US and NA Politics (General)

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 22, 2019 15:32:45 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 15:27:47 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

That's the good, high quality reply I expected. Didn't you just say something about facts and logic, not fee fees?

Guess you can't handle facts or logic as expected.

Give me one good reason why I should respond to a poster who calls me a "cancerous piece of shit".

Otherwise, fuck off for all care....

Something about you claiming to be the king of facts and logic while using none of it.

Or did I hurt your fee fees? Awww poor wittle snowfwake got his fee fees hurt!

[CommieCanUCK]

Jul 22, 2019 14:42:33 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 13:58:24 GMT -5 CommieCanUCK said:

Blasey's sworn testimony doesn't count for anything I guess.

When she couldn't substantiate it... no, not in the face of Kavanaugh's claims of innocence.

Imagine you were raped many years ago. Now you realize your rapist is being fast tracked by a notorious pedophile rapist to sit on the SCotUS. How do you prove what happened to you?

Can you elaborate here?

Confiscatory policies will create enormous friction at numerous levels.

For one, in order to execute such plans, you'd have to go door-to-door.

For another, you will have "gun sanctuary states" where we'll have massive state-to-federal friction.

It's a reciepe for disaster.

I see, we are discussing the GOP's fear mongering lies, not any seriously advocated actual policy. I thought the right was all about facts over feelings?

Oh, bless your heart. You don't know what those things mean, do you? A constitutional republic just means you do not have hereditary head of state. (Canada is not a Constitutional Republic, as the Canadian government technically operates at the pleasure of the Queen of England, for example) The USA is 100% a democracy. For now.

I think technically we're more of a Representative Democracy.

Your point was that the EC was undemocratic in the context of presidential elections.

I assumed you were talking about direct democracy. Which the EC was purposely designed to avoid that.

So, yes, I'm agreeing with you that the EC is undemocratic, which is exactly as it should be.

Ok, fair enough. You and I both understand that the EC is designed to make some citizens vote more valuable than other citizens.

I see that "The USA isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic!" line parroted by Cons like it's some kind of mic drop statement. It's not.

Asking your nation's future to take on crippling, lifelong debt, or go the military route and risk trauma or even death for your education, is not a way to create a prosperous nation.

So the US isn't prosperous?

We aren't talking about right now. We're talking about the future. Your parent's generation went to college on a part-time minimum wage job. Your kids absolutely cannot do that. The USA's backyard is on fire and you are obstructing progressives because the house isn't burning yet.

Furthermore, you need to grant agency to the borrowers.  Don't take a $100,000 loan on an education that won't support the loan repayment.

Do you feel good living in an economy that requires post-secondary education for virtually every rewarding career and then lecturing about agency? 

But nearly every other industrial nation in the world can do it, with similar or even lower burden of cost upon it's citizens. Why can't the USA, the greatest, richest country on earth, not also meet this standard?

Because the fundamentals would have to change drastically.

-Massive raise taxes.  Good luck with that.  
-Cut provider payment rates (many clinics would shut down)
-Cut hospital provider payment rates (many hospitals would have to merge or close down)

Every reasonable model predicts that taxes would raise less than the cost of health insurance. Yes, taxes will go up. But overall expenses will go down.

-Heathcare lobbying industry will oppose. They donate and vote too, so its a large hurdle to say the least.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons that I say the US is sliding into fascism. It's not all about your racist president. It's also about industry dictating to government.

-Other nations aren't as big as we are, so the economy of scales is different.

That's not how economy of scale works. That's completely the opposite of how economy of scale works.

-We're expensive to treat. We're older (boomers retiring), fatter and unhealthier than most other nations due to our lifestyles.

Yes, part of a comprehensive healthcare program is better standard of living. But Canadians aren't much better than Americans in terms of fast food and obesity, and we do okay.

[Least censored on the planet!]

Jul 22, 2019 15:32:45 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Give me one good reason why I should respond to a poster who calls me a "cancerous piece of shit".

Otherwise, fuck off for all care....

Only reason I didn't give the same answer as Wolfblade was the cancer reference. I'm not doing that shit.

Anyway, here's your thread. Time to let people who don't want to read our conversation not read it.
otzone.proboards.com/thread/7488/whemblys-thread-talking-whembly

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 15:53:56 GMT -5 CommieCanUCK said:

Jul 22, 2019 14:42:33 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Imagine you were raped many years ago. Now you realize your rapist is being fast tracked by a notorious pedophile rapist to sit on the SCotUS. How do you prove what happened to you?

I certainly wouldn't have waited that long.

Confiscatory policies will create enormous friction at numerous levels.

For one, in order to execute such plans, you'd have to go door-to-door.

For another, you will have "gun sanctuary states" where we'll have massive state-to-federal friction.

It's a reciepe for disaster.

I see, we are discussing the GOP's fear mongering lies, not any seriously advocated actual policy. I thought the right was all about facts over feelings?

Eric Swallwell and Kristen Gillibrand were arguing for confiscatory policies. (Harris hemmed/hawed a bit).

So, instead of being a dick about, how 'bout you start arguing in good faith?

I think technically we're more of a Representative Democracy.

Your point was that the EC was undemocratic in the context of presidential elections.

I assumed you were talking about direct democracy. Which the EC was purposely designed to avoid that.

So, yes, I'm agreeing with you that the EC is undemocratic, which is exactly as it should be.

Ok, fair enough. You and I both understand that the EC is designed to make some citizens vote more valuable than other citizens.

Yup. It's designed to give all voters in every state some "say".

I see that "The USA isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic!" line parroted by Cons like it's some kind of mic drop statement. It's not.

Ah... I see.

So the US isn't prosperous?

We aren't talking about right now. We're talking about the future. Your parent's generation went to college on a part-time minimum wage job. Your kids absolutely cannot do that. The USA's backyard is on fire and you are obstructing progressives because the house isn't burning yet.

Progressive need to advocate to lower the cost of education. It's too fucking expensive.

But, I don't hear that. What I hear, is that progressive are advocating to A) wipe out existing college debt and B) have nebulous plans to provide free college and C) doing nothing about how expensive colleges are these days.

I guaran.FUCKING.tee you that colleges will NOT lower the costs out of altruistic reasons.

Furthermore, you need to grant agency to the borrowers.  Don't take a $100,000 loan on an education that won't support the loan repayment.

Do you feel good living in an economy that requires post-secondary education for virtually every rewarding career and then lecturing about agency? 

Yes. I do fee good. Because you can have a great life without college degrees.

Because the fundamentals would have to change drastically.

-Massive raise taxes.  Good luck with that.  
-Cut provider payment rates (many clinics would shut down)
-Cut hospital provider payment rates (many hospitals would have to merge or close down)

Every reasonable model predicts that taxes would raise less than the cost of health insurance. Yes, taxes will go up. But overall expenses will go down.

The CBO and many independent analyst report the exact opposite.

-Heathcare lobbying industry will oppose. They donate and vote too, so its a large hurdle to say the least.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons that I say the US is sliding into fascism. It's not all about your racist president. It's also about industry dictating to government.

K.

-Other nations aren't as big as we are, so the economy of scales is different.

That's not how economy of scale works. That's completely the opposite of how economy of scale works.

-We're expensive to treat. We're older (boomers retiring), fatter and unhealthier than most other nations due to our lifestyles.

Yes, part of a comprehensive healthcare program is better standard of living. But Canadians aren't much better than Americans in terms of fast food and obesity, and we do okay.

Good for Canada.

[dusa]

That moment when your argument against healthcare is the fact that we’re unhealthy...

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2019 16:28:45 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

So, instead of being a dick about, how 'bout you start arguing in good faith?

Wow, Pot, Kettle, Black.

[CommieCanUCK]

Jul 22, 2019 16:28:45 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 15:53:56 GMT -5 CommieCanUCK said:

Imagine you were raped many years ago. Now you realize your rapist is being fast tracked by a notorious pedophile rapist to sit on the SCotUS. How do you prove what happened to you?

I certainly wouldn't have waited that long.

But you did. How do you prove it?

I see, we are discussing the GOP's fear mongering lies, not any seriously advocated actual policy. I thought the right was all about facts over feelings?

Eric Swallwell and Kristen Gillibrand were arguing for confiscatory policies. (Harris hemmed/hawed a bit).

I had to google those two. Neither of them will be the nominee. They will not be setting policy.

Swalwell does advocate a buy back program for 'assault rifles' (semi-auto I guess?) We could use him as a poster child for the scary gun-snatching Dems, but he is noted for being more extreme in his gun control views than his Dem peers.

Gillibrand does not advocate buy back policy. Unless you count "criminals can't have guns is confiscatory policy", you cannot pretend it is a mainstream Democratic idea.

So, instead of being a dick about, how 'bout you start arguing in good faith?

I wasn't being a dick. Winky face means we're having fun.

Ok, fair enough. You and I both understand that the EC is designed to make some citizens vote more valuable than other citizens.

Yup. It's designed to give all voters in every state some "say".

Why is rural voters 'say' more valuable than urban voters 'say'?

We aren't talking about right now. We're talking about the future. Your parent's generation went to college on a part-time minimum wage job. Your kids absolutely cannot do that. The USA's backyard is on fire and you are obstructing progressives because the house isn't burning yet.

Progressive need to advocate to lower the cost of education. It's too fucking expensive.

True, and there's far too many predatory fake colleges out there (like the scam TrumpU, for example). How do we advocate for lower costs though.....?

I guaran.FUCKING.tee you that colleges will NOT lower the costs out of altruistic reasons.

....Oh, right. So we have to force them to come to the table, by wiping out current debt and putting a limit on future grant levels. Colleges will adapt or perish.

Do you feel good living in an economy that requires post-secondary education for virtually every rewarding career and then lecturing about agency? 

Yes. I do fee good. Because you can have a great life without college degrees.

I agree (I'm living it right now), but that is usually dependent on circumstance. Not everyone can handle the trades.

Every reasonable model predicts that taxes would raise less than the cost of health insurance. Yes, taxes will go up. But overall expenses will go down.

The CBO and many independent analyst report the exact opposite.

I have not read that. Have you read that?

That's not how economy of scale works. That's completely the opposite of how economy of scale works.

Did you google economy of scale yet? You should drop it from your list of reasons why socialised healthcare wouldn't work in the US.

Yes, part of a comprehensive healthcare program is better standard of living. But Canadians aren't much better than Americans in terms of fast food and obesity, and we do okay.

Good for Canada.

Yes. And it can be good for the USA, too. You just have to decide you want it, and not listen to your crooked reps who are in the pocket of the aforementioned healthcare lobbyists.

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 16:32:57 GMT -5 dusa said:

That moment when your argument against healthcare is the fact that we’re unhealthy...

I'm not arguing against healthcare.  Why do you assume that as fact?

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 16:42:57 GMT -5 @baroniveagh said:

Jul 22, 2019 16:28:45 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

So, instead of being a dick about, how 'bout you start arguing in good faith?

Wow, Pot, Kettle, Black.

I've always argued in good faith.     You don't like my opinions.  

[whemblycthulhu]

quote thingy is jacked.

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 17:15:11 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 16:59:26 GMT -5 CommieCanUCK said:

But you did. How do you prove it?

Not if I couldn't get witnesses to back me up.

I had to google those two. Neither of them will be the nominee. They will not be setting policy.

Swalwell does advocate a buy back program for 'assault rifles' (semi-auto I guess?) We could use him as a poster child for the scary gun-snatching Dems, but he is noted for being more extreme in his gun control views than his Dem peers.

Gillibrand does not advocate buy back policy. Unless you count "criminals can't have guns is confiscatory policy", you cannot pretend it is a mainstream Democratic idea.

It *is* mainstream Democratic to restrict gun rights. To the points that more, and more politicians are advocating confiscatory policies.

I wasn't being a dick. Winky face means we're having fun.

My bad. Apologies.

Why is rural voters 'say' more valuable than urban voters 'say'?

By virtue of being a separate state.

True, and there's far too many predatory fake colleges out there (like the scam TrumpU, for example). How do we advocate for lower costs though.....?

I honestly don't know.

Also, part of the problem is the "easy money" via loans. Since the government is backing it, making it VERY difficult for borrowers to default, colleges are under no pressure to reduce their costs.

....Oh, right. So we have to force them to come to the table, by wiping out current debt and putting a limit on future grant levels. Colleges will adapt or perish.

Drastic. But, yeah, pretty much that.

I agree (I'm living it right now), but that is usually dependent on circumstance. Not everyone can handle the trades.

True.

I have not read that. Have you read that?

It was all over WSJ awhile ago.

Did you google economy of scale yet? You should drop it from your list of reasons why socialised healthcare wouldn't work in the US.

Ok.

Yes. And it can be good for the USA, too. You just have to decide you want it, and not listen to your crooked reps who are in the pocket of the aforementioned healthcare lobbyists.

I'm pragmatic about this. Something will have to happen... something dramatic to shift the public in order for something like the Canadian single-payer to occur.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 22, 2019 17:09:11 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 16:42:57 GMT -5 @baroniveagh said:

Wow, Pot, Kettle, Black.

I've always argued in good faith.     You don't like my opinions.  

No you haven't. That's why I made a nice post of over 100 examples of you not arguing in good faith.

Unless you count lying, strawmanning, moving the goalposts, and other assorted things as "good faith".

Which, as a trumptard, you probably do.

[whemblycthulhu]

You've not once, engaged with me at all in that thread. So, you're just making shit up.

Ciao.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 22, 2019 18:15:40 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

You've not once, engaged with me at all in that thread. So, you're just making shit up.

Ciao.

No, you refused to engage, I asked you to pick a point to start with. Instead, you proceeded to delete all your posts and replace it with a meme, probably because you couldn't handle the facts and your fee fees hurt right?

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 18:20:50 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Jul 22, 2019 18:15:40 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

You've not once, engaged with me at all in that thread. So, you're just making shit up.

Ciao.

No, you refused to engage, I asked you to pick a point to start with. Instead, you proceeded to delete all your posts and replace it with a meme, probably because you couldn't handle the facts and your fee fees hurt right?

That's an outright lie and you know it.