- Messages
- 12,496
A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon
- Thread starter Grand Potentate
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,933
In this context, I don't waste my time on people's feelings. 90%+ means the media is trying to discredit the President.
- Messages
- 14,234
Or perhaps he has successfully discredited himself?
- Messages
- 9,933
Discrediting (as an action) is something that is done to you.
Scherensammler
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,557
Obama is back?
- Messages
- 9,933
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
is that one of them Mexicos?
- Messages
- 9,933
No, he is from the sand regions.
- Messages
- 14,234
It's a transitive verb. Much like shooting, one can also do it one's self. For example: Trump shot himself in the foot, again. Trump is discrediting the office of the President.
I am not crediting myself with this wisdom, I checked the OED first.
- Messages
- 9,933
I see! So then the media is failing to discredit Trump, and in that process is in fact discrediting themselves, as well as shooting themselves in the foot acting this way.
The fake Russia story is proof positive it's not Trump self inflicting.
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
He doesn't look Mongolian
- Messages
- 4,765
In a similar fashion:
spending billions to protect citizens from terrorists - ok!
Spending billions to protect citizens from cancer - not ok!
- Messages
- 14,234
Isn't that the deadbeat who kept lying to his ex that he was unemployed to avoid child support?
He won't even pay for his own kids' health!
He won't even pay for his own kids' health!
- Messages
- 4,765
Ah, I didn't know that. So that goes back to the trope of life being sacred as long as it's unborn.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,496
Yes
- Messages
- 4,765
- Messages
- 9,933
I find it hilarious that leftists view gender identity as a sacred cow, with 0 science to back it up. But Christians are somehow the crazy ones for believing life begins at conception?
Aren't leftists supposed to be the science first crowd? They need to look in ye mirror.
Aren't leftists supposed to be the science first crowd? They need to look in ye mirror.
- Messages
- 9,933
You need more Ben Shapiro in your life. You're pushing fake cartoons. Same thing happened to him without the tears or virtue signaling.
- Messages
- 4,765
So you agree that people with a pre-existing condition shouldn't be covered? How about lifetime caps? If you're born with a few issues it means you'll never be eligible for insurance again.
Or imagine some uninsured grandpa hits you with his car, you're in the ICU for a while, but you fully recover. However, you have hit your lifetime cap because of this random incident. 20 years later you get cancer. What do you do?
Or imagine some uninsured grandpa hits you with his car, you're in the ICU for a while, but you fully recover. However, you have hit your lifetime cap because of this random incident. 20 years later you get cancer. What do you do?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,765
What does this have to do with gender indentity or christians? Don't think we mentioned either of those things. Are you projecting again?
- Messages
- 14,234
Sounds like you are assuming science, Christianity and the political left are mutually exclusive.
I'd like to think I'm somewhere in the middle of that Venn diagram.
- Messages
- 4,765
No, moderates in favour of bipartisanship don't exist. Either you're left or you're right, democrat or republican, donkey or elephant, poor or rich, atheist or Christian, etc etc
- Messages
- 9,933
I really don't know. I think there should be universal coverage, so the point becomes moot. But universal coverage comes with a ton of problems, which are almost impossible to solve.
Shapiro makes the reasonable point that if you cover pre-existing, then people will just wait to be sick to get insurance. This is dead to rights accurate, and is the fundamental problem with that law.
How do you prevent people from waiting to get sick?
- Messages
- 12,496
- Messages
- 9,933
What I am saying is that leftists somehow feel entitled to own science, and that whatever they proclaim to be science is science. End of story.
It's an inconvenient truth that much of their 'science' is really just quackery.
Obviously life begins at conception, and I still support abortion. But these leftists try and sell you this 20 or 28 week quackery. The baby is alive, end of story.
Climate change is not science, its a pseudo-science. Parts of get getting debunked regularly. Not saying it's not real, just saying don't act so sure of yourselves.
And gender identity is the biggest load of quackery of them all. Let's see... because of politics, I am going to invent this thing called a gender identity, then I am going to deny basic biology and call men, women, and women, men. Then I am going shun anyone that denies my quackery.
- Messages
- 9,933
- Messages
- 12,496
doghouse , don't go Bernie on us.
You asked, and you answered yourself.
Besides, that's not really a Bernie position. 60% of the country wants it, including a plurality of Republicans in the last round of polling.
- Messages
- 22,332
If you look at cancer mortality in America, you will see how not having insurance contributes to lower five-year survival rates. Without insurance, there is no screening for disease, there is no early detection, there is no early intervention, hence higher mortality rates in the poors.
People are waiting to get sick already.
- Messages
- 4,765
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure!
Btw, how do states' rights work when it comes to health insurance? Would California for example be able to enact universal insurance?
- Messages
- 22,332
In the early 90's Oregon tried a system whereby the top 100 conditions were listed and were to be covered. Part of that was prevention. The State Health Director took the proposed budget and used the 1oz prevention/pound of cure ratio and applied it to the planned budget to carve out $ for prevention.
They fired his ass.
Any state could enact universal coverage, but they have to come up with the $ to do it and any one-payer system will fail miserably in America. Plus there isn't the political will or history of putting together public-private schemes like in Europe or Australia or New Zealand.
Every health insurance scheme has exclusions. It has to.
What people need to focus on is providing basic health and hospital care. Making drugs affordable, not free.
People are dying from dental infections or experiencing significant morbidity because they choose to kill the pain with analgesics instead of antibiotics to kill the infection due to cost. The infection is killing them.
This is but a small example of "what the fuck". People dying from rotten teeth in a first world nation because they cannot afford dental care (which will never be covered) but not having the backup of the healthcare system to provide care in emergency situations.
- Messages
- 9,933
99.9% of the country wants a free million dollars. So polling means fuck all.
Poor people are stupid. Early mortality benefits the larger whole. Argument against universal healthcare.
Massachusetts already did it.
- Messages
- 4,765
It's sad. Any charities I could donate to once I become a resident?
- Messages
- 22,332
That is a ridiculous statement. I generally find some sound reasoning in your answers whether I agree or not but this is just silly.
Part of the reason healthcare in America is so expensive for everyone is that the ER has become the healthcare access point for the poors. The unrecovered costs are passed on to the paying public.
This is prior to death.
So you should be arguing for early screening and extermination of the dumb poors to reduce costs while they are alive which will also benefit the larger whole. Duh.
- Messages
- 9,933
I am well aware that all those costs get passed onto people with insurance, so in essence we already subsidize the stupid poors.
The issue with early screening is that stupid poors generally don't participate. Stupid poors only react when they get sick, so even if insurance were free, I bet you a substantial percentage wouldn't even use it.
Mine is a valid argument, we can subsidize the healthcare of the stupids, and then get more stupids in the population because they breed too much. Or we can subsidize their slow removal thru early death. Either way we pay for stupid poors, depends on how. There are too many people on the planet, it's inconvenient to consider ways of trimming that.
- Messages
- 14,234
It's going to be interesting seeing how the neutering of the Johnson Ammendment affects churches here.
I can see a lot of people switching denominations due to political activity and maybe a few people joining congregations based on their lobbying efforts.
I can see a lot of people switching denominations due to political activity and maybe a few people joining congregations based on their lobbying efforts.
InstaHate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,980
re: climate change
As someone who goes drinking with two geophysicists (one pretty regularly), I liked this article a lot (agreeing with the pith for the most part: that politicians are less concerned with accuratetely representing science than they are making their point <-- also true for more and more Americans on either side of the debate):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html
Both my friends dislike the way their science gets leveraged but also consider that it might be the most efficient way to effect change (it also might not be).
They also find Americans' lack of understanding of the principles of science really frustrating, as do I (a gripe probably more towards the general right than the general left; the left abuses science more than the right, and the right understands its principles less).
re: abortion
I disagree that life clearly begins at conception. I also disagree with anyone who thinks there is a clear cut answer as to when life begins (my own semi-arbitrary line in the sand is when brain activity begins...whenever that is, because Google pulls up plenty of conflicting crap, of course, and I'm not going to skim through a couple medical journals to find something I care little about).
What I do think is that pro-choice folks really fail to empathize with pro-life. For pro-lifers, they see abortion as an act of murder. I think they are wrong, but if that's how they view it, their anger and passion are very understandable. It also renders the perceived discordance between being pro-life and opposing things like free lunches for poor children as less inconsistent. There is a big difference between being anti-murder and anti-social welfare policies.
re: gender stuff
I've not read any of the gender research, so I have no opinion about the science behind it (only that I don't trust anyone to interpret what the good journals actually say about it)
I do think the apparent obsession with identity politics really hurt the Dems in 2016.
As someone who goes drinking with two geophysicists (one pretty regularly), I liked this article a lot (agreeing with the pith for the most part: that politicians are less concerned with accuratetely representing science than they are making their point <-- also true for more and more Americans on either side of the debate):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html
Both my friends dislike the way their science gets leveraged but also consider that it might be the most efficient way to effect change (it also might not be).
They also find Americans' lack of understanding of the principles of science really frustrating, as do I (a gripe probably more towards the general right than the general left; the left abuses science more than the right, and the right understands its principles less).
re: abortion
I disagree that life clearly begins at conception. I also disagree with anyone who thinks there is a clear cut answer as to when life begins (my own semi-arbitrary line in the sand is when brain activity begins...whenever that is, because Google pulls up plenty of conflicting crap, of course, and I'm not going to skim through a couple medical journals to find something I care little about).
What I do think is that pro-choice folks really fail to empathize with pro-life. For pro-lifers, they see abortion as an act of murder. I think they are wrong, but if that's how they view it, their anger and passion are very understandable. It also renders the perceived discordance between being pro-life and opposing things like free lunches for poor children as less inconsistent. There is a big difference between being anti-murder and anti-social welfare policies.
re: gender stuff
I've not read any of the gender research, so I have no opinion about the science behind it (only that I don't trust anyone to interpret what the good journals actually say about it)
I do think the apparent obsession with identity politics really hurt the Dems in 2016.
- Messages
- 40,417
i actually don't think that's the case at all. its not a matter of empathy. most people who are pro-abortion are more than willing to understand the plight of the religious on this issue. what they have a problem with is the forcing of their religious beliefs onto others. if you have no interest in abortions, don't get them. if you do, then go get one.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,496
Bret Stephens is one of my favorite columnists in general. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he is one of the few that is still intellectually rigorous in his arguments. Watching the hysteria over his climate change piece that past few days has been amusing
I agree.
- Messages
- 14,234
I'd add that most people who are pro-choice are also anti-abortion: they support a woman's right to make morality questionable descriptions.
That's also a standard church position here.
Personally, I fall further into the pro-abortion camp.
- Messages
- 40,417
hang on, this "morally questionable description" is a religious distinction. science tells us something different. i don't know of any pro-choice women who are running around trying to abort fetus' who are due in a week.