet.
  12. #6987
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Seeing he doesn't know who the president of the USVI is, I wonder what he would have answered had they actually asked him a question about policy during the run, like "What will you do about Aleppo"?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  13. #6988
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A cool thing about allowing purchase across state lines and private pooling (health insurance) is that it achieves the same risk-diluting benefit that single-payer does without the negatives of single-payer. The new executive order is supposed to help do that, but we'll see.

    Examples in other places say you are wrong, but let's hope you are right.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What we need is something that incentivizes bypassing insurance altogether. Then we'd get prices up front and costs would plummet.
    I don't follow. What do you mean?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  14. #6989
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Examples in other places say you are wrong, but let's hope you are right.
    What do you mean?

    I don't follow. What do you mean?
    Insurance is efficient for catastrophe. In all the different markets you can think of that have insurance, it is almost entirely purchased for catastophe. All the other elements of those markets are handled in person with up front costs. An example of this is automobiles. People get insurance for catastrophe, and there isn't much for routine care or for consumption of new cars. This is a relatively efficient market. Healthcare doesn't function like this, not because it is different fundamentally (it's not), but because the government has incentivized the market to gravitate towards using insurance for every aspect of the market. The problem with this is that insurance is inefficient for most things. People naturally opt for it despite its inefficiency due to very high costs of low risk catastrophe that people just naturally aren't comfortable with. But people don't opt for insurance for things that are more normal and routine because of how inefficient that would be. In healthcare, it is no different except that government policies have made it so that things organize around insurance for everything despite inefficiencies.

    Changing policy properly would make it so that healthcare can be produced and consumed like every other normal thing (like food, clothes, shelter). That would turn healthcare into a market with little insurance (essentially for only catastrophe) and people would shop for desired healthcare upfront. People would pay out of pocket and prices would be upfront. Because of this, efficiency would return to normal and would rival other markets with little government intervention, like food, clothing, and shelter. Costs would be a fraction of what they currently are, employment in the sector would be significantly higher, and the amount of care consumed would also be higher. Quality too would be higher. The way it is now, the price of care doesn't matter that much since the person using is not the person buying. Also the quality of care doesn't matter a whole lot since there is little competition.
  15. #6990
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Insurance is efficient for catastrophe. In all the different markets you can think of that have insurance, it is almost entirely purchased for catastophe. All the other elements of those markets are handled in person with up front costs. An example of this is automobiles. People get insurance for catastrophe, and there isn't much for routine care or for consumption of new cars. This is a relatively efficient market. Healthcare doesn't function like this, not because it is different fundamentally (it's not),
    It is different. When your car fucks up, or more appropriately, suffers a catastrophy, you CAN theoretically just scrap it and get a new one. You don't HAVE to repair your car if you get my drift. It's not a life or death situation. It is a different story with your body as, you only have one.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    but because the government has incentivized the market to gravitate towards using insurance for every aspect of the market.
    Thank the lobbyists. They just recently had another victory which prohibited your markets to compete for prices. Aided by these clowns

    But by Thursday, the story about Booker had flipped. The New Jersey senator and 12 other Senate Democrats had joined the bulk of the Republican caucus to kill a proposal aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. What made Booker’s vote all the more anguishing for the left is that the proposal won the backing of 13 Republican senators, and had a real chance of passing.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What do you mean?
    Show me examples of your version of health insurance being applied successfully en masse in another country.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  16. #6991
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    It is different. When your car fucks up, or more appropriately, suffers a catastrophy, you CAN theoretically just scrap it and get a new one. You don't HAVE to repair your car if you get my drift. It's not a life or death situation. It is a different story with your body as, you only have one.
    You're talking about different ways catastrophe manifests. Insurance for catastrophe is productive.

    Thank the lobbyists. They just recently had another victory which prohibited your markets to compete for prices. Aided by these clowns
    Who are they lobbying?

    Show me examples of your version of health insurance being applied successfully en masse in another country.
    You ask a question I can't answer, and even if I could answer, it would not be that relevant. Empiricism in economics is absurdly hard. It's so absurdly hard that most empirical research in economics demonstrates things that aren't quite true. The point I made was derivation from concepts that economists use because they are the best concepts at describing human economic behavior that we have.
  17. #6992
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,805
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Who are they lobbying?.
    Your easily bought government. And no, getting rid of government is not the right solution. As I always tell you, look around.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You ask a question I can't answer, and even if I could answer, it would not be that relevant. Empiricism in economics is absurdly hard. It's so absurdly hard that most empirical research in economics demonstrates things that aren't quite true. The point I made was derivation from concepts that economists use because they are the best concepts at describing human economic behavior that we have.
    I know this wuf. And yes, it is relevant; you argue it is the best way to tackle this problem, so it should have already been tackled in this particular way elsewhere if that is true. Instead, elsewhere have vastly different ways of dealing with this problem which have already been proven to be effective, much more effective than what you currently have.

    And yet you keep arguing your way is better. Or better said, SHOULD be better. But you offer no prior example showing your method in practice in this particular field; only general theories which should work. And yet you can very easily find examples in place in the real world proven to be better than what you currently have by country miles. Shouldn't you at the very least start there?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  18. #6993
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Your easily bought government. And no, getting rid of government is not the right solution. As I always tell you, look around.
    I have proposed reducing the power of government to create laws for special interests. This prohibition on government is the source of rights and it is the best known way (perhaps only way) to keep government from screwing people over for the highest bidder or the most energized group.

    I know this wuf. And yes, it is relevant; you argue it is the best way to tackle this problem, so it should have already been tackled in this particular way elsewhere if that is true.
    That is not correct. Just because well established theory says one thing doesn't mean that the theory would have been put in practice empirically. Economics has never been a field strong with empiricism. Even though many economists try very hard to rectify that, the best scholarship in the field is essentially philosophical and logical argumentation regarding some concepts and constraints of human behavior and resource allocation.

    Instead, elsewhere have vastly different ways of dealing with this problem which have already been proven to be effective, much more effective than what you currently have.
    They have not been proven to be effective. There are very significant problems in these systems that emerge from the government intervention. There is also significant benefits these systems get from existing in an open economy with the less restrictive American system.

    And yet you keep arguing your way is better. Or better said, SHOULD be better. But you offer no prior example showing your method in practice in this particular field; only general theories which should work.
    I give you economic theory, which tells us a lot. Empirical results in economics don't tell us much at all. Even the most standard implications from the most logically sound and wide in consensus theories have not been demonstrated empirically sufficiently enough to make conclusions. There are just way too many confounding variables and too few constants.



    A person knowing next to nothing about economics yet acting like he knows enough to discard any bit of economics that is explained to him is very common. I'm not going to continue this with you unless you drop your hubris and open up to the idea that I have been generously trying to help you learn stuff that you know nothing about.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 10-15-2017 at 10:30 PM.
  19. #6994
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That is not correct. Just because well established theory says one thing doesn't mean that the theory would have been put in practice empirically. Economics has never been a field strong with empiricism. Even though many economists try very hard to rectify that, the best scholarship in the field is essentially philosophical and logical argumentation regarding some concepts and constraints of human behavior and resource allocation.
    I want to clarify this point because I think it is misleading.

    Empirical research is very important in economics. The issue is that it is really hard to get empirical evidence to "tell the truth" while it is pretty easy to get empirical evidence to tell one what he wants to hear. The phrase "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess" is quite apropos in the field.

    Because of some serious constraints regarding empiricism in economics, what economists try to do (for the most part) is use well-established models or innovate on them in creative ways that seem theoretically sound. Then they inform those models with data and see what happens. Sometimes some empirical trends arise when this is done many times in a variety of relevant situations.

    Regarding the European healthcare systems that are claimed to have proven to be effective, the criticisms from economic models upon those systems are not about whether or not they are effective, and the data don't comment on "effectiveness" that much either. The data do, however, reveal what the economic criticisms have to say. The criticisms are that the European systems, regardless of "effectiveness", suffer from some specific problems predicted by economic theory. The basic form of those problems are quantity, quality, and innovation are lower than they could be and costs are higher than they could be. The data suggest this and fit the theory. Some examples of this are the significant amount of rationing in those systems, how patients that have the opportunity receive better care outside of the systems, and how taxes to pay for the systems are high and increasing. These systems are not that old (have not shown much antifragility) and they have significant problems that economic theory predicts that the data strongly suggest they have.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •