I think your logic regarding goat's logic is illogical.
How so?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think your logic regarding goat's logic is illogical.
Yeah, as long as you get the stuff you want, corruption and treason and the loss international standing don't matter.It all just depends on the output in terms of policy, legislation, regulations, the courts and such... Those are the things that ultimately matter.
Because you're drawing an unjustified conclusion about my point in bringing it up.How so?
Because you're drawing an unjustified conclusion about my point in bringing it up.
I never implied you shouldn't vote for someone simply because a bad person also votes for them. I did say, and have said in the past, that you should engage in some self-reflection when you find yourself agreeing with an exceptionally bad group of people. This is the first election in a long time in which white nationalists coalesced so strongly around a major party candidate. It's especially concerning for someone like you to not readily grasp this concept, since you've been a particularly vocal proponent that certain other groups (namely Muslims) should do the same.
That being said, my real purpose wasn't to start a fight over racism; it was simply to highlight a particularly assholish comment by a renowned asshole in the context of McCain's health scare.
Alright, so I wasn't clear in the original post (because, as I said, my intent wasn't actually to make some big point, despite my ornery reference to "Trumpians"), but after explaining it clearly in the post you just supposedly responded to, there's no call for you to fail to understand. This isn't just one asshole. He's part of a broad movement of particularly vile people who have attached themselves to a major party candidate - and now president - in a way they really haven't before in modern times. That's an entirely different proposition than just pointing out some people who vote for a particular candidate are jerks.You implied that anybody who voted for Trump, simply by the nature of their vote, takes some level of ownership in the assholish sentiment.
Alright, so I wasn't clear in the original post (because, as I said, my intent wasn't actually to make some big point, despite my ornery reference to "Trumpians"), but after explaining it clearly in the post you just supposedly responded to, there's no call for you to fail to understand. This isn't just one asshole. He's part of a broad movement of particularly vile people who have attached themselves to a major party candidate - and now president - in a way they really haven't before in modern times. That's an entirely different proposition than just pointing out some people who vote for a particular candidate are jerks.
I don't expect you to agree with my point. I'm just flabbergasted that you failed to understand it. Like I said, I take the blame for my original post, but it should be clear now what I was getting at.This does not solve the problem with your logic. It's not that you didn't clearly make your point. It's that your point is so obviously fallacious.
The New Black Panthers supported Obama. So the hell what? That doesn't mean that anybody who voted for Obama was, in any way, tied to their extremist ideas or rhetoric.
If Donald Trump had run on a platform that resembled Richard Spencer's garbage, you'd have a valid point. But he didn't, so you don't.
Trump was pretty clear about NOT alienating any of them. Several times. Remember his who is David Duke comments? How long it took to even get him to disavow the KKK? His various dog whistles throughout the campaign? He knew what he was doing.This does not solve the problem with your logic. It's not that you didn't clearly make your point. It's that your point is so obviously fallacious.
The New Black Panthers supported Obama. So the hell what? That doesn't mean that anybody who voted for Obama was, in any way, tied to their extremist ideas or rhetoric.
If Donald Trump had run on a platform that resembled Richard Spencer's garbage, you'd have a valid point. But he didn't, so you don't.
I totally believe Trump didn't know who David Duke was. There is so much that Trump doesn't know that it would surprise me if he did know who Duke was!Trump was pretty clear about NOT alienating any of them. Several times. Remember his who is David Duke comments? How long it took to even get him to disavow the KKK? His various dog whistles throughout the campaign? He knew what he was doing.
I totally believe Trump didn't know who David Duke was. There is so much that Trump doesn't know that it would surprise me if he did know who Duke was!
If Donald Trump had run on a platform that resembled Richard Spencer's garbage, you'd have a valid point. But he didn't, so you don't.
I'm pretty sure it came out that the two of them had interacted in the past. At the very least, he definitely knew who he was.I totally believe Trump didn't know who David Duke was. There is so much that Trump doesn't know that it would surprise me if he did know who Duke was!
You give Trump too much credit for knowing anything!I'm pretty sure it came out that the two of them had interacted in the past. At the very least, he definitely knew who he was.
I'm glad he's healthy enough to fly back. But to do so, in order to vote yes on this bill taking healthcare away from millions would be the height of hypocrisy right now. Hopefully he's going to vote no.He's coming back tomorrow (Tuesday) for the health care vote (among others).
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article163420973.html
He's coming back tomorrow (Tuesday) for the health care vote (among others).
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article163420973.html
Just read McCain's twitter timeline. Hundreds and hundreds of people telling personal stories and begging him to vote now. How anyone could read these stories and vote yes is just beyond me. I'm going to be very, very disappointed in him if he does.
Just read McCain's twitter timeline. Hundreds and hundreds of people telling personal stories and begging him to vote now. How anyone could read these stories and vote yes is just beyond me. I'm going to be very, very disappointed in him if he does.
I wouldn't worry too much. If this becomes law (which I still doubt), the Republicans will have (a) left the bulk of Obamacare in place and (b) taken sole ownership of the political millstone that has been bedeviling Democrats for the past 7 years.
Don't get me wrong...Obamacare very much warrants repeal. It was (mostly) a bad law from the get go. But there are better ways and worse ways of putting it in the past. They've chosen the latter.
The ACA could largely be fixed by simply undoing what republicans have done to sabotage it.
The ACA was NOT predicated on the assumption that healthy people would voluntarily buy insurance, it mandated that everyone buy insurance. Without such a mandate essentially healthy people won't pay for insurance and insurance markets will collapse. At that point essentially nobody will have insurance. So, the choice we have is either (1) mandate people have insurance which creates viable markets for different plans; or (2) don't mandate insurance and then the only plans for sale are crap and nobody should buy one.No it couldn't.
Among various other key flaws, it was predicated on an assumption that healthy (that is, inexpensive) people would essentially volunteer to pay significantly more than the underlying cost to provide for their care for a protracted period of time so as to subsidize unhealthy (that is, expensive) people being able to pay significantly less than the underlying cost to provide for their care. That was never going to work. People are pretty much always going to tend to favor their own interests over those of anybody else. To expect otherwise is foolish.
It's striking that crazed forgets the individual mandate, since unhinged conservatives called it an egregious assault on individual liberty and appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court. That said, despite Republican efforts to undermine the law, Obamacare isn't in a "death spiral", and the exchanges have mostly stabilized, except in some (mostly rural) areas where insurers have struggled to create workable networks. If Congress made the subsidies more generous and the penalties more onerous, that would fix pretty much all the problems that now exist, although rural areas would still present challenges.The ACA was NOT predicated on the assumption that healthy people would voluntarily buy insurance, it mandated that everyone buy insurance. Without such a mandate essentially healthy people won't pay for insurance and insurance markets will collapse. At that point essentially nobody will have insurance. So, the choice we have is either (1) mandate people have insurance which creates viable markets for different plans; or (2) don't mandate insurance and then the only plans for sale are crap and nobody should buy one.
The ACA was NOT predicated on the assumption that healthy people would voluntarily buy insurance, it mandated that everyone buy insurance. Without such a mandate essentially healthy people won't pay for insurance and insurance markets will collapse. At that point essentially nobody will have insurance. So, the choice we have is either (1) mandate people have insurance which creates viable markets for different plans; or (2) don't mandate insurance and then the only plans for sale are crap and nobody should buy one.
It's striking that crazed forgets the individual mandate, since unhinged conservatives called it an egregious assault on individual liberty and appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court. That said, despite Republican efforts to undermine the law, Obamacare isn't in a "death spiral", and the exchanges have mostly stabilized, except in some (mostly rural) areas where insurers have struggled to create workable networks. If Congress made the subsidies more generous and the penalties more onerous, that would fix pretty much all the problems that now exist, although rural areas would still present challenges.
What's utter bullshit, though, is crazed's call for bipartisan health care reform. That's because Democrats and Republicans fundamentally disagree about what the goals of "health care reform" should be. Democrats want to get better coverage to more people at lower cost. Republicans want to finance a huge tax cut for the wealthy by taking health insurance away from the poor, the middle class, the sick, and the elderly. I'll leave it to the centristy centrists to find the middle ground there.
That's funny, because I remember when the mandate was a heinous assault on individual liberty, but now it's a nothingburger. You guys say whatever you have to say.Oh, I didn't forget the mandate, Rock. It's just that it seems obvious that a whole lot of people have made the perfectly logical choice not to abide it. And Obamacare was predicated on their dollars being there. But they aren't there.
Is a mandate that millions of people consciously and reasonably choose to flout truly a "mandate"?
It's striking that crazed forgets the individual mandate, since unhinged conservatives called it an egregious assault on individual liberty and appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court. That said, despite Republican efforts to undermine the law, Obamacare isn't in a "death spiral", and the exchanges have mostly stabilized, except in some (mostly rural) areas where insurers have struggled to create workable networks. If Congress made the subsidies more generous and the penalties more onerous, that would fix pretty much all the problems that now exist, although rural areas would still present challenges.
What's utter bullshit, though, is crazed's call for bipartisan health care reform. That's because Democrats and Republicans fundamentally disagree about what the goals of "health care reform" should be. Democrats want to get better care to more people at lower cost. Republicans want to finance a huge tax cut for the wealthy by taking health insurance away from the poor, the middle class, the sick, and the elderly. I'll leave it to the centristy centrists to find the middle ground there.
That's funny, because I remember when the mandate was a heinous assault on individual liberty, but now it's a nothingburger. You guys say whatever you have to say.
The bottom line is that you guys couldn't care less about health care reform. You care about tax cuts. Everything else is bullshit.
I see pundits and others claiming that we all have the same objectives, we just have different ideas about how to accomplish those objectives. This is obviously false.Just this morning Jerry Brown was discussing bipartisanship on Morning Edition. He spoke of it in context of the new climate bill in California, but it was tied into healthcare. He was very big on the need for more bipartisanship. Of course he was more critical of the right, but he did say he encounters people on the left mad that he spoke to the Chamber of Commerce or energy companies about the bill (as an example of the left also having issues with bipartisanship).
I agree with him, but your point still stands. The Kochs (to pick on them) actively want fewer people covered. I actively want more people covered. I don't see a compromise possible. I really have no idea how to build this compromise coalition. In theory, Brown is 100% correct. But in practice, at this moment, I am not seeing it being possible. What is the compromise between insure far more and insure far fewer? I guess the status quo is it?
LOL. The heinous assault on individual liberty is now of so little consequence that people can freely disregard it without consequence. You constitutional scholars are a laugh riot.Apples and oranges. You're talking about a legal and constitutional argument.
I see pundits and others claiming that we all have the same objectives, we just have different ideas about how to accomplish those objectives. This is obviously false.
I should also add to this: there's a reason that liberal social programs rarely ever rely on people doing much of anything voluntarily.
And, yes, buying health insurance under Obamacare is, for all intents and purposes, voluntary. If you're healthy and your near-term healthcare expenses aren't much, it makes all kinds of sense to elect to pay the penalty in lieu of obtaining health insurance. Not only is it, in many cases, significantly cheaper in the near-term, you also have the reassurance of knowing that you can obtain it (without much additional expense, even) when and if you do actually need it. It's a very reasonable gamble for many people to take -- and many people are (unsurprisingly) taking it.
If participation in Social Security, as an example, were ever made voluntary -- and, by that I mean the taxes as well as any future claim to bennies -- you would quickly see millions of people running for the doors. There's a reason for that: mathematically, it's not a good deal for people, the farther their retirement dates are from the date of inception. It was a great deal for early retirees -- but it's only gotten worse as time has gone on. And if the government left it up to people to decide whether or not to participate, millions and millions would not.....which would, of course, cause the Ponzi scheme to collapse even faster than it presently is.
Forget liberal and substitute government. Government sets the ground rules and then people voluntarily do what they want within those ground rules. The bottom line with health care is that we can't have a market for anything but fake insurance without a mandate to purchase insurance. The uber wealthy don't need to worry about a world without insurance because they can self-insure. So what gets sacrificed here is the advantage of pretty much everyone in order to make the uber wealthy trivially better off.I should also add to this: there's a reason that liberal social programs rarely ever rely on people doing much of anything voluntarily.
Just this morning Jerry Brown was discussing bipartisanship on Morning Edition. He spoke of it in context of the new climate bill in California, but it was tied into healthcare. He was very big on the need for more bipartisanship. Of course he was more critical of the right, but he did say he encounters people on the left mad that he spoke to the Chamber of Commerce or energy companies about the bill (as an example of the left also having issues with bipartisanship).
I agree with him, but your point still stands. The Kochs (to pick on them) actively want fewer people covered. I actively want more people covered. I don't see a compromise possible. I really have no idea how to build this compromise coalition. In theory, Brown is 100% correct. But in practice, at this moment, I am not seeing it being possible. What is the compromise between insure far more and insure far fewer? I guess the status quo is it?
LOL. The heinous assault on individual liberty is now of so little consequence that people can freely disregard it without consequence. You constitutional scholars are a laugh riot.
Can you point out some "social programs" that are voluntary?
Paying taxes that help fund the military, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, police, firefighters, roads, sidewalks, public schools, public libraries, public parks, trash removal...I could go on.
Are these "liberal" social programs? I'll bet you rely on a lot of them.