Can the world survive 6 more years of Donald Trump?

[Ryika]

How would having a 2nd job reduce the unemployment rate? I'd think that would raise it since thats one less job for someone who is unemployed. Some people have 2 jobs for other reasons, my buddy makes good money but he took a 2nd part time job for a few months anyway.

Well, that's the other thing. Does she think people who have two jobs are counted twice? Or is it just a weird way of saying that people avoid having to live on welfare by having two jobs that each could not support them on its own?

Yes, because unlike you, I'm actually capable of letting a point drop. Or is that what were you doing when you ignored the points I made in #160?

You claimed that these somehow proved your point, without any evidence as to why. I explained why she was correct on the issues, her only mistake in this instance was a self-mislabeling that isn't really a big deal.

No, you just listed a number of points that she has opinions on that people find questionable, and then gave your opinion on how you agree with her. Those are points that people called her on, but not the things I specifically meant. The ones I meant are the ones I listed.

And by the way, I forgot this one:

"Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system."

She thinks that people no longer die when they can afford healthcare. The recipe for eternal life, we have it right here!

And yeah, I know that's not what she actually meant, but her actual point is just as dumb and incorrect. People dying young does not lead to more "funeral expenses", they still only die once.

Shapiro's behavior is absolutely relevant because you are trying to claim Cortez is acting different in identical situations. The situations are not identical because Cortez and Shaprio's intentions were different. If you replace Shapiro with some other clown like Milo you still get the same result. They have no intention of a serious debate. Cortez does. Unless you can magically prove that if Cortez got a big debate she would do nothing but fling one-liners and ad hominems at Crowley, you are comparing apples to oranges.

So basically, calling somebody a Nazi and then punching them is okay is what you're saying here. Consistency of behavior does not matter, what you think about the target matters. I mean, fine I guess... if that's your opinion. This just adds attack points that will work against her in a mainstream audience.

This rhetoric does not deviate from your usual posting style, so either everything you've said in the TV Factory thread is unironic, or you've been trolling the entire time you've been on this forum and serious debate with you is pointless. The whole "blur the line between trolling and and actually believing the nonsense I peddle" schtick might work with clueless centrists, but it won't work here.

You mean that thread where I accused China of paying the guys to close the factory? I mean, I don't know, but to me that seems like a bit of an obvious deviation from my usual posts, and Synsensa and at least one other person in that threads seem to have come to the conclusion that I was not being serious.

A Trump IS an expert on these things? I remember an interview with him during the 2016 campaign where he was asked about the nuclear trinity. He seemed not to be clear whether B-52's were heavy bombers capable of carrying a nuclear payload or the '70's band that sings "Love Shack," judging my his awkward response. Then, after some stumbling around, defaulted to a tag line he reused several times in the campaign when probed about complex foreign and military issues, "I may not know now, but when I'm President I'll have people to tell me all about these things and I'll know more about these issues then anyone else will." Not long into office he made his famous quip that he was "too smart for intelligence briefings." So, I'm sorry to break it to you, but for a Democratic challenger, the bar is not very high to get over in this particular area.

Yeah, Trump is a moron, too. The difference is, he managed to get the mainstream audiences to vote for him by being a populist (and a victim of the media) who could use the vast amount of experience he has in negotiations to make promises that seemed believable enough to them to give him a try. I do not think Ocasio-Cortez can fall back on that. What she's got going for her is that she seems to actually want to focus on the well-being of the general American population, but she isn't even close to being at a point where people would reasonably believe that she's able to do that in my opinion.

 

[Patine]

Well, that's the other thing. Does she think people who have two jobs are counted twice? Or is it just a weird way of saying that people avoid having to live on welfare by having two jobs that each could not support them on its own?



No, you just listed a number of points that she has opinions on that people find questionable, and then gave your opinion on how you agree with her. Those are points that people called her on, but not the things I specifically meant. The ones I meant are the ones I listed.

And by the way, I forgot this one:

"Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system."

She thinks that people no longer die when they can afford healthcare. The recipe for eternal life, we have it right here!

And yeah, I know that's not what she actually meant, but her actual point is just as dumb and incorrect. People dying young does not lead to more "funeral expenses", they still only die once.


So basically, calling somebody a Nazi and then punching them is okay is what you're saying here. Consistency of behavior does not matter, what you think about the target matters. I mean, fine I guess... if that's your opinion. This just adds attack points that will work against her in a mainstream audience.


You mean that thread where I accused China of paying the guys to close the factory? I mean, I don't know, but to me that seems like a bit of an obvious deviation from my usual posts, and Synsensa and at least one other person in that threads seem to have come to the conclusion that I was not being serious.


Yeah, Trump is a moron, too. The difference is, he managed to get the mainstream audiences to vote for him by being a populist (and a victim of the media) who could use the vast amount of experience he has in negotiations to make promises that seemed believable enough to them to give him a try. I do not think Ocasio-Cortez can fall back on that. What she's got going for her is that she seems to actually want to focus on the well-being of the general American population, but she isn't even close to being at a point where people would reasonably believe that she's able to do that in my opinion.

Here's one of my very favourite quotes of all time on economics, politics, and their correlation and link.
"In a well managed country, poverty is shameful. In a poorly managed country, wealth is shameful."
-Confucius.

 

[miaasma]

And by the way, I forgot this one:

"Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system."

She thinks that people no longer die when they can afford healthcare. The recipe for eternal life, we have it right here!

And yeah, I know that's not what she actually meant, but her actual point is just as dumb and incorrect. People dying young does not lead to more "funeral expenses", they still only die once.

oh wow, i missed this gem

it's amazing that this person pretended to not understand the point cortez was making, clarified they were joking, and then entirely missed the point anyway

she was specifically talking about people who die because they cannot afford healthcare being especially financially vulnerable, and then their relatives/friends having to pay funeral costs once said people die after having no access to healthcare. it's about a system that has failed so many people not even taking a minute amount of accountability for said people

you should really chill with calling other people dumb

 

[Ryika]

oh wow, i missed this gem

it's amazing that this person pretended to not understand the point cortez was making, clarified they were joking, and then entirely missed the point anyway

she was specifically talking about people who die because they cannot afford healthcare being especially financially vulnerable, and then their relatives/friends having to pay funeral costs once said people die after having no access to healthcare. it's about a system that has failed so many people not even taking a minute amount of accountability for said people

you should really chill with calling other people dumb

No, she's not. That statement is from a segment of this interview, beginning at 7:35:

The segment is about the sticker shock of wanting to implement the social healthcare system in the way she has proposed it. She's asked how she's going to implement that system as it seems to cost a hell of a lot, and as a direct response she explains how the sticker shock is overplayed because Americans already pay a "tax" into the system every month, and then goes on to bring that argument that I quoted as part of the "cost of the system", followed directly with another example - the reduced productivity of people who can't afford to get healthy again.

Clearly, all of these are statements made about the costs of the system as a whole, she's making them to explain how the system is not as expensive as it seems - nothing about financially vulnerable individuals.

Nice try though, it's cool to see you engage an argument instead of making comments from the side line for once. Didn't work out that well in this case, but keep trying.

 

[metalhead]

This is all so stupid. She's not any less informed than your average member of Congress. I don't think she is well prepared for all of this media attention, but who cares? It's a pointless attempt to try to take her down, and by people who have spent the last 3 years pretending that knowledge and coherence aren't needed to be president, let alone just a House member.

It's just. So. Predictably. Stupid.

 

[Ryika]

Well, she either has to increase her knowledge, or she has to increase her ability to make it seem like she has that knowledge. I would prefer the former, but of course it's politics, so the latter might work as well.

But in any case, it's clear that right now she's not a good choice to be put into a presidential race as some want to do. Her likelihood of being destroyed in the pre-election media circus is 99.94%

 

[Berzerker]

she's a vampire too, the blood oozes from her lips

 

[Patine]

Well, she either has to increase her knowledge, or she has to increase her ability to make it seem like she has that knowledge. I would prefer the former, but of course it's politics, so the latter might work as well.

Oh, I don't know. Somehow Donald Trump managed to be elected President without doing either at all, and he had been flapping his mouth publicly and opinionatedly for over 35 years prior to running for office. I think that the threshold for winning public office - especially if you dress it up well, appeal to base emotion and gut feeling instead of reason, promise things that are highly unrealistic but greatly desired by many of the voters, and attack your political opponents viciously, especially to deflect scandals and gaffes - have dropped to the lowest level required in a practical sense, not just in the U.S., but in the world as a whole, since the 1920's to 1940's.

 

[Lexicus]

She is 28 years old. She will be President in her 40s, haters gon have to fornicate themselves.

 

[Patine]

she's a vampire too, the blood oozes from her lips

But Dick Cheney is still "THE Count!"

 

[metalhead]

Well, she either has to increase her knowledge, or she has to increase her ability to make it seem like she has that knowledge. I would prefer the former, but of course it's politics, so the latter might work as well.

But in any case, it's clear that right now she's not a good choice to be put into a presidential race as some want to do. Her likelihood of being destroyed in the pre-election media circus is 99.94%

She won't be old enough to run for president until 2028. So, I mean, you can ignore those people. That is an option, instead of fighting ignorance with stupidity.

 

[miaasma]

Nice try though, it's cool to see you engage an argument instead of making comments from the side line for once. Didn't work out that well in this case, but keep trying.

you see, i didn't make that post to engage in an argument with you, since doing so is a complete waste of time

i was making an example out of you by pointing out how misrepresentative your arguments were and to, hopefully, encourage people to do their own research instead of listening to people on forums with anime icons whose only defining character trait is spouting alt-right drivel

people with more patience than i have already tried in this thread (and others)

the part you referenced was specifically in reference to american citizens who cannot afford healthcare then also enduring funeral costs when their relatives die. it was part of a larger point, sure, but you managed to even get that minute point wrong in your post, which i've already pointed out. trying to add context like it makes your post look any better, and not worse, is not a tactic that works on anyone who does their research. it also doesn't work on someone who recognizes when somebody is posting in circles fishing for responses instead of discussing anything

for the record, none of your criticisms of cortez hold up at all, and calling her a moron only to then post a video in which she very clearly makes a case for herself is especially bad

 

[Mouthwash]

"The Democratic party doesn't have a leader."

"Nancy Pelosi is absolutely the leader."

Please, please run her for president.

 

[Ryika]

you see, i didn't make that post to engage in an argument with you, since doing so is a complete waste of time

i was making an example out of you by pointing out how misrepresentative your arguments were and to, hopefully, encourage people to do their own research instead of listening to people on forums with anime icons whose only defining character trait is spouting alt-right drivel

people with more patience than i have already tried in this thread (and others)

the part you referenced was specifically in reference to american citizens who cannot afford healthcare then also enduring funeral costs when their relatives die. it was part of a larger point, sure, but you managed to even get that minute point wrong in your post, which i've already pointed out. trying to add context like it makes your post look any better, and not worse, is not a tactic that works on anyone who does their research. it also doesn't work on someone who recognizes when somebody is posting in circles fishing for responses instead of discussing anything

for the record, none of your criticisms of cortez hold up at all, and calling her a moron only to then post a video in which she very clearly makes a case for herself is especially bad

Good thing then that I have provided the unedited interview where the quote is from, provided a time stamp on where the segment the quote is taken from starts, and a time stamp for the quote itself.

People who are interested can indeed do their own research, look at the video and realize that your claims about the quote are complete BS.

I would suggest you do the same, because the discussion in the interview was not at any point about citizens who have to endure funeral costs of their relatives, it was about the costs of the current system vs. the costs of the system that she proposed. While her other arguments are sensible - like the hidden welfare cost of having people not be able to get healthy again due to not being able to afford the treatment - the one about funeral costs is just dumb.

I mean here, I'll even copy paste her answer in plain text for you. Well... let's be honest, not actually for "you", because "you" will just ignore it and make further nonsensical claims, but for anyone who actually has the integrity to look at this situation, instead of trying to push lies:

"So first of all, the thing that we need to realize is people talk about the sticker shock of Medicare-for-all. They do not talk about the sticker shock of the cost of our existing system. You know, in a Koch brothers-funded study -- if any study's going to try to be a little bit slanted it would be one funded by the Koch brothers -- it shows that Medicare-for-all is actually much more -- is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.

And let's not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday Americans make is a tax. And so while it may not seem like a tax that we pay on April 15th, we pay it every single month and we do pay it in tax season if we don't buy these plans off the exchange. So we're paying for this system. Americans have the sticker shock of health care as it is.

And what we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to health care? That is part of the cost of our system. Why don't we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy, because they -- because they're having issues like diabetes or they don't have access to the health care that they need.

I think at the end of day, we see that this is not a pipe dream. Every other developed nation in the world does this. Why can't America? And that is the question that we need to ask. We have done these things before. We write unlimited blank checks for war... We just wrote a $2 trillion check for that tax cut, the GOP tax cut. And nobody asked those folks how are they are going to pay for it.

So my question is, why is it that our pockets are only empty when it comes to education and health care for our kids? Why are our pockets only empty when we talk about 100 percent renewable energy that is going to save this planet and allow our children to thrive? We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do. But when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem be to be able to invent that money very easily. And to me it belies a lack of moral priorities that people have right now, especially the Republican Party."
[Copy-Pasted from here]

It's literally right there. "That is part of the cost of our system.", that is exactly what she's talking about, and the whole rest of the answer is about taxes and expenses. What she's basically saying there is that the funerals that are currently being paid for by the citizens must be counted as a "cost" for the system, and she's connecting it to the people who "couldn't afford healthcare". While I agree that a basic funeral for a relative should not put you into further economic trouble, the connection that she's trying to establish, makes no sense at all. People die with or without access to healthcare, once per life, and the costs are exactly the same independent from why they die. It's not additional costs that are created, and making basic funerals a part of a healthcare system will not reduce these costs on the system. Yes, it helps families that are in financial trouble, but again... that's not the argument she's making. She's trying to argue that it creates less of a monetary burden on the system on average, that's the context of what she's talking about.

She won't be old enough to run for president until 2028. So, I mean, you can ignore those people. That is an option, instead of fighting ignorance with stupidity.

That's true of course.

 

[miaasma]

i don't understand why you try so hard to get reactions from other people by being deliberately obtuse on the internet

and that's me giving you the benefit of the doubt

if you're not doing this on purpose, then it's really hard to understand how you can unintentionally counter your own arguments by providing a source

 

[Lexicus]

and that's me giving you the benefit of the doubt

Undoubtedly a mistake.

 

[miaasma]

like, the fact that she is mentioning the cost of the system is because she is speaking on BEHALF of families that cannot afford healthcare and the additional cost of the funeral costs which are a RESULT of people who cannot afford healthcare

like i said, it's part of a broader picture about taxes and monetary allocation, but the purpose behind even bringing up families that cannot afford healthcare and the resulting funeral costs is to point out that the system, which costs so much is actively KILLING people. how can you type such a gigantic post and say so little, i actually don't get it

 

[Ryika]

like, the fact that she is mentioning the cost of the system is because she is speaking on BEHALF of families that cannot afford healthcare and the additional cost of the funeral costs which are a RESULT of people who cannot afford healthcare

Funeral costs are not a "RESULT" of people who cannot afford healthcare. Yeah, not being able to afford healthcare can make you die earlier, but in the end, you die either way. Everybody dies, funeral costs always exist. What a dumb argument.

And no, she's not speaking on behalf of families that cannot afford healthcare, she very clearly and directly explains that she thinks that a part of the reason why her ideas aren't actually as expensive as they seem is that then there are fewer people who die because of bad healthcare. That's still nonsense, it does not reduce the costs of funerals as again, everybody dies.

Again, if you want to take the moral angle and argue that it helps the people who need it the most - yeah, go for it. That is not what she did in the interview. The two of them were talking about the actual costs of her plans, she gave a response that suggested that funeral costs are hidden costs that would decrease because fewer people die because of bad healthcare. That's stupid, and your attempts to reframe the issue are completely baseless.

 

[Velegon]

She won't be old enough to run for president until 2028. So, I mean, you can ignore those people. That is an option, instead of fighting ignorance with stupidity.

Ocasio-Cortez was born on Oct 13, 1989 - a president has to be 35+ years old when they take office at the inauguration - so she would be eligible to run in 2024. Actually anyone born before or on January 20, 1990 would be eligible to run in 2024.

 

[miaasma]

Funeral costs are not a "RESULT" of people who cannot afford healthcare. Yeah, not being able to afford healthcare can make you die earlier, but in the end, you die either way. Everybody dies, funeral costs always exist. What a dumb argument.

how do you have a discussion with someone like this

the funeral costs are a result of people dying. people are dying because they cannot afford healthcare. yes, people would have to pay these funeral costs regardless because everyone dies (you really typed this), but the point she is making is that these people who die BECAUSE they cannot afford healthcare then results in their relatives and friends having to pay funeral expenses that they also cannot afford. the entire context for her making this point is to compare things that america spends tons of tax dollars on, like the military, with things like healthcare that people feel aren't worth the spending

this is feeling like a waste of time, didn't see that coming