Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 231: The Sleepy One

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Corrik7 07/31/19 12:28:35 PM #351:	Inviso posted... Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions. Why do you think this? --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:925430954] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions.</quote> Why do you think this?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 12:29:46 PM #352:	Corrik7 posted... hockeydude15 posted... Literally the only people who like their insurance are the ones who never have to use it in any meaningful way. At least I've never met someone who has had a major medical problem that after it was all done said "my health insurance provider was helpful." In every single case it was months of fighting for payments for care they were covered under but was denied for because of X reason, sometimes getting bills years later because of denied claims that took that long. And if you don't save every piece of paperwork related to whatever happened, you are just boned. Health insurance shouldn't be one of the most stressful parts of recovery but it really is. I have never had an issue with my insurance provider??? And, I use it normally I would assume... Have you ever submitted a big claim? Anecdotally, my previous job didn't offer a group healthcare plan so I had to buy health insurance on my own. It was extraordinarily difficult even to sign up for health insurance with the first company I tried - required many phone calls (with endless menus and then customer service reps who had no idea what they were doing or no authority to do anything), faxes, etc. over a period of several weeks. Finally I gave up and decided if it was this difficult to buy insurance from this company, it was probably going to be impossible to get them to pay out if I ever needed them to cover a claim. I ended up paying about $500 extra per year just so I could deal with a company that was based outside of California so any calls would go to a call center in another state which I expected would have more competence. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925430996] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>hockeydude15 posted...</cite> <quote>Literally the only people who like their insurance are the ones who never have to use it in any meaningful way. At least I've never met someone who has had a major medical problem that after it was all done said "my health insurance provider was helpful." In every single case it was months of fighting for payments for care they were covered under but was denied for because of X reason, sometimes getting bills years later because of denied claims that took that long. And if you don't save every piece of paperwork related to whatever happened, you are just boned. Health insurance shouldn't be one of the most stressful parts of recovery but it really is.</quote> I have never had an issue with my insurance provider??? And, I use it normally I would assume...</quote> Have you ever submitted a big claim? Anecdotally, my previous job didn't offer a group healthcare plan so I had to buy health insurance on my own. It was extraordinarily difficult even to sign up for health insurance with the first company I tried - required many phone calls (with endless menus and then customer service reps who had no idea what they were doing or no authority to do anything), faxes, etc. over a period of several weeks. Finally I gave up and decided if it was this difficult to buy insurance from this company, it was probably going to be impossible to get them to pay out if I ever needed them to cover a claim. I ended up paying about $500 extra per year just so I could deal with a company that was based outside of California so any calls would go to a call center in another state which I expected would have more competence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 07/31/19 12:39:09 PM #353:	red sox 777 posted... Corrik7 posted... hockeydude15 posted... Literally the only people who like their insurance are the ones who never have to use it in any meaningful way. At least I've never met someone who has had a major medical problem that after it was all done said "my health insurance provider was helpful." In every single case it was months of fighting for payments for care they were covered under but was denied for because of X reason, sometimes getting bills years later because of denied claims that took that long. And if you don't save every piece of paperwork related to whatever happened, you are just boned. Health insurance shouldn't be one of the most stressful parts of recovery but it really is. I have never had an issue with my insurance provider??? And, I use it normally I would assume... Have you ever submitted a big claim? Anecdotally, my previous job didn't offer a group healthcare plan so I had to buy health insurance on my own. It was extraordinarily difficult even to sign up for health insurance with the first company I tried - required many phone calls (with endless menus and then customer service reps who had no idea what they were doing or no authority to do anything), faxes, etc. over a period of several weeks. Finally I gave up and decided if it was this difficult to buy insurance from this company, it was probably going to be impossible to get them to pay out if I ever needed them to cover a claim. I ended up paying about $500 extra per year just so I could deal with a company that was based outside of California so any calls would go to a call center in another state which I expected would have more competence. I don't submit anything. I just pay my copay of $10 or $20 and go about me business. They send me a letter usually later showing me how much they paid. I mean, I never had a huge operation if that's what you are asking. A colonoscopy and a stress test and some other tests are about as far as it goes. Only time I have heard about insurance personally giving someone problems was with my cousin when she was pregnant with twins and they needed to do a surgery to possibly save their lives. The insurance tried to argue it wasn't a necessary surgery, which would mean she would have lost 1 or both babies. They eventually relented after a bunch of nasty phone calls. Which ended up saving both the babies lives. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:925431360] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>hockeydude15 posted...</cite> <quote>Literally the only people who like their insurance are the ones who never have to use it in any meaningful way. At least I've never met someone who has had a major medical problem that after it was all done said "my health insurance provider was helpful." In every single case it was months of fighting for payments for care they were covered under but was denied for because of X reason, sometimes getting bills years later because of denied claims that took that long. And if you don't save every piece of paperwork related to whatever happened, you are just boned. Health insurance shouldn't be one of the most stressful parts of recovery but it really is.</quote> I have never had an issue with my insurance provider??? And, I use it normally I would assume...</quote> Have you ever submitted a big claim? Anecdotally, my previous job didn't offer a group healthcare plan so I had to buy health insurance on my own. It was extraordinarily difficult even to sign up for health insurance with the first company I tried - required many phone calls (with endless menus and then customer service reps who had no idea what they were doing or no authority to do anything), faxes, etc. over a period of several weeks. Finally I gave up and decided if it was this difficult to buy insurance from this company, it was probably going to be impossible to get them to pay out if I ever needed them to cover a claim. I ended up paying about $500 extra per year just so I could deal with a company that was based outside of California so any calls would go to a call center in another state which I expected would have more competence.</quote> I don't submit anything. I just pay my copay of $10 or $20 and go about me business. They send me a letter usually later showing me how much they paid. I mean, I never had a huge operation if that's what you are asking. A colonoscopy and a stress test and some other tests are about as far as it goes. Only time I have heard about insurance personally giving someone problems was with my cousin when she was pregnant with twins and they needed to do a surgery to possibly save their lives. The insurance tried to argue it wasn't a necessary surgery, which would mean she would have lost 1 or both babies. They eventually relented after a bunch of nasty phone calls. Which ended up saving both the babies lives.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 07/31/19 1:19:18 PM #354:	Corrik7 posted... Inviso posted... Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions. Why do you think this? Has he stopped intervening anywhere? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:925433026] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions.</quote> Why do you think this?</quote> Has he stopped intervening anywhere?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 07/31/19 1:20:49 PM #355:	For the record, I dont believe anyone to the right of Bernie would stop intervening either --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:925433103] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>For the record, I dont believe anyone to the right of Bernie would stop intervening either</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 1:27:17 PM #356:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik7 posted... Inviso posted... Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions. Why do you think this? Has he stopped intervening anywhere? North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal). --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925433341] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions.</quote> Why do you think this?</quote> Has he stopped intervening anywhere?</quote> North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 1:27:54 PM #357:	Really, Trump is the greatest peacemaking/noninterventionist president since Herbert Hoover. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925433367] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Really, Trump is the greatest peacemaking/noninterventionist president since Herbert Hoover.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 1:31:56 PM #358:	His North Korea "non intervention" is letting them freely build nuclear weapons in exchange for photo ops --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925433531] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>His North Korea "non intervention" is letting them freely build nuclear weapons in exchange for photo ops </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/31/19 1:32:16 PM #359:	Just watched the DVR'd debate. man during that first hour it really felt like warren and sanders against the field. needed some persona 5 baton pass mechanics in there. Corrik7 posted... red sox 777 posted... Nelson_Mandela posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... Actually, she was already a professor before that incident. Oh right she just lied to get tenure basically. Also lied on her bar entrance form. And who knows what else. I thought the DNA test proved she didn't lie. She has 1/32 ancestry or something like that. Enough that not that long ago Virginia would have charged her with a crime for marrying a white man. 1/1028th I believe. what a quote chain https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/ Short Version: WaPo says... Warren's Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it's wrong to say it's as little as 1/1024th or that it's less than the average European American. Longer Version: As WaPo explains, the media (helepd by Trump and the right) went off course and narrowed its focus on the finding that the results "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago" saw the 6-10 generations part and went "welp let's play with fractions now!" and ignored everything else, including science. The report went on to say that "Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. It also said a long segment on Chromosone 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor." WaPo says... The most important point is this: The results in Warren's DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation - living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore - or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:925433551] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Just watched the DVR'd debate. man during that first hour it really felt like warren and sanders against the field. needed some persona 5 baton pass mechanics in there. Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote> Actually, she was already a professor before that incident.</quote> Oh right she just lied to get tenure basically. Also lied on her bar entrance form. And who knows what else.</quote> I thought the DNA test proved she didn't lie. She has 1/32 ancestry or something like that. Enough that not that long ago Virginia would have charged her with a crime for marrying a white man.</quote> 1/1028th I believe.</quote> what a quote chain https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/ Short Version: <cite>WaPo says...</cite> <quote>Warren's Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it's wrong to say it's as little as 1/1024th or that it's less than the average European American.</quote> Longer Version: As WaPo explains, the media (helepd by Trump and the right) went off course and narrowed its focus on the finding that the results "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago" saw the 6-10 generations part and went "welp let's play with fractions now!" and ignored everything else, including science. The report went on to say that "Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. It also said a long segment on Chromosone 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor." <cite>WaPo says...</cite> <quote>The most important point is this: The results in Warren's DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation - living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore - or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 1:38:44 PM #360:	LordoftheMorons posted... His North Korea "non intervention" is letting them freely build nuclear weapons in exchange for photo ops As opposed to the previous policy of letting them build nuclear weapons and also threaten us and our allies with them? Given that they have nuclear weapons, it's best if we can make peace. Photo ops are a very cheap way to buy peace. Great deal. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925433824] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>His North Korea "non intervention" is letting them freely build nuclear weapons in exchange for photo ops </quote> As opposed to the previous policy of letting them build nuclear weapons and also threaten us and our allies with them? Given that they have nuclear weapons, it's best if we can make peace. Photo ops are a very cheap way to buy peace. Great deal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 1:42:03 PM #361:	I'm not saying that it's an easy problem or that previous presidents have handled it well, but Trump has clearly signaled that he does not give a shit if they build or test more nukes as long he gets good press coverage. They've gotten more brazen since he got into office. Some of that is probably just the timing, but Trump has absolutely not helped the situation (and then he ripped up the deal with Iran, both making them much more likely to get nukes and indicating to North Korea that the US could not be trusted to honor a deal even if they made one). --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925433998] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>I'm not saying that it's an easy problem or that previous presidents have handled it well, but Trump has clearly signaled that he does not give a shit if they build or test more nukes as long he gets good press coverage. They've gotten more brazen since he got into office. Some of that is probably just the timing, but Trump has absolutely not helped the situation (and then he ripped up the deal with Iran, both making them much more likely to get nukes and indicating to North Korea that the US could not be trusted to honor a deal even if they made one). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 1:45:07 PM #362:	To be a good negotiator, you need to be able to evaluate the strength or weakness or your position. Democrats seem to categorically refuse to do this, focusing 100% on what they want while refusing to consider the relative positions of them and their opponent. To the extent they think about what their opponent may want at all, they imagine them as stupid and one-dimensional. Then they lose the game of 4D chess over and over, and throw tantrums blaming everyone but themselves. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925434133] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>To be a good negotiator, you need to be able to evaluate the strength or weakness or your position. Democrats seem to categorically refuse to do this, focusing 100% on what they want while refusing to consider the relative positions of them and their opponent. To the extent they think about what their opponent may want at all, they imagine them as stupid and one-dimensional. Then they lose the game of 4D chess over and over, and throw tantrums blaming everyone but themselves.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 07/31/19 1:49:21 PM #363:	"4D chess" is such a fucking dumb and childish term --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:925434327] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>"4D chess" is such a fucking dumb and childish term</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17 07/31/19 1:53:20 PM #364:	I mean Trump's rhetoric on Venezuela about considering use of military force were interventionist (until he got bored). So is him imposing sanctions on Iran. Tarrifs are inherently interventionist. At best he's selectively interventionist, definitely not anti-interventionist. --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:925434507] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>I mean Trump's rhetoric on Venezuela about considering use of military force were interventionist (until he got bored). So is him imposing sanctions on Iran. Tarrifs are inherently interventionist. At best he's selectively interventionist, definitely not anti-interventionist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 1:53:36 PM #365:	LordoftheMorons posted... I'm not saying that it's an easy problem or that previous presidents have handled it well, but Trump has clearly signaled that he does not give a shit if they build or test more nukes as long he gets good press coverage. They've gotten more brazen since he got into office. Some of that is probably just the timing, but Trump has absolutely not helped the situation (and then he ripped up the deal with Iran, both making them much more likely to get nukes and indicating to North Korea that the US could not be trusted to honor a deal even if they made one). It's a hard problem but Trump actually has the vision to see a solution. And that solution is the China model, where North Korea grows into a wealthy country that has a lot to lose from conflict and would prefer peace and trade. Trump's one sentence to Kim Jong Un, "think of it as a real estate opportunity" shows more insight into the situation than the sum total of US policy "experts" have in decades. North Korea has established that it can operate indefinitely as an isolated military dictatorship. It has the firepower to guarantee that. They have the artillery and they have the nukes and they have the willingness to use them. There is no getting around NK's absolute deterrent. Since there is no way to pressure NK into giving up its deterrent, the only possible way would be to give an incentive. And the China model does that. Moreover, if in 20-30 years NK is like China now, the US can feel very happy and safe, even if NK still has nukes. We aren't afraid of China having nukes, are we? Why? Because we know they know it is in their best interest not to use them. And we also know that economic pressure on China is a strong motivator, because they have a lot to lose from trade breaking down. Right now, economic pressure is an extremely weak motivator for NK because they have very little to lose. So what's the difference between Iran and North Korea? It's simple. Iran does not yet have its deterrent in place. Thus, our strategy can and probably should be completely different. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925434520] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not saying that it's an easy problem or that previous presidents have handled it well, but Trump has clearly signaled that he does not give a shit if they build or test more nukes as long he gets good press coverage. They've gotten more brazen since he got into office. Some of that is probably just the timing, but Trump has absolutely not helped the situation (and then he ripped up the deal with Iran, both making them much more likely to get nukes and indicating to North Korea that the US could not be trusted to honor a deal even if they made one). </quote> It's a hard problem but Trump actually has the vision to see a solution. And that solution is the China model, where North Korea grows into a wealthy country that has a lot to lose from conflict and would prefer peace and trade. Trump's one sentence to Kim Jong Un, "think of it as a real estate opportunity" shows more insight into the situation than the sum total of US policy "experts" have in decades. North Korea has established that it can operate indefinitely as an isolated military dictatorship. It has the firepower to guarantee that. They have the artillery and they have the nukes and they have the willingness to use them. There is no getting around NK's absolute deterrent. Since there is no way to pressure NK into giving up its deterrent, the only possible way would be to give an incentive. And the China model does that. Moreover, if in 20-30 years NK is like China now, the US can feel very happy and safe, even if NK still has nukes. We aren't afraid of China having nukes, are we? Why? Because we know they know it is in their best interest not to use them. And we also know that economic pressure on China is a strong motivator, because they have a lot to lose from trade breaking down. Right now, economic pressure is an extremely weak motivator for NK because they have very little to lose. So what's the difference between Iran and North Korea? It's simple. Iran does not yet have its deterrent in place. Thus, our strategy can and probably should be completely different.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 07/31/19 1:54:19 PM #366:	red sox 777 posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik7 posted... Inviso posted... Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions. Why do you think this? Has he stopped intervening anywhere? North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal). He didn't go into North Korea even when being pressured to. To the point he stuck his neck out to try and get a deal done. Iran. He easily had the pretense to invade / attack. His advisors all went it. He didn't do it because he doesn't want war. Syria he easily had the pretense to go into that deeper. He instead made a symbolic cruise attack and refused to go further. Even going so far as to plan a pull out of the area once isis was dismantled. Afghanistan he wants to leave and is planning to. Venezuela. Almost every president would have taken military action there. The fact he hasn't actually has let Russia get some leeway there. I mean, you can blame Trump for whatever you want, but I think it is clear he has been super anti-war as a president. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:925434548] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions.</quote> Why do you think this?</quote> Has he stopped intervening anywhere?</quote> North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal).</quote> He didn't go into North Korea even when being pressured to. To the point he stuck his neck out to try and get a deal done. Iran. He easily had the pretense to invade / attack. His advisors all went it. He didn't do it because he doesn't want war. Syria he easily had the pretense to go into that deeper. He instead made a symbolic cruise attack and refused to go further. Even going so far as to plan a pull out of the area once isis was dismantled. Afghanistan he wants to leave and is planning to. Venezuela. Almost every president would have taken military action there. The fact he hasn't actually has let Russia get some leeway there. I mean, you can blame Trump for whatever you want, but I think it is clear he has been super anti-war as a president.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 1:57:21 PM #367:	https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156588090456256512 A lot going on in these two very dumb (stupid} tweets! (Also fun fact: the person he is quoting is himself) --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925434675] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156588090456256512 A lot going on in these two very dumb (stupid} tweets! (Also fun fact: the person he is quoting is himself) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NFUN 07/31/19 2:00:34 PM #368:	LordoftheMorons posted... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156588090456256512 A lot going on in these two very dumb (stupid} tweets! (Also fun fact: the person he is quoting is himself) "dumb (stupid}" abolsutely priceless. how do you even fuck up like that --- Video Game Music Contest 14 winner: Terraria Calamity - Scourge of the Universe <cite>NFUN posted [p:925434810] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156588090456256512 A lot going on in these two very dumb (stupid} tweets! (Also fun fact: the person he is quoting is himself) </quote> "dumb (stupid}" abolsutely priceless. how do you even fuck up like that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 07/31/19 2:29:50 PM #369:	[abolsutely) priceless --- https://imgtc.ws/i/1LkkaGU.jpg somethin somethin hung somethin horse somethin <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:925436096] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>[abolsutely) priceless</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 07/31/19 2:39:33 PM #370:	https://twitter.com/alex_navarro/status/1156625245090062338 Tim Ryan leaps out to cement his biggest loser of the debates award... again. first debates he manages to get run over by Gabbard and this month he's trying to turn his pathetic defensive whine at Bernie into a campaign slogan? yikes thankful for Twitter not pulling the trigger in hiding The Ratio... yet --- https://imgtc.ws/i/1LkkaGU.jpg somethin somethin hung somethin horse somethin <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:925436535] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/alex_navarro/status/1156625245090062338 Tim Ryan leaps out to cement his biggest loser of the debates award... again. first debates he manages to get run over by Gabbard and this month he's trying to turn his pathetic defensive whine at Bernie into a campaign slogan? yikes thankful for Twitter not pulling the trigger in hiding The Ratio... yet</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/31/19 2:42:20 PM #371:	maybe he realized that just repeating "new and better" like four times in a row tonelessly in his closing statements was the worst might have replaced "pass the torch" for the worst in these debates Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:925436661] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>maybe he realized that just repeating "new and better" like four times in a row tonelessly in his closing statements was the worst might have replaced "pass the torch" for the worst in these debates Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 07/31/19 2:47:12 PM #372:	https://twitter.com/InternetHippo/status/1117122108864249856 relevant evergreen tweet --- https://imgtc.ws/i/1LkkaGU.jpg somethin somethin hung somethin horse somethin <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:925436921] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/InternetHippo/status/1117122108864249856 relevant evergreen tweet</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 2:49:28 PM #373:	xp1337 posted... maybe he realized that just repeating "new and better" like four times in a row tonelessly in his closing statements was the worst might have replaced "pass the torch" for the worst in these debates Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez Rubio didn't offer any realistic solutions though. Just the same old tired centrist policies. Delaney, Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush should go form a centrist party and see how low they can score in the election! --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925437025] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>maybe he realized that just repeating "new and better" like four times in a row tonelessly in his closing statements was the worst might have replaced "pass the torch" for the worst in these debates Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez</quote> Rubio didn't offer any realistic solutions though. Just the same old tired centrist policies. Delaney, Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush should go form a centrist party and see how low they can score in the election!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 2:51:11 PM #374:	red sox 777 posted... Rubio didn't offer any realistic solutions though. Just the same old tired centrist policies. Delaney, Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush should go form a centrist party and see how low they can score in the election! It may shock you to hear that Hillary/Delaney are pretty far left of Rubio/Jeb! --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925437112] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>Rubio didn't offer any realistic solutions though. Just the same old tired centrist policies. Delaney, Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush should go form a centrist party and see how low they can score in the election!</quote>It may shock you to hear that Hillary/Delaney are pretty far left of Rubio/Jeb! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/31/19 2:51:28 PM #375:	that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about how christie personally ended rubio's presidential campaign when rubio kept trying to repeat his talking point --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:925437128] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about how christie personally ended rubio's presidential campaign when rubio kept trying to repeat his talking point</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 2:56:06 PM #376:	xp1337 posted... Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez Agree that the slogan is bad, but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." I'm really annoyed that that's a common attack that doesn't receive much pushback; people can believe in stuff that's not maximalist! --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925437341] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted... </cite> <quote>Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez</quote>Agree that the slogan is bad, but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." I'm really annoyed that that's a common attack that doesn't receive much pushback; people can believe in stuff that's not maximalist! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 07/31/19 2:58:43 PM #377:	LordoftheMorons posted... but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." you poor soul --- https://imgtc.ws/i/1LkkaGU.jpg somethin somethin hung somethin horse somethin <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:925437474] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." </quote> you poor soul</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 07/31/19 3:00:00 PM #378:	Corrik7 posted... red sox 777 posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik7 posted... Inviso posted... Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions. Why do you think this? Has he stopped intervening anywhere? North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal). He didn't go into North Korea even when being pressured to. To the point he stuck his neck out to try and get a deal done. Iran. He easily had the pretense to invade / attack. His advisors all went it. He didn't do it because he doesn't want war. Syria he easily had the pretense to go into that deeper. He instead made a symbolic cruise attack and refused to go further. Even going so far as to plan a pull out of the area once isis was dismantled. Afghanistan he wants to leave and is planning to. Venezuela. Almost every president would have taken military action there. The fact he hasn't actually has let Russia get some leeway there. I mean, you can blame Trump for whatever you want, but I think it is clear he has been super anti-war as a president. Thats like saying Obama was anti-war Perpetuating the status quo on wars is not anti-war --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:925437539] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions.</quote> Why do you think this?</quote> Has he stopped intervening anywhere?</quote> North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal).</quote> He didn't go into North Korea even when being pressured to. To the point he stuck his neck out to try and get a deal done. Iran. He easily had the pretense to invade / attack. His advisors all went it. He didn't do it because he doesn't want war. Syria he easily had the pretense to go into that deeper. He instead made a symbolic cruise attack and refused to go further. Even going so far as to plan a pull out of the area once isis was dismantled. Afghanistan he wants to leave and is planning to. Venezuela. Almost every president would have taken military action there. The fact he hasn't actually has let Russia get some leeway there. I mean, you can blame Trump for whatever you want, but I think it is clear he has been super anti-war as a president.</quote> Thats like saying Obama was anti-war Perpetuating the status quo on wars is not anti-war</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 07/31/19 3:00:08 PM #379:	LordoftheMorons posted... xp1337 posted... Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez Agree that the slogan is bad, but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." I'm really annoyed that that's a common attack that doesn't receive much pushback; people can believe in stuff that's not maximalist! You don't get what you actually want by asking for it. You ask for more, then let yourself get negotiated down to what you actually want. --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:925437544] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted... </cite> <quote>Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez</quote>Agree that the slogan is bad, but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." I'm really annoyed that that's a common attack that doesn't receive much pushback; people can believe in stuff that's not maximalist! </quote> You don't get what you actually want by asking for it. You ask for more, then let yourself get negotiated down to what you actually want.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 07/31/19 3:01:39 PM #380:	LordoftheMorons posted... xp1337 posted... Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez Agree that the slogan is bad, but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." I'm really annoyed that that's a common attack that doesn't receive much pushback; people can believe in stuff that's not maximalist! Those policies would literally rather put the entire solution at risk over MAYBE inconveniencing the people who find the current system acceptable. Please address this. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:925437608] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted... </cite> <quote>Though Delaney's constant "Realistic solutions not impossible promises" was grating on me too. Did these guys not see what happened to Rubio in 2016? this campaign needs better catchphrases jeez</quote>Agree that the slogan is bad, but many people (including Delaney and myself) believe that these less extreme policies are actually better, not just "more realistic." I'm really annoyed that that's a common attack that doesn't receive much pushback; people can believe in stuff that's not maximalist! </quote> Those policies would literally rather put the entire solution at risk over MAYBE inconveniencing the people who find the current system acceptable. Please address this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/31/19 3:08:50 PM #381:	FWIW, while I thought Delaney performed well (relative to expectations/position) in the first debate (had him ranked 2nd or 3rd IIRC) I very much did not think that this time. I think Sanders/Warren came out on top by a wide margin here. With nearly half the field (Delaney, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Ryan) going aggro on them I felt like it all kind of blended together and none stood out, and I felt they were often on the losing end of exchanges with the two Senators. it's kinda distressing when williamson actually managed to dunk on them with her "With what I'm hearing I dunno why you're even Democrats" line, kinda like how it was pathetic that Ryan got wrecked by Gabbard in the first debates. Though I felt Warren's "Who runs for president to tell us what we can't achieve?" zinger was the stronger one on that message (and I think it came first chronologically.) Debate Tiers: Winners: Warren, Sanders They Can Stick Around For Round 3: Beto, Buttigieg I Had To Stop And Think For About 30 Seconds To Remember She Was There And I Watched This Like 2 Hours Ago: Klobuchar plz leave and run for Senate: Bullock no really. leave: Everyone else (Delaney, Williamson, Ryan, Hickenlooper) oh Moderators: Pretty good on time control, though after the **show that was the first debate they'd have to try really hard to be worse. Awful on questions/framing. Especially in the beginning. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:925437917] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>FWIW, while I thought Delaney performed well (relative to expectations/position) in the first debate (had him ranked 2nd or 3rd IIRC) I very much did not think that this time. I think Sanders/Warren came out on top by a wide margin here. With nearly half the field (Delaney, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Ryan) going aggro on them I felt like it all kind of blended together and none stood out, and I felt they were often on the losing end of exchanges with the two Senators. it's kinda distressing when williamson actually managed to dunk on them with her "With what I'm hearing I dunno why you're even Democrats" line, kinda like how it was pathetic that Ryan got wrecked by Gabbard in the first debates. Though I felt Warren's "Who runs for president to tell us what we can't achieve?" zinger was the stronger one on that message (and I think it came first chronologically.) Debate Tiers: Winners: Warren, Sanders They Can Stick Around For Round 3: Beto, Buttigieg I Had To Stop And Think For About 30 Seconds To Remember She Was There And I Watched This Like 2 Hours Ago: Klobuchar plz leave and run for Senate: Bullock no really. leave: Everyone else (Delaney, Williamson, Ryan, Hickenlooper) oh Moderators: Pretty good on time control, though after the **show that was the first debate they'd have to try really hard to be worse. Awful on questions/framing. Especially in the beginning.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 07/31/19 3:12:46 PM #382:	CelesMyUserName posted... https://twitter.com/alex_navarro/status/1156625245090062338 Tim Ryan leaps out to cement his biggest loser of the debates award... again. first debates he manages to get run over by Gabbard and this month he's trying to turn his pathetic defensive whine at Bernie into a campaign slogan? yikes thankful for Twitter not pulling the trigger in hiding The Ratio... yet Again, the onion couldn't do a better job for a fake campaign slogan. "You're being too loud, you need to calm down 2020" --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:925438090] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/alex_navarro/status/1156625245090062338 Tim Ryan leaps out to cement his biggest loser of the debates award... again. first debates he manages to get run over by Gabbard and this month he's trying to turn his pathetic defensive whine at Bernie into a campaign slogan? yikes thankful for Twitter not pulling the trigger in hiding The Ratio... yet</quote> Again, the onion couldn't do a better job for a fake campaign slogan. "You're being too loud, you need to calm down 2020"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 3:16:09 PM #383:	xp1337 posted... that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about how christie personally ended rubio's presidential campaign when rubio kept trying to repeat his talking point He didn't though. Christie was out shortly after that while Rubio made the final three. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925438261] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about how christie personally ended rubio's presidential campaign when rubio kept trying to repeat his talking point</quote> He didn't though. Christie was out shortly after that while Rubio made the final three.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 3:18:43 PM #384:	LordoftheMorons posted... red sox 777 posted... Rubio didn't offer any realistic solutions though. Just the same old tired centrist policies. Delaney, Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush should go form a centrist party and see how low they can score in the election! It may shock you to hear that Hillary/Delaney are pretty far left of Rubio/Jeb! They're all part of the same basket of deplorables in my eyes - centrists with no empathy for people different from them. We can talk about how centrists got this way but first we have to bring them to heel. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925438369] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>Rubio didn't offer any realistic solutions though. Just the same old tired centrist policies. Delaney, Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush should go form a centrist party and see how low they can score in the election!</quote>It may shock you to hear that Hillary/Delaney are pretty far left of Rubio/Jeb! </quote> They're all part of the same basket of deplorables in my eyes - centrists with no empathy for people different from them. We can talk about how centrists got this way but first we have to bring them to heel.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 3:22:52 PM #385:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Those policies would literally rather put the entire solution at risk over MAYBE inconveniencing the people who find the current system acceptable. Please address this. It fully addresses the problem of covering the uninsured. Suddenly cutting costs down to be comparable to those of other countries is not going to happen. Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated). Many other factors either cannot be fixed legislatively (e.g. the fact that Americans are less healthy) or would cause disasters if you forced them to be fixed (e.g. the US pays its doctors a lot more than other countries; if you suddenly started massively cutting their pay, youd have a doctor shortage. Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries; you cant reduce that without people accusing you of making death panels.) Then Sanders plan goes further by covering everything with no deductibles or copays. That drives demand for these now completely-paid-for services way up, which in turn increases costs (I would guess quite a bit above what youre saving by eliminating profits and some administration). By the way, his plan is much more generous than any other countrys existing plan. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925438579] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted... </cite> <quote>Those policies would literally rather put the entire solution at risk over MAYBE inconveniencing the people who find the current system acceptable. Please address this.</quote>It fully addresses the problem of covering the uninsured. Suddenly cutting costs down to be comparable to those of other countries is not going to happen. Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated). Many other factors either cannot be fixed legislatively (e.g. the fact that Americans are less healthy) or would cause disasters if you forced them to be fixed (e.g. the US pays its doctors a lot more than other countries; if you suddenly started massively cutting their pay, youd have a doctor shortage. Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries; you cant reduce that without people accusing you of making death panels.) Then Sanders plan goes further by covering everything with no deductibles or copays. That drives demand for these now completely-paid-for services way up, which in turn increases costs (I would guess quite a bit above what youre saving by eliminating profits and some administration). By the way, his plan is much more generous than any other countrys existing plan. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 3:30:41 PM #386:	LordoftheMorons posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... Those policies would literally rather put the entire solution at risk over MAYBE inconveniencing the people who find the current system acceptable. Please address this. It fully addresses the problem of covering the uninsured. Suddenly cutting costs down to be comparable to those of other countries is not going to happen. Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated). Many other factors either cannot be fixed legislatively (e.g. the fact that Americans are less healthy) or would cause disasters if you forced them to be fixed (e.g. the US pays its doctors a lot more than other countries; if you suddenly started massively cutting their pay, youd have a doctor shortage. Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries; you cant reduce that without people accusing you of making death panels.) Then Sanders plan goes further by covering everything with no deductibles or copays. That drives demand for these now completely-paid-for services way up, which in turn increases costs (I would guess quite a bit above what youre saving by eliminating profits and some administration). By the way, his plan is much more generous than any other countrys existing plan. We need more doctors and fewer admin middlemen. This is really the key here - you can't fix things unless you change this. As for death panels, they are inevitable in any system of socialist medicine. You can't get something for nothing. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925438939] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted... </cite> <quote>Those policies would literally rather put the entire solution at risk over MAYBE inconveniencing the people who find the current system acceptable. Please address this.</quote>It fully addresses the problem of covering the uninsured. Suddenly cutting costs down to be comparable to those of other countries is not going to happen. Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated). Many other factors either cannot be fixed legislatively (e.g. the fact that Americans are less healthy) or would cause disasters if you forced them to be fixed (e.g. the US pays its doctors a lot more than other countries; if you suddenly started massively cutting their pay, youd have a doctor shortage. Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries; you cant reduce that without people accusing you of making death panels.) Then Sanders plan goes further by covering everything with no deductibles or copays. That drives demand for these now completely-paid-for services way up, which in turn increases costs (I would guess quite a bit above what youre saving by eliminating profits and some administration). By the way, his plan is much more generous than any other countrys existing plan. </quote> We need more doctors and fewer admin middlemen. This is really the key here - you can't fix things unless you change this. As for death panels, they are inevitable in any system of socialist medicine. You can't get something for nothing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 07/31/19 3:32:34 PM #387:	LordoftheMorons posted... Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated). LordoftheMorons posted... Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries Do you have studies or reports or something readily available that back up these claims? I'm asking mainly for my own benefit so don't feel obligated to go on a lengthy search if you don't already know where they are. --- Oh woops. Putting Advokaiser in my sig like this until I think of something more clever <cite>pyresword posted [p:925439032] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated).</quote> LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries</quote> Do you have studies or reports or something readily available that back up these claims? I'm asking mainly for my own benefit so don't feel obligated to go on a lengthy search if you don't already know where they are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 3:34:48 PM #388:	One area where the US is actually getting screwed is on drug prices, but the fixes are typically not popular among progressives. Basically, most drug development is done in the US, and in order to recoup that they need to charge high prices. Meanwhile, other countries that dont honor US patents can immediately begin with producing those drugs without having pumped as much money into R&D, so these companies cant spread that cost around and have to make it up in America where they have a monopoly on the drug. We could get more countries to honor our patents by including that in trade deals. I recall that the TPP has some such provisions which activists fucking hated. On off-patent drugs there probably is some real progress that can be made. I will give some props to Elizabeth Warren on this issue, as she had a really cool plan to have the government produce off-patent drugs without an affordable private sector option. Great idea imo. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925439127] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>One area where the US is actually getting screwed is on drug prices, but the fixes are typically not popular among progressives. Basically, most drug development is done in the US, and in order to recoup that they need to charge high prices. Meanwhile, other countries that dont honor US patents can immediately begin with producing those drugs without having pumped as much money into R&D, so these companies cant spread that cost around and have to make it up in America where they have a monopoly on the drug. We could get more countries to honor our patents by including that in trade deals. I recall that the TPP has some such provisions which activists fucking hated. On off-patent drugs there probably is some real progress that can be made. I will give some props to Elizabeth Warren on this issue, as she had a really cool plan to have the government produce off-patent drugs without an affordable private sector option. Great idea imo. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 3:36:57 PM #389:	pyresword posted... LordoftheMorons posted... Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated). LordoftheMorons posted... Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries Do you have studies or reports or something readily available that back up these claims? I'm asking mainly for my own benefit so don't feel obligated to go on a lengthy search if you don't already know where they are. It makes sense because Americans have greater choice to choose expensive end of life treatments. That won't stay that way if we have new death panels saying that end of life care is too expensive. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925439221] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Thats because, despite what Sanders emphasizes, most of that gap is not because of insurance company profits and administrative costs (the latter of which would not even be totally eliminated).</quote> LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Similarly, Americans spend a ton more on end of life care than most other countries</quote> Do you have studies or reports or something readily available that back up these claims? I'm asking mainly for my own benefit so don't feel obligated to go on a lengthy search if you don't already know where they are.</quote> It makes sense because Americans have greater choice to choose expensive end of life treatments. That won't stay that way if we have new death panels saying that end of life care is too expensive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 07/31/19 3:41:56 PM #390:	Anyway, I'm more sympathetic to LotM's position here on the direction to proceed on with regard to healthcare in that I'm receptive to hearing arguments on the merits of that path over single-payer and think this topic has been waaay too hostile and aggressive in response to him. Now, granted, I'm most receptive to the fact that I think it's the only path that can actually be accomplished in the near-term and so by default I think it deserves consideration and examination. I think we diverge in that I think Delaney is a poor vessel for it. I think a better advocate for that path has been more Beto or Buttigieg. Delaney's problem on this issue specifically, I feel, is that he's increasingly seemed to lean into the tactic of trying to knock down single-payer (and often with Republican talking points or adjacent ideas!) rather than making the positive case for his plan. He did a better job with this in the first debate, and while he still had a bit of it in this one (the Medicare rate exchange, for instance) it felt more like he was just felt more like he was tearing down Warren and Sanders' visions and that's just... not good, IMO. Warren capitalized on this like I said. On a pragmatic level though, single-payer is almost certainly not going to go anywhere. I mean, even under the most optimistic scenario, how many Democratic votes is your hypothetical 2021 Senate going to have? 52? 53? And among them will be Senators like Manchin. Starting at single-payer and "settling" at the public option/"Medicare-for-all-who-want-it"/etc. is probably the best case scenario given the political reality. But that's a bridge we'll cross when we get there I suppose. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:925439432] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Anyway, I'm more sympathetic to LotM's position here on the direction to proceed on with regard to healthcare in that I'm receptive to hearing arguments on the merits of that path over single-payer and think this topic has been waaay too hostile and aggressive in response to him. Now, granted, I'm most receptive to the fact that I think it's the only path that can actually be accomplished in the near-term and so by default I think it deserves consideration and examination. I think we diverge in that I think Delaney is a poor vessel for it. I think a better advocate for that path has been more Beto or Buttigieg. Delaney's problem on this issue specifically, I feel, is that he's increasingly seemed to lean into the tactic of trying to knock down single-payer (and often with Republican talking points or adjacent ideas!) rather than making the positive case for his plan. He did a better job with this in the first debate, and while he still had a bit of it in this one (the Medicare rate exchange, for instance) it felt more like he was just felt more like he was tearing down Warren and Sanders' visions and that's just... not good, IMO. Warren capitalized on this like I said. On a pragmatic level though, single-payer is almost certainly not going to go anywhere. I mean, even under the most optimistic scenario, how many Democratic votes is your hypothetical 2021 Senate going to have? 52? 53? And among them will be Senators like Manchin. Starting at single-payer and "settling" at the public option/"Medicare-for-all-who-want-it"/etc. is probably the best case scenario given the political reality. But that's a bridge we'll cross when we get there I suppose.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 3:44:52 PM #391:	xp1337 posted... Anyway, I'm more sympathetic to LotM's position here on the direction to proceed on with regard to healthcare in that I'm receptive to hearing arguments on the merits of that path over single-payer and think this topic has been waaay too hostile and aggressive in response to him. Now, granted, I'm most receptive to the fact that I think it's the only path that can actually be accomplished in the near-term and so by default I think it deserves consideration and examination. I think we diverge in that I think Delaney is a poor vessel for it. I think a better advocate for that path has been more Beto or Buttigieg. Delaney's problem on this issue specifically, I feel, is that he's increasingly seemed to lean into the tactic of trying to knock down single-payer (and often with Republican talking points or adjacent ideas!) rather than making the positive case for his plan. He did a better job with this in the first debate, and while he still had a bit of it in this one (the Medicare rate exchange, for instance) it felt more like he was just felt more like he was tearing down Warren and Sanders' visions and that's just... not good, IMO. Warren capitalized on this like I said. On a pragmatic level though, single-payer is almost certainly not going to go anywhere. I mean, even under the most optimistic scenario, how many Democratic votes is your hypothetical 2021 Senate going to have? 52? 53? And among them will be Senators like Manchin. Starting at single-payer and "settling" at the public option/"Medicare-for-all-who-want-it"/etc. is probably the best case scenario given the political reality. But that's a bridge we'll cross when we get there I suppose. You can get single payer if you are willing to work with Republicans to do it. You have to let Republicans take the lead on the project. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925439581] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>Anyway, I'm more sympathetic to LotM's position here on the direction to proceed on with regard to healthcare in that I'm receptive to hearing arguments on the merits of that path over single-payer and think this topic has been waaay too hostile and aggressive in response to him. Now, granted, I'm most receptive to the fact that I think it's the only path that can actually be accomplished in the near-term and so by default I think it deserves consideration and examination. I think we diverge in that I think Delaney is a poor vessel for it. I think a better advocate for that path has been more Beto or Buttigieg. Delaney's problem on this issue specifically, I feel, is that he's increasingly seemed to lean into the tactic of trying to knock down single-payer (and often with Republican talking points or adjacent ideas!) rather than making the positive case for his plan. He did a better job with this in the first debate, and while he still had a bit of it in this one (the Medicare rate exchange, for instance) it felt more like he was just felt more like he was tearing down Warren and Sanders' visions and that's just... not good, IMO. Warren capitalized on this like I said. On a pragmatic level though, single-payer is almost certainly not going to go anywhere. I mean, even under the most optimistic scenario, how many Democratic votes is your hypothetical 2021 Senate going to have? 52? 53? And among them will be Senators like Manchin. Starting at single-payer and "settling" at the public option/"Medicare-for-all-who-want-it"/etc. is probably the best case scenario given the political reality. But that's a bridge we'll cross when we get there I suppose.</quote> You can get single payer if you are willing to work with Republicans to do it. You have to let Republicans take the lead on the project.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 3:51:19 PM #392:	pyresword posted... Do you have studies or reports or something readily available that back up these claims? I'm asking mainly for my own benefit so don't feel obligated to go on a lengthy search if you don't already know where they are. Looking into it it seems that my claim about the US spending a lot more than other countries a on end of life care is in dispute. On profits, however: https://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/MrktStrOfHlthIns.pdf This is about ten years old, but page 47 seems to indicate that typical insurance company profits are around 5%. Thats not nothing, but its definitely a small fraction of the gap. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925439837] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>pyresword posted... </cite> <quote>Do you have studies or reports or something readily available that back up these claims? I'm asking mainly for my own benefit so don't feel obligated to go on a lengthy search if you don't already know where they are.</quote>Looking into it it seems that my claim about the US spending a lot more than other countries a on end of life care is in dispute. On profits, however: https://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/MrktStrOfHlthIns.pdf This is about ten years old, but page 47 seems to indicate that typical insurance company profits are around 5%. Thats not nothing, but its definitely a small fraction of the gap. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 3:54:41 PM #393:	Oh I dont necessarily think that Delaney was a good vessel for the argument. I doubt he endeared himself to many people, but I generally agreed with what he said and I think the argument needs to be had. Im hoping that Biden does a better job making that case. (Though another thing is that the debate format is really not great for having substantive discussions). --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925439995] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Oh I dont necessarily think that Delaney was a good vessel for the argument. I doubt he endeared himself to many people, but I generally agreed with what he said and I think the argument needs to be had. Im hoping that Biden does a better job making that case. (Though another thing is that the debate format is really not great for having substantive discussions). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 07/31/19 4:10:28 PM #394:	https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-local/2019/07/30/fayette-county-republicans- fair-democrats-squad-aoc-tlaib-omar-pressley-dartboard/stories/201907300105 Where I am right now. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:925440662] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-local/2019/07/30/fayette-county-republicans- fair-democrats-squad-aoc-tlaib-omar-pressley-dartboard/stories/201907300105 Where I am right now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 4:21:33 PM #395:	The president of the united states personally attacking navy prosecutors and ordering that awards they were given be retracted because they tried a war criminal: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156655361711071232 --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925441210] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>The president of the united states personally attacking navy prosecutors and ordering that awards they were given be retracted because they tried a war criminal: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156655361711071232 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 07/31/19 4:32:12 PM #396:	Oh yeah, he also sent the US's fucking envoy for hostage affairs to Sweden because its government wouldn't politically interfere with their justice system on A$AP Rocky's behalf: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/31/20748443/asap-rocky-trial-sweden-hostage-envoy-trump Note that there are actual American hostages in countries like Syria and Iran that this guy could be working to save --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:925441721] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Oh yeah, he also sent the US's fucking envoy for hostage affairs to Sweden because its government wouldn't politically interfere with their justice system on A$AP Rocky's behalf: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/31/20748443/asap-rocky-trial-sweden-hostage-envoy-trump Note that there are actual American hostages in countries like Syria and Iran that this guy could be working to save </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 07/31/19 4:54:42 PM #397:	xp1337 posted... Just watched the DVR'd debate. man during that first hour it really felt like warren and sanders against the field. needed some persona 5 baton pass mechanics in there. Corrik7 posted... red sox 777 posted... Nelson_Mandela posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... Actually, she was already a professor before that incident. Oh right she just lied to get tenure basically. Also lied on her bar entrance form. And who knows what else. I thought the DNA test proved she didn't lie. She has 1/32 ancestry or something like that. Enough that not that long ago Virginia would have charged her with a crime for marrying a white man. 1/1028th I believe. what a quote chain https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/ Short Version: WaPo says... Warren's Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it's wrong to say it's as little as 1/1024th or that it's less than the average European American. Longer Version: As WaPo explains, the media (helepd by Trump and the right) went off course and narrowed its focus on the finding that the results "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago" saw the 6-10 generations part and went "welp let's play with fractions now!" and ignored everything else, including science. The report went on to say that "Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. It also said a long segment on Chromosone 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor." WaPo says... The most important point is this: The results in Warren's DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation - living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore - or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however. I am confused if you think this helps the cause. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:925442737] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>Just watched the DVR'd debate. man during that first hour it really felt like warren and sanders against the field. needed some persona 5 baton pass mechanics in there. Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote> Actually, she was already a professor before that incident.</quote> Oh right she just lied to get tenure basically. Also lied on her bar entrance form. And who knows what else.</quote> I thought the DNA test proved she didn't lie. She has 1/32 ancestry or something like that. Enough that not that long ago Virginia would have charged her with a crime for marrying a white man.</quote> 1/1028th I believe.</quote> what a quote chain https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/ Short Version: <cite>WaPo says...</cite> <quote>Warren's Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it's wrong to say it's as little as 1/1024th or that it's less than the average European American.</quote> Longer Version: As WaPo explains, the media (helepd by Trump and the right) went off course and narrowed its focus on the finding that the results "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago" saw the 6-10 generations part and went "welp let's play with fractions now!" and ignored everything else, including science. The report went on to say that "Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. It also said a long segment on Chromosone 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor." <cite>WaPo says...</cite> <quote>The most important point is this: The results in Warren's DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation - living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore - or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.</quote></quote> I am confused if you think this helps the cause.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 07/31/19 4:58:17 PM #398:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik7 posted... red sox 777 posted... Jakyl25 posted... Corrik7 posted... Inviso posted... Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions. Why do you think this? Has he stopped intervening anywhere? North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal). He didn't go into North Korea even when being pressured to. To the point he stuck his neck out to try and get a deal done. Iran. He easily had the pretense to invade / attack. His advisors all went it. He didn't do it because he doesn't want war. Syria he easily had the pretense to go into that deeper. He instead made a symbolic cruise attack and refused to go further. Even going so far as to plan a pull out of the area once isis was dismantled. Afghanistan he wants to leave and is planning to. Venezuela. Almost every president would have taken military action there. The fact he hasn't actually has let Russia get some leeway there. I mean, you can blame Trump for whatever you want, but I think it is clear he has been super anti-war as a president. Thats like saying Obama was anti-war Perpetuating the status quo on wars is not anti-war Libya. But, this conversation has nothing to do with Obama. It never did. If anything, Obama had no backbone and it adversely affected the world. Ukraine / Syria red line. Etc. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:925442893] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik7 posted...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck off with that question, CNN. Trump is very much not anti-interventionism, based on his actions.</quote> Why do you think this?</quote> Has he stopped intervening anywhere?</quote> North Korea. Syria. Afghanistan (we're very close to a deal).</quote> He didn't go into North Korea even when being pressured to. To the point he stuck his neck out to try and get a deal done. Iran. He easily had the pretense to invade / attack. His advisors all went it. He didn't do it because he doesn't want war. Syria he easily had the pretense to go into that deeper. He instead made a symbolic cruise attack and refused to go further. Even going so far as to plan a pull out of the area once isis was dismantled. Afghanistan he wants to leave and is planning to. Venezuela. Almost every president would have taken military action there. The fact he hasn't actually has let Russia get some leeway there. I mean, you can blame Trump for whatever you want, but I think it is clear he has been super anti-war as a president.</quote> Thats like saying Obama was anti-war Perpetuating the status quo on wars is not anti-war</quote> Libya. But, this conversation has nothing to do with Obama. It never did. If anything, Obama had no backbone and it adversely affected the world. Ukraine / Syria red line. Etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 07/31/19 5:18:26 PM #399:	The problem wasn't that Obama didn't have a backbone, it's that he drew red lines where he should have not done so from the start. Discretion is the better part of valour. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:925443828] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>The problem wasn't that Obama didn't have a backbone, it's that he drew red lines where he should have not done so from the start. Discretion is the better part of valour.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17 07/31/19 6:15:31 PM #400:	LordoftheMorons posted... Oh yeah, he also sent the US's fucking envoy for hostage affairs to Sweden because its government wouldn't politically interfere with their justice system on A$AP Rocky's behalf: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/31/20748443/asap-rocky-trial-sweden-hostage-envoy-trump Note that there are actual American hostages in countries like Syria and Iran that this guy could be working to save uhh do these other hostages spit hot fire? No? I didnt think so --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:925446133] in Politics C... [t:77893872]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Oh yeah, he also sent the US's fucking envoy for hostage affairs to Sweden because its government wouldn't politically interfere with their justice system on A$AP Rocky's behalf: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/31/20748443/asap-rocky-trial-sweden-hostage-envoy-trump Note that there are actual American hostages in countries like Syria and Iran that this guy could be working to save </quote> uhh do these other hostages spit hot fire? No? I didnt think so</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 231: The Sleepy One (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 231: The Sleepy One