Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 94 of 111 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... LastLast
Results 6,976 to 7,050 of 8309
  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
    7,667
    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
    7,667
    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
    7,667
    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
    7,667
    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
    7,667
    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.
  20. #6995
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I heard a good story about models - some x-cia guy was tasked with trying to find leading indicators to revolt. They poured over some big data sets and came back with age. If the average age of a country fell below a certain level, that country was primed for an uprising. And it makes sense, young people are those most energized to wipe the slate clean and start things anew. If your country is old, they'll hold to the old stable ways because they and their lifestyle is pretty set.

    The top brass came back and listed a half dozen countries as counter examples and canceled the research. 4 of those 6 countries would go on to become the Arab Spring.

    Funny thing about models is that some of them work.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  21. #6996
    Nasty ass hit job by establishment Republicans on Judge Roy Moore. Nobody attacks decent people within the party like the cronyists in the establishment.

    Before, I was somewhat indifferent on Moore. Now I want him to win by 20 and McConnell's head on a stake. I agree with Larry Schweikart, this is an organized retaliation on the voting base, and the only way to win is to gather the head of one of the crony establishment cucks.
  22. #6997
    I now understand why the Trump conservatives branded the "values" conservatives as cuckservatives. Sure they want smaller government and stuff, but the moment anything gets hairy, they bend over backwards and let the liars and crooks run roughshod over them. This Roy Moore thing is the perfect example. All the main "values" conservatives hubs are calling for Moore to step down. Based on what? On an allegation? On a clear character assassination by those directly vulnerable to any success by Moore?

    It raises the question: do they not know how to win or do they secretly wanna lose?
  23. #6998
    It's looking like Creepy Joe Biden gearing up to run in 2020. I'm not sure what to think. He's not much of an ace in the hole, but I get why there is some desire for him to run.
  24. #6999
    Nasty ass hit job by establishment Republicans on Judge Roy Moore. Nobody attacks decent people within the party like the cronyists in the establishment.

    Before, I was somewhat indifferent on Moore. Now I want him to win by 20 and McConnell's head on a stake. I agree with Larry Schweikart, this is an organized retaliation on the voting base, and the only way to win is to gather the head of one of the crony establishment cucks.


    How would legitimate allegations look?

    And you're branding Biden "Creepy" based on no allegations and just a handful of still pictures that look a bit awkward out of context of movement.
  25. #7000
    The allegation could be legitimate as is. But doubt about it has been raised to the highest threshold since it comes on the heels of a very embarrassing and very strategically important defeat by establishment GOP and it has establishment GOP hands all over it. Usually when the stars align so perfectly, it's kabuki theater. The people with a track record of sinister, underhanded hit jobs are calling for resignation after simply an allegation.
  26. #7001
    I probably care more than I otherwise would since this is the kind of thing that is most effective at controlling people. When an elite is capable of getting its way by merely running news stories against opponents and then those opponents being negatively affected enough that they step down, well, you've got yourself a ruling elite that does whatever it wants, the common folk be damned.
  27. #7002
    You're right about Creepy Joe. I have no idea if he's a pedo. He probably isn't. He doesn't live close enough to Hollywood for that to be a certainty.
  28. #7003
    The damage might already be done. The existence and intensity of the attacks by the media and other politicians -- even if completely bogus and soon revealed as such -- will have a significant deterrent effect on others looking to take on establishment elites.
  29. #7004
    Four women, each of whom report not knowing any of the others, were apparently known by a WaPo reporter and contacted within the span of 3 weeks.

    Total, utter nonsense. Total plant, probably by the same group of losers that spread political assassination lies earlier in the year and last year: McCain, Romney.
  30. #7005
    Reports that one of them works for Moore's opponent and another is a serial accuser, also that there was an offer of money to accuse.

    It makes sense that this is the best losers McCain and Romney could come up with.
  31. #7006
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    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.

    Just a single example of it working in the field can't be that hard to produce, can it?


    Why would I trust in anything that a group of people tells me it should work because of reasons A, B and maybe C and yet can't conjure up any proof of it actually working in the field, historically, with consensus or whatever? Isn't that why we got religion for? Didn't even bother to make a focus group with a decent enough sample size on this?


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    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.

    There is definitely a pot calling the kettle black joke in there. You do know that those notorious for having absurd hubris are economists, right?


    There are papers about that specific thing. Here are some:
    http://www.capco.com/insights/capco-...ncial-services
    http://ritholtz.com/2009/11/the-hubris-of-economics/
    https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2014.../dp/0300219490
    https://www.economist.com/blogs/free...-crystal-balls


    And also my favorite, which explains my train of thought. I have already linked to earlier in this very thread
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster


    Also, I have to open up to the idea that you have been generously trying to help me learn stuff that I know nothing about, yet you seem to know all about healthcare because you have a post doc in healthcare I assume to go along with your post doc in economics. Yet you can't open up to any dissenting ideas because they do not make sense to your doctoral self, despite them being in effect right now around the world and therefore with field data proving them to be better than what the USA has right now by orders of magnitude, therefore not being like a new invention of the wheel; the anti-grav wheel if you will.


    I just know that the healthcare in the united states sucks balls, and that the healthcare in other developed countries doesn't suck as many balls as the USA one does. You don't have to go broke because you got sick, for instance. Yet asking for a single example of your version of no-healthcare healthcare working elsewhere nets me calls of hubris and "I'll take my ball and go home"


    Quote Originally Posted by Rilla
    Funny thing about models is that some of them work.

    Preach Rilla
    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
  32. #7007
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Harvey Weinstein did it, no one defended him. Bill Cosby did it, people did not give a fuck about him. Kevin Spacey did it, and people were quick to throw him under the bus. LOL Louis CK. And yet Roy Moore did it, and apparently there are 30 witnesses at least, and people are defending him? Sticking their necks out for him? Why?
    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
  33. #7008
    There are no eye witnesses in the Roy Moore case.

    The Cosby, Weinstein, CK, and Spacey accusations did not operate like a smear campaign. The Moore accusations do. That's where most of the defense of Moore comes from.
  34. #7009
    It can be a smear campaign and be true surely? So not to like it because they actually dug up some fucked up shit seems a bit odd.
  35. #7010
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
    Just a single example of it working in the field can't be that hard to produce, can it?
    It depends. If you're looking for demonstration that one healthcare system causes better healthcare results than another, well, you're not going to find it. There are far, far, far simpler questions in economics that have been studied a tremendous amount which still haven't yielded conclusive results (and I personally project they never will).

    post doc
    I don't have nor will I get a post doc in anything. I'll have a completed bachelor's in econ in a month.

    I just know that the healthcare in the united states sucks balls, and that the healthcare in other developed countries doesn't suck as many balls as the USA one does.
    How do you know that? Because nobody knows that.

    What we have observed is a lot of stuff that lines up with what economic theory says. Like more rationing in tax based systems.

    If you want to talk about healthcare systems that are probably doing the best, go to Singapore. That system has incorporated a lot of what economic theory says healthcare systems probably should, and the country has the kind of better results that economic theory says it should. We still don't know (and probably never will) what is causing the success in Singapore. Some of what it does is debatable regarding economic theory. By net, it is (probably) the system that adheres to good economics the most, but it still has some things that could probably be greatly improved.

    Singapore, like just about every other place, is a product of its time and place. Its healthcare system is a realistic balance between what theory says, what the people want (which tends to be bad economics), and what the political party wants (in this case it seems to be better economics than most major parties in other countries).

    You don't have to go broke because you got sick, for instance
    The question is what else and why. What else? Well, millions are going broke paying for insurance they can't use when they need it. Other millions can't afford coverage anymore. Why? These were two of the big changes that Obamacare created. The exact "whys" are baked into the law. They involve lots of the regulations commonly discussed.

    What we want is cheaper care, more care, and better care. We're not going to get that by doing what economic theory says should cause more costly care, less care, and worse care.
  36. #7011
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy
    It can be a smear campaign and be true surely?
    Most certainly. If the evidence is ever any good that he did it, I think you'll see those defending him jump off pretty quickly.

    It also could not be a smear campaign. It could just look like one by coincidence.
  37. #7012
    Btw my hypothesis that given enough power everyone is a paedo has got to be pretty close to being a law now.
  38. #7013
    Also the cases of the four celebrities listed were not mere accusations. Tons of people knew about Cosby for quite a while, same with Weinstein, CK admitted it (didn't he?) and tons knew about that for a while too, and Spacey admitted it. The accusations came out one after another, like they were realistic and organic.

    But with Moore, he had just done the worst thing he possibly could do to the establishment of the Republican Party, the accusations came out perfectly timed to harm him and his supporters, they all hit at the very same time in a highly suspicious way, and those in the GOP that he butthurt all called for his resignation immediately. All the while the accusations are really weak. And this type of thing is common in politics. Sexual accusation smear campaigns aptly timed that disappear very quickly after the election are not uncommon.
  39. #7014
    Who was it who said "Everything is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power"? I think it was Frank Underwood, which is lol
  40. #7015
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    If you want to talk about healthcare systems that are probably doing the best, go to Singapore. That system has incorporated a lot of what economic theory says healthcare systems probably should, and the country has the kind of better results that economic theory says it should. We still don't know (and probably never will) what is causing the success in Singapore. Some of what it does is debatable regarding economic theory. By net, it is (probably) the system that adheres to good economics the most, but it still has some things that could probably be greatly improved.


    Singapore, like just about every other place, is a product of its time and place. Its healthcare system is a realistic balance between what theory says, what the people want (which tends to be bad economics), and what the political party wants (in this case it seems to be better economics than most major parties in other countries).
    Ok.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies, and price controls.

    That is what I have been advocating for all along wuf. Universal fucking healthcare.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    The question is what else and why. What else? Well, millions are going broke paying for insurance they can't use when they need it. Other millions can't afford coverage anymore. Why? These were two of the big changes that Obamacare created. The exact "whys" are baked into the law. They involve lots of the regulations commonly discussed.


    What we want is cheaper care, more care, and better care. We're not going to get that by doing what economic theory says should cause more costly care, less care, and worse care.

    Which is why if I were American I would like some form of universal healthcare in ASAP, pronto. Obamacare is basically the right wing version of healthcare anyway (reagans's idea as I'm sure you already know), yet you guys just want to go even more to the right with Trump's version
    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
  41. #7016
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    Also the cases of the four celebrities listed were not mere accusations. Tons of people knew about Cosby for quite a while, same with Weinstein, CK admitted it (didn't he?) and tons knew about that for a while too, and Spacey admitted it. The accusations came out one after another, like they were realistic and organic.


    But with Moore, he had just done the worst thing he possibly could do to the establishment of the Republican Party, the accusations came out perfectly timed to harm him and his supporters, they all hit at the very same time in a highly suspicious way, and those in the GOP that he butthurt all called for his resignation immediately. All the while the accusations are really weak. And this type of thing is common in politics. Sexual accusation smear campaigns aptly timed that disappear very quickly after the election are not uncommon.

    Season 6 of House of cards got rewritten, "All the Money in the World" scenes will be reshot, "I love you Daddy" got canned, Cosby's last big thing was in '09 so he was out of the public eye already when shit went down, Weinstein got removed from the board of The Weinstein Company and expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences so you can basically say he, too, got dwarfmanned from the movie world
    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
  42. #7017
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
    That is what I have been advocating for all along wuf. Universal fucking healthcare.
    The universal and mandates aspect of the system is one of the problems with it. Even so not all universal systems are equal. Singapore, for example, uses a bunch of first-party payment; whereas Obamacare and a myriad of other regulations in the US have turned the system almost entirely into third-party payment. Also, most of the elements of the Singapore system that make it probably better than the others are things that are supported almost exclusively by libertarian and conservative types in the US (and have been pushed by senators like Rand Paul and Cruz). Sanders, Clinton, Democrat-favored reforms are antithetical to Singapore's chief reforms.

    Another important thing to keep in mind is that it is REALLY hard to make a quality universal tax-based healthcare system, but very easy to make a great one if the government isn't involved. Singapore has essentially done it with taxes because, the going theories are, it is culturally very ubiquitous, low population, has only one major political party (so it can do what it wants instead of just trying to win elections like happens in most other countries), and it has an ethic of hard work and personal responsibility in part via contrast with the bigger powers in Asia. As we have seen in the US, tax-based attempts have not turned out like this. They have been failing miserably.

    Obamacare is basically the right wing version of healthcare anyway (reagans's idea as I'm sure you already know)
    It is not a right-wing idea. That it is right-wing has only ever been believed by the MSM and the left and the GOP establishment. Romney lost the election in big part because enough conservatives and libertarians hated his healthcare policies.

    Reagan was the first successful political champion of the conservative movement. And he still did a lot of stuff that doesn't jive with conservative thought.
  43. #7018
    Something interesting to note is that conservatives and libertarians tend to view themselves as constantly under unfair attack. I tend to agree with them. Notice how the establishments in the media, the Democrats, and the Republicans are all doing an amazing job at not even talking about Bob Menendez even though the case has significantly more of the salacious scandal shit people purport to love than anything else in politics right now.

    Conservatives and libertarians tend to think this is because the establishments in the media, Democrats, and Republicans are all pretty much a uniparty playing for the same team of corruption and selling the working man down the river for personal benefit.
  44. #7019
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    Conservatives and libertarians tend to think this is because the establishments in the media, Democrats, and Republicans are all pretty much a uniparty playing for the same team of corruption and selling the working man down the river for personal benefit.

    Progressives think this exact same thing as well
    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
  45. #7020
    They're not wrong about being attacked by establishments too, though it seems to manifest differently. The theft of the nomination from Sanders is a clear example.

    Where there is significant disagreement is on how the establishments are screwing the working man. The right tends to think it's by making rules that favor the powerful at the expense of the working man, and the left tends to think it's by not making rules that favor the working man.

    A useful description from an economist I like, Bryan Caplan, is that the left can be summed up as having anti-market bias, and the right can be summed up as having anti-left bias. The right isn't quite pro-market (sadly), but they definitely are against most of the anti-market interventionism promoted by the left.
  46. #7021
    Jack, if I may add some insight into the Singaporean system.

    It appears to me that there is enough bias and low enough understanding in the American media that what they call universal coverage in Singapore they would call not universal coverage if in America.

    The short of the Singaporean system is that it's organized around health savings accounts. They're mandatory, yet expenditures come from the user of the healthcare himself/herself. There are tiers in coverage quality, which essentially breakdown into how much the consumer spends on healthcare. This, in general, keeps costs low, but there is an added power punch to the Singaporean health savings accounts system in that citizens are allowed to begin using money saved in those accounts for other things once they reach a certain age and (I think) wealth level. These have made the incentives for citizens to make smart health related and healthcare decisions VERY strong.

    There is also a very low tier level of coverage that every citizen has access to. It is used by essentially the poorest of the poor, be they poor from making bad decisions, from not making much money, from mental illness, or whatever.

    Now, if we look at the American system, it too has this universal coverage for the poor. It also has universal coverage for the old. Obamacare also created universal coverage for all, except that the coverage is essentially non-existent for many due to just how poorly the law is constructed.

    For America to adopt a Singaporean type system, it would involve significantly less funding for Medicaid and Medicare (because health savings accounts will take over a large portion), a reforming of the employer-based tax deduction (or even just total eradication of this bad policy), and a transforming of the mandate to buy health insurance and the tax for the aforementioned programs into health savings accounts. The government could still totally screw this up if the law was too detailed and not organized around incentivizing smart personal decisions regarding how to spend the health savings account funds.
  47. #7022
    I don't know what the supply side is like in Singapore, but it is certainly the case that care costs would come down and care quantity would come up with restriction reductions. America is awash in these regulations. Tons of care that would normally cost a couple dollars if these restrictions didn't exist commonly cost hundreds or thousands in America. We have to thank for this mostly lobbies like the AMA getting the government to pass very powerful laws that benefit the AMA at the expense of everybody else. There are also a lot of lies from the government itself.
  48. #7023
    The only politicians I know of that have pushed for health savings accounts type reforms are Paul and Cruz. Some others have, but I don't know them by name. The policy is like garlic to a vampire in the Democratic party. My guess for why is because of how entrenched the insurance lobby is. Health savings accounts, even if mandated by government, would be a significant blow to insurance companies, and the beneficiaries would be the people. It isn't just the insurance lobby causing the problem though, rent-seeking voters are too. People who already have Medicaid or Medicare or Obamacare subsidies don't want any changes to those even if it means the country and their children would be markedly better off.
  49. #7024
    Theresa May is such a twat.

    When Trump won, Clinton accused Putin of meddling. Of course, this idea has been utterly disctredited and it turns out the Clinton's camp were the ones trying to collude with the Russians. Now the whole Russia thing is one big fucking joke.

    So what does May do today?

    Accuse the Russians of meddling.

    And the irony? Russia have elections coming up. May is literally meddling. She's actually helping him because it will strengthen his position, the Russians don't really like it when the British tell them what to do, but she's probably stupid enough to think she's securing a few anti-Putin votes. Who knows what goes on in that woman's head? One thing is for sure... she won't ever be viewed as one of our more successful leaders.

    Boris is going to Russia soon. This should be fun.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #7025
    The Russians meddling and enjoying the outcome does not mean what you think it means.

    The Russians certainly have an interest in pushing the scales in the US, but again, this doesn't mean what you think it means. They have an interest in picking a candidate and trying to ensure they win, but this is fraught with risk, should your candidate lose, should it be credibly exposed before the election or after your candidate wins, etc etc. You're going all in. The Russians have one of the most sophisticated intelligence apparatuses. So what's my point? They leaned on both sides of the scale. No matter who wins, they win. They don't even need to rely on the candidate following through on promises made in exchange for the help. All they need to do is leave bread crumbs leading back to both candidates-- and the more sensational and over the top the bread crumbs (e.g. the recently leaked wikileaks/Trump Jr. emails) the better.

    It truly is awe inspiring. No matter which way your lens colors things, when you talk about it you sound like a conspiracy nut. Maybe most of all when you try to relay what I believe to be the truth: Russia is essentially acting as The Dark Knight's Joker, an agent of chaos, manically prancing through the streets, tossing a grenade in one window and again in another, but every fifth grenade doesn't project a flag pole with a flag reading "BOOM!", it actually goes boom.

    What's the quote? "Nothing is real, and everything is possible."?
  51. #7026
    My point is that we're every bit as guilty of all the bullshit we accuse them of.

    Why is it bad when it's them but it's all good when it's us?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #7027
    Shortly after Bannon left the administration, he explicitly declared war on the RNC. He has a list of all the GOP senator do-nothings he's actively trying to unseat in 2018. Helping Roy Moore defeat Luther Strange was the first electoral activity regarding that list. If the establishment GOP can defeat Moore even now, it will strike a huge blow to Bannon and the angry voting base. This is probably the most important fight for the rival factions for all of the 2018 elections.

    That's the main backdrop for why no conservative supporters of Trump and/or Bannon believe the accusations.
  53. #7028
    The Dems' favored media outlets are finally calling Bill Clinton a rapist. Mueller's investigation into the Clinton Foundation has them shaken.
  54. #7029
    RNC drops funding for Moore all the while the supposed proof by his accuser is shown to be a forgery.

    Most obvious smear campaign of all time. DC and the media, crooks and liars.
  55. #7030
    Trump must be jizzing in his pants every time Mr. Ball opens his mouth now.

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/2...angelo-release

    He's got CNN touting Trump's achievement!!

    "[Trump] gets involved, the boys are released, they get to come back home - which was never a certainty until he got involved," Cuomo said.
    Even the haters here gotta admit this was well played by Trump. He knows the liberal hawks are making a living pouncing on everything he tweets. He knows they get up every day trying to find new ways to call him petty and childish. So Trump throws them a huge wet stinky meatball when he tweets how Mr. Ball didn't thank him.

    All Mr. Ball had to do was show a little humility and gratitude but since that's so bad for his brand he decided it would be better to go full blown lib-tard and just nonsensically shit on Trump. Now he looks ridiculous, which means he needs to be on TV, because the media loves a fool. And in order to make the fool look ridiculous on TV, they have to keep talking about how productive the Trump/Xi relationship is.
  56. #7031
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Trump must be jizzing in his pants every time Mr. Ball opens his mouth now.

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/2...angelo-release

    He's got CNN touting Trump's achievement!!



    Even the haters here gotta admit this was well played by Trump. He knows the liberal hawks are making a living pouncing on everything he tweets. He knows they get up every day trying to find new ways to call him petty and childish. So Trump throws them a huge wet stinky meatball when he tweets how Mr. Ball didn't thank him.

    All Mr. Ball had to do was show a little humility and gratitude but since that's so bad for his brand he decided it would be better to go full blown lib-tard and just nonsensically shit on Trump. Now he looks ridiculous, which means he needs to be on TV, because the media loves a fool. And in order to make the fool look ridiculous on TV, they have to keep talking about how productive the Trump/Xi relationship is.
    Trump playing 3D chess again. Wow you guys are such Trump ball lickers.

    What happened is, Trump was in China for another reason and said 'hey how about letting those guys go? it's just shoplifting' as one would expect any president to do (but when Trump does it suddenly he's some kind of hero), and Xi said 'ok' (like any foreign leader who doesn't hate your country would do), and now they have this 'great relationship' because they're acting reasonably and not telling each other to fuck off all the time.

    Next Trump gets into a fight with one of the kids' parents because apparently the guy doesn't like Trump and is a wanker in how he makes that known. Let it be clear, the kid's father is ungrateful and way out of line. But instead of Trump just ignoring what some idiot says because, you know, he's the president and has better things to do with his time (one would think), Trump is so narcissistic he can't help but get into a public fight with the guy.

    And in your eyes, this makes him look good...
  57. #7032
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And in your eyes, this makes him look good...
    He got CNN anchors to tout his successful diplomacy. How does that look in your eyes?

    If the headline today were "Trump: Narcissist", then you would probably have a point. But it's not. The headline today is that Mr. Ball is an ungrateful dickhead, and Trump saved the day.

    You have an exceptionally bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome if you think that successful diplomacy should somehow make Trump look bad.

    PS - if getting these boys released was an innocuous an exercise as you claim it is...then it could have been done by any of hundreds of government officials or diplomats. Instead, you have CNN saying "none of this was for certain until Trump got involved"

    Securing their release is NOT a simple exercise. These guys went into a soveriegn country, broke their laws, faced lawful prosecution and punishment and then said "Nah, you should let us go cause that's what would happen in America"

    If you think ANY foreign leader, let alone China, sees that as a small deal.....you're out of your mind
    Last edited by BananaStand; 11-22-2017 at 12:05 PM.
  58. #7033
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He got CNN anchors to tout his successful diplomacy. How does that look in your eyes?

    If the headline today were "Trump: Narcissist", then you would probably have a point. But it's not. The headline today is that Mr. Ball is an ungrateful dickhead, and Trump saved the day.

    You have an exceptionally bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome if you think that successful diplomacy should somehow make Trump look bad.

    PS - if getting these boys released was an innocuous an exercise as you claim it is...then it could have been done by any of hundreds of government officials or diplomats. Instead, you have CNN saying "none of this was for certain until Trump got involved"

    Securing their release is NOT a simple exercise. These guys went into a soveriegn country, broke their laws, faced lawful prosecution and punishment and then said "Nah, you should let us go cause that's what would happen in America"

    If you think ANY foreign leader, let alone China, sees that as a small deal.....you're out of your mind
    Like I said, ANY president would have done the same thing. And who cares if CNN says it's a big deal or not, they're fake news remember?

    You make it sound like Xi is so simple that he was just wowed by Trump's charm into letting them go. As if he did it not in the best interests of his country, but because he wants to be BFFs with Trump. Get real.

    As for arguing with the kid's dad, yeah it makes him look like an idiot. But what else is new?

    You're giving Trump supreme credit for doing his job, and ignoring the fact that he spending a lot of time he SHOULD be doing his job arguing with some mental case on the internet. If my boss came into my office and found me tweeting shit to some students' father who i'd helped somehow but was being ungrateful, they'd be like 'wtf?'. But if Trump does it you guys think 'wow what a hero'
  59. #7034
    The thing is, it hardly matters what crazy idiot shit Trump does, you're going to find a way to make it seem genius. He could take a shit on his desk, wank off over the flag, and get caught stealing light bulbs from the White House, and you'd be like 'well yes this objectively looks like bad behaviour, but really he's cleverly distracting us from something even worse that he did. That's how clever he is'. And after all that, if he ordered you to drink the kool-aid you'd happily gulp it down and ask for seconds.
  60. #7035
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Like I said, ANY president would have done the same thing.
    And any other president would have received heartfelt gratitude. Except Mr. Ball decided that Trump is special.

    And who cares if CNN says it's a big deal or not, they're fake news remember?
    Non-sequitor. This has nothing to do with CNN's credibility. Credible or not, they have been Trump's mortal enemy from day 1 of the campaign. And now their anchors are citing his success in order challenge one of Trump's critics. And you don't think that's at least a little interesting????

    You make it sound like Xi is so simple that he was just wowed by Trump's charm into letting them go. As if he did it not in the best interests of his country, but because he wants to be BFFs with Trump. Get real
    You make it sound like Xi should just be rubber-stamping their release. That's insane.

    Imagine if you attended a cockfight that was raided by the police and everyone got arrested. Then, after they rounded everyone up, a cop says "Ok Cockfighting is cool in Santo Domingo, so anyone with a Dominican passport is free to go. The rest of you are under arrest"

    Does that make sense to you? It shouldn't

    And this China situation is 10x worse cause stealing is morally wrong, and it's illegal in America too!

    So for Xi to just release these kids as a default would be a disservice to his country's system of justice and an offense to his citizens. That is NOT something that a sitting president would take lightly. No one is saying that Xi did it to curry favor with Trump. But he was convinced somehow. And the person who convinced him, was Trump.

    As for arguing with the kid's dad, yeah it makes him look like an idiot. But what else is new?
    It only makes him look like an idiot to the people who already think he's an idiot. To the people who think he's a genius, it makes him look like a genius. The people in the middle have to rely on what they hear in the news. And right now the news is "Trump wins in China. Lib-tard throws tantrum anyway"

    You're giving Trump supreme credit for doing his job, and ignoring the fact that he spending a lot of time he SHOULD be doing his job arguing with some mental case on the internet.
    This is a tired and outright silly argument. Define "a lot of time". Because a tweet takes 5 seconds, and even the POTUS can make time for that. Riding in a car, sitting on the can, laying in bed at night. I'm sure he's an extremely busy man, but I would still guess he has at least 50 opportunities a day to send a tweet without interrupting his schedule at all.

    Furthermore, if you really believe that he was just having a forum-fight with an internet troll, the joke is on you. I'll bet Trump cares 0% what Mr. Ball thinks, or how ungrateful he may be. As I've been trying to explain, the whole point of the tweet is to drive the headlines. To a degree, he is influencing what is talked about, and perhaps more importantly, what isn't. And that is most definitely part if his job.

    If my boss came into my office and found me tweeting shit to some students' father who i'd helped somehow but was being ungrateful, they'd be like 'wtf?'. But if Trump does it you guys think 'wow what a hero'
    It's a completely false analogy. If you don't see why, you're just stupid.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 11-22-2017 at 01:16 PM.
  61. #7036
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And any other president would have received heartfelt gratitude. Except Mr. Ball decided that Trump is special.
    We already agreed Mr. Ball is a dick. What's your point?



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Non-sequitor. This has nothing to do with CNN's credibility. Credible or not, they have been Trump's mortal enemy from day 1 of the campaign. And now their anchors are citing his success in order challenge one of Trump's critics. And you don't think that's at least a little interesting????
    Only to you because you're desperately seeking ways to find support for Trump, one of your least popular presidents ever.

    If CNN or any other news media says 'wow the president finally did something right', then yea i guess on some level that's impressive.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You make it sound like Xi should just be rubber-stamping their release. That's insane.
    Not what I said at all. But it isn't uncommon for a president to intercede on behalf of his citizens in another country. You act like it's never happened before.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Imagine if you attended a cockfight that was raided by the police and everyone got arrested. Then, after they rounded everyone up, a cop says "Ok Cockfighting is cool in Santo Domingo, so anyone with a Dominican passport is free to go. The rest of you are under arrest"

    Does that make sense to you? It shouldn't

    And this China situation is 10x worse cause stealing is morally wrong, and it's illegal in America too!
    Yes, of course those kids deserve to rot in jail for 10 years for shoplifting. And the president getting them released is the diplomatic coup of the century that no other president except all of them have ever pulled off before.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It only makes him look like an idiot to the people who already think he's an idiot. To the people who think he's a genius, it makes him look like a genius. The people in the middle have to rely on what they hear in the news. And right now the news is "Trump wins in China. Lib-tard throws tantrum anyway"
    Lol, if there's anyone left in the middle in America, they certainly aren't thinking 'wow thank god we have a president who can have a twitter war with some mental case on the internet.'


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm sure he's an extremely busy man, but I would still guess he has at least 50 opportunities a day to send a tweet without interrupting his schedule at all.
    Is he? Because most busy men in very important jobs are spending their time thinking about their jobs on a plane, lying in bed, etc., not sending tweets to some random jerk.

    Also, this isn't like it's the first time this kind of thing has happened.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    As I've been trying to explain, the whole point of the tweet is to drive the headlines. To a degree, he is influencing what is talked about, and perhaps more importantly, what isn't. And that is most definitely part if his job.
    There you go, the old argument about Trump's stupid behavior deflecting attention from even worse behavior. Sure, I guess that's a talent of sorts. But wouldn't you prefer a president whose image isn't so poor among most people that he needs to consantly be doing this?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's a completely false analogy. If you don't see why, you're just stupid.
    So if I'm on the train home and I tweet to Mr. Ungrateful parent it's a good use of my time?
  62. #7037
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    We already agreed Mr. Ball is a dick. What's your point?
    My point is that none of this would have happened if Mr Ball wasn't a dick. So it's a little dubious when people like you point the finger at Trump for being petty. He's seizing an opportunity. Ball gave him that opportunity.

    If CNN or any other news media says 'wow the president finally did something right', then yea i guess on some level that's impressive.
    Ok, so we agree then. Now the only question is this "impressive" outcome the result of Trump's actions, or just a case of him luckboxing into some positive spin? I kinda think it's the former.

    Not what I said at all. But it isn't uncommon for a president to intercede on behalf of his citizens in another country. You act like it's never happened before
    Of course it's happened before. You act like it's always had a 100% success rate.

    Yes, of course those kids deserve to rot in jail for 10 years for shoplifting. And the president getting them released is the diplomatic coup of the century that no other president except all of them have ever pulled off before.
    Before 9/11 the first publicized challenge of GWB's presidency was getting some captured pilots out of China. He succeeded, and was widely praised. Deservedly so. Just like Trump deserves credit for what he did. I agree with you that it's a relatively small accomplishment, and certainly not the first of its kind. However, the more it's talked about....the bigger and more important it becomes. And people are talking about it. And they're talking about it because the president tweeted.

    You're saying that's all by accident. Trump is just "lucky" that the news is favorable for him this week? Cmon man...

    Lol, if there's anyone left in the middle in America, they certainly aren't thinking 'wow thank god we have a president who can have a twitter war with some mental case on the internet.'
    Pay attention dude. That's NOT the headline those people are seeing. The headline they are seeing is "Trump wins in China", and that probably DOES resonate with them.

    Is he? Because most busy men in very important jobs are spending their time thinking about their jobs on a plane, lying in bed, etc., not sending tweets to some random jerk.
    I get it, you don't like the President tweeting. You're not alone. But it's not gonna change, so you should try to have an open mind and embrace it. No president, or even a moderately busy person, has ever had to deal with an adversarial media with as much reach and influence as we currently do in 2017. When I was a kid, we had 12 tv stations and the news was on at 6. Period.. Now a generation later we have 1200 stations and 12,000 website all running 24 hours a day. The vast majority of them have openly abondoned an impartial approach to journalism and have completely committed to undermining Trump's administration. Trump needs a rapid-fire defense mechanism, and twitter provides that. It is part of his job. It's not a distraction. It's not a hobby. It's not a habit. It's not an obsession. It's not anything other than one of many functions of his job at President of the United States.

    Also, this isn't like it's the first time this kind of thing has happened.
    And it won't be the last. Because, again, twitter is now part of POTUS's job.

    There you go, the old argument about Trump's stupid behavior deflecting attention from even worse behavior
    I didn't say anything about "worse behavior". Maybe there's obstacles in the tax plan. Maybe there's rumblings from North Korea. Maybe there is just some other shit going down that demands his focused attention and occupying the media with some BS distraction about a college basketball player is exactly what he needs to focus on more important business.

    Or maybe it's none of those things and he really just manipulated the media into emphasizing his success in China.

    Sure, I guess that's a talent of sorts. But wouldn't you prefer a president whose image isn't so poor among most people that he needs to constantly be doing this?
    That wasn't an option. Both Presidential candidates were widely detested.

    So if I'm on the train home and I tweet to Mr. Ungrateful parent it's a good use of my time?
    If part of your job is being in the headlines all day every day, and by sending that tweet you've helped shape and influence a headline that's favorable for you then yeah...that's a tremendously good use of your time.
  63. #7038
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    My point is that none of this would have happened if Mr Ball wasn't a dick. So it's a little dubious when people like you point the finger at Trump for being petty. He's seizing an opportunity. Ball gave him that opportunity.
    No, come on. "He started it" isn't an argument unless you're in kindergarten. Trump is still being a dick himself.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ok, so we agree then. Now the only question is this "impressive" outcome the result of Trump's actions, or just a case of him luckboxing into some positive spin? I kinda think it's the former.
    He did something positive for once and he thinks it is positive like everything else he does and wants credit for it like everything else. This is not 3D chess, this is sandbox behavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Of course it's happened before. You act like it's always had a 100% success rate.
    Thing is, we don't know how much of it was Trump and how much of it was just Xi thinking it seemed like a good idea. Sure Trump gets the credit because the nuances of the situation are beyond the general public that the media speaks to.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Pay attention dude. That's NOT the headline those people are seeing. The headline they are seeing is "Trump wins in China", and that probably DOES resonate with them
    Yeah maybe he'll break 40% approval rating - at least until the next dumb thing he does hits the fan.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I get it, you don't like the President tweeting.
    I've got no problem with people tweeting, even presidents. I have a problem with them being a twit on twitter whoever they are.






    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Or maybe it's none of those things and he really just manipulated the media into emphasizing his success in China.
    If talking about how great he is were all he needed to do to get the media to talk about something good he did for a change, then they'd be doing that all the time. Fact is, he finally did something positive and he's getting rewarded with positive attention. Maybe next time when he hears the bell he'll salivate and eventually the media will have him trained.





    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If part of your job is being in the headlines all day every day, and by sending that tweet you've helped shape and influence a headline that's favorable for you then yeah...that's a tremendously good use of your time.
    Oh, I didn't know self-aggrandizement was the president's main job. In that case, yeah he's doing a hella some good work there.
  64. #7039
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    No, come on. "He started it" isn't an argument unless you're in kindergarten. Trump is still being a dick himself.
    Misinterpretation. No one is invoking the "he started it" argument. I'm saying that Mr. Ball opened the door to this. Walking through that door resulted in Trump getting positive spin on CNN. Do you think he should not have walked through that door?

    He did something positive for once and he thinks it is positive like everything else he does and wants credit for it like everything else. This is not 3D chess, this is sandbox behavior.
    Trump has enjoyed an unfathomable amount of wealth and success on his way to winning a presidential campaign against the most locked-in candidate any pollster has ever seen. Do you really think he's miffed about Mr. Ball? Do you really think he sent that tweet out of petty anger? Do you really think a man that successful is that desperate for validation?

    I know you WANT that to be true. I know you WANT to believe Trump is an immature buffoon. But the fact is he simply couldn't be where he is if that were true. It's infinitely more likely that Trump simply saw the snub from Mr. Ball as an opportunity he could exploit for his benefit. It's hard to argue against that, since it is exactly what happened.

    Thing is, we don't know how much of it was Trump and how much of it was just Xi thinking it seemed like a good idea.
    Imagine you're Xi. Foreigners just flouted your laws. Shortly after they were arrested, the father of one of them left town to do some kind of 'pop up shop' to sell his personally branded sneakers. It doesn't appear that these people are remorseful. It doesn't appear that these people are respectful of the laws that they broke. It appears that these men feel entitled to expeditious release. It appears that these men expect not to be held to the same standard as average Chinese citizens.

    If you're Xi....are you leaning towards release or prosecution??

    Sure Trump gets the credit because the nuances of the situation are beyond the general public that the media speaks to.
    Re-read the above. Look what Xi was up against. His accountability is to the chinese people, not to some American-ized expectation of diplomacy. And the chinese people expect shoplifters to do hard time.

    Yeah maybe he'll break 40% approval rating - at least until the next dumb thing he does hits the fan.
    I read 41% on Saturday. It was reported as "his lowest ever". If you saw something below 40%, it was wrong. Also, 41% doesn't seem that bad considering it only takes 47-48% to win an election. And if I recall correctly, the last time we tested the accuracy of polls, it seems that Trumps approval was grossly under-reported.

    Furthermore, what do you think Hillary's approval rating would be right now? If you recall, both candidates were historically hated.

    I've got no problem with people tweeting, even presidents. I have a problem with them being a twit on twitter whoever they are
    Well I don't think that's what happened here. I don't think that the man who amassed 10 billion dollars, scored 60 million votes, and enjoyed more lifetime success than pretty much anyone in American history is really interested in starting twitter beefs sneaker salesman. It's possible...., that Trump had a bigger play in mind here. Again...look at the results. You really think that was an accident??

    If talking about how great he is were all he needed to do to get the media to talk about something good he did for a change, then they'd be doing that all the time.
    Uhhhh, he does do that all that time. Everything he tweets gets airtime on major news networks. In this case, he caught Mr. Ball in a completely indefensible situation. In other words, Trump had the stone cold nuts. There was no way Ball could deny Trump helped him. There was no way he could logically defend his entitled position to anyone who doesn't already loathe Trump.

    Fact is, he finally did something positive and he's getting rewarded with positive attention. Maybe next time when he hears the bell he'll salivate and eventually the media will have him trained.
    Actually, this wasn't a story until Trump tweeted that jab at Mr. Ball. He wasn't getting any attention at all. Now he's been getting all positive spin for several days straight. All for doing something we both agree isn't a particularly demanding aspect of his job. Ball's blunder gave Trump a nut hand. And he got max value.

    Oh, I didn't know self-aggrandizement was the president's main job. In that case, yeah he's doing a hella some good work there
    Hard to deny the results. He must be doing something right.
  65. #7040
    The lesson of the Alabama election? That when the political elites in power want to control the people, just falsely accuse a challenger of sexual assault.
  66. #7041
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The lesson of the Alabama election? That when the political elites in power want to control the people, just falsely accuse a challenger of sexual assault.
    Dude...I don't know if you can find it yet, or if you can find it all, but what I heard on the radio coming in to work this morning was not only hilarious, but completely spells out why Roy Moore is a foul and terrible guy.

    It was on 98.5 The Sports Hub, the show is called 'Toucher & Rich'. Listen from about 8:20 to 8:40 am eastern on 12/13.

    They had audio from a rally or something where Roy Moore's wife gets up and says something like this....

    Fake news will tell you that "we don't care for the Jews". Well I wanna set the record straight, while they're here [applause].
    I can tell you that one of our attorneys....is a Jew
    Stunning. I shouldn't have to explain why. It's just...hilariously...stunning.

    Then they played an exchange between some CNN dude and RM's campaign spokesperson. That went something like this

    CNN: Why does Roy Moore not believe that Muslim's should be allowed to serve in congress?
    Campaign Guy: Well when you're sworn in, they make you swear on a Bible....
    CNN: No they don't "make" you choose a bible. You can swear on a Jewish Bible or....
    CG: No, no you can't. I've done it three times. I have been an elected official and in order to take office you have to swear an oath on the Bible!
    CNN: But that's because you're.....
    CG: ...and Roy Moore does not believe that a person can ethically swear on a Bible if they're not christian
    CNN: But that's not the law. There's no law that specifies a Christian bible.

    Then there was like 12 seconds of silence. I lost my mind while driving because I thought my radio cut out and I desperately wanted to hear with this fuck face had to say. But my radio was fine, apparently Campaign Guy just needed a few seconds to shit his pants. Then finally...

    CNN: You did know that right? You did know the law?
    CG: I know Donald Trump, our elected President, swore on a Bible....
    CNN: Yeah, cuz he's christian and that's what he chose. There you have it folks... Roy Moore's campaign spokesperson.


    THEN the bit continues where they have audio of one of Roy Moore's old vietnam war buddies defending the good judge's character by telling a story about how one time he and his buddies ended up at a brothel in Da Nang with likely underage workers and Roy Moore said "Hey, let's get outta here"

    I mean...I get what the guy is trying to do. But it's still a bad look. You're accused of messing around with underage girls and someone vouches for your character by telling a story that puts you at a brothel staffed by underage girls. Again, stunning.

    All that came directly out of the mouths of the people most closely tied to Roy Moore and his campaign. That's not a paid witness. That's not opinions presented as fact in some shifty fake-news source. That's all directly from the vocal chords of the people that represent Roy Moore.

    Personally, I didn't need Roy Moore's spokespeople to sour me on the guy. I was already out after Roy Moore HIMSELF appeared on Hannity and was asked "did you fuck around with underage chicks?" And the following came directly from Mr. Moore's racist, child-molesty face..

    Well.....not without the mother's permission
    And wuf, you're telling me that the guy was unfairly taken down by some sinister right wing cabal? CMON!!

    Even if you're right......

    GOOD.
  67. #7042
    I agree with pretty much all of that. But that isn't what took him down (though it did hurt him significantly). What took him down was a lie. When they take him down like that, what are they going to do to the next guy they don't like? What are they going to do to you or to me?

    The amount of power that mere accusations of sexual assault, ones that are even proven as fake, has in our politics and in our society at large is a VERY bad thing.
  68. #7043
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    I agree completely, these false accusations like birth certificates, Benghazi, emailgate, Uranium One etc are indeed a VERY bad thing. Sad.

    How do you feel about the tax plan?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  69. #7044
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What took him down was a lie.
    If someone spreads a foul lie that says you were sexually inappropriate with children, then you emphatically deny it with every ounce of breath you have. You swear from the mountaintops that the allegations are definitively false.

    You don't say "I only did it with the mother's permission"

    What the fuck wuf? In what universe are the allegations against Roy Moore lies??

    Hannity asked him directly.."IS THIS A LIE"

    and Roy Moore himself said "nope"

    And you think the guy was set up???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????
  70. #7045
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Confirmation bias in full effect. If you've decided to stand by Trump you need to support him all the way, including his support for Moore, which means he must be innocent. You can't just go about accepting that Trump could be wrong here, since it would open the door to the idea he might be wrong about something else too. Can't have that, otherwise the whole house of cards would crumble.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  71. #7046
    Interesting thing about the Roy Moore saga is that nearly 70% of white people in Alabama still voted for him. So, an admitted perv, racist, homophobe who is R is preferable to anyone who's a D apparently.
  72. #7047
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Bananastand
    I mean...I get what the guy is trying to do. But it's still a bad look. You're accused of messing around with underage girls and someone vouches for your character by telling a story that puts you at a brothel staffed by underage girls. Again, stunning.
    There are TWO greatly stunning parts to this whole development

    1) I truly can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Banana motherfucking Stand

    2) Despite all of this shit, it was still a close race
    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
  73. #7048
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
    I agree completely, these false accusations like birth certificates, Benghazi, emailgate, Uranium One etc are indeed a VERY bad thing. Sad.
    CoccoBill's elbow from the sky
    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
  74. #7049
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    1) I truly can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Banana motherfucking Stand
    You agree with me more than you care to admit.
  75. #7050
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
    I agree completely, these false accusations like birth certificates, Benghazi, emailgate, Uranium One etc are indeed a VERY bad thing. Sad.
    You'd have to let me know which parts are false accusations that you think I agree with.

    How do you feel about the tax plan?
    Not sure. The Senate took a hatchet to what started out as a good bill.

    Confirmation bias in full effect. If you've decided to stand by Trump you need to support him all the way, including his support for Moore, which means he must be innocent. You can't just go about accepting that Trump could be wrong here, since it would open the door to the idea he might be wrong about something else too. Can't have that, otherwise the whole house of cards would crumble.
    The Trump effect on this one was probably negative, actually. Trump campaigned against Moore in the primaries and Moore still won. And then in the general election, "pious" Christians completely abandoned Moore because Bannon backed Moore. Of the three wings warring over control of the Republican Party, the pious Christians wanted the Bannon wing to lose at all costs. So they decided to fall in line with somebody who goes against everything they believe in.

    The extent of my concern of the situation is how it has been impacted by a lie.

Posting Permissions

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