What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Cloud_Strife]

Criticism of people's stances? I think you're remembering a tamer disagreement between us, and NOT the one I'm referring to.

What is your point? What are you trying to say?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself over and over again and my patience is growing thin. Discuss the post, NOT THE POSTER, or don't be surprised if you face a thread ban.

 

[Berzerker]

ok that might be fair

the car wreck bankruptcy thing has to do with healthcare and the reality is if you get injured in a car wreck a little over half the US is staring medical bankruptcy in the face.

Depends on who is at fault in the wreck, the law requires a substantial amount of liability, but thats why people have health insurance. I'm okay with single payer or med4all anyway and even though I do hold extreme views on some things, I dont consider that one of them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Depends on who is at fault in the wreck, the law requires a substantial amount of liability, but thats why people have health insurance. I'm okay with single payer or med4all anyway and even though I do hold extreme views on some things, I dont consider that one of them.

I think you are overestimating how minimum liability coverage matches up against actual medical costs in the event of accident related injuries. The kind of damage you get in a car wreck will blow through minimum required liability coverage before the injured party even reaches the hospital.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think you are overestimating how minimum liability coverage matches up against actual medical costs in the event of accident related injuries. The kind of damage you get in a car wreck will blow through minimum required liability coverage before the injured party even reaches the hospital.

So true. Minimum coverage will hardly cover a medium accident let alone a serious one.

 

[JPetroski]

I think you are overestimating how minimum liability coverage matches up against actual medical costs in the event of accident related injuries. The kind of damage you get in a car wreck will blow through minimum required liability coverage before the injured party even reaches the hospital.

This is a slight exaggeration but not by much. Although it is worth pointing out that the tortfeasor isn't off the hook once their liability limits are reached, and are instead liable for the excess. Whether or not they can pay is another story.

Also worth mentioning is that you can purchase underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage well above the legal minimums to protect yourself in case the person who hits you does more damage than they can cover.

Anyway, back to arguing about a hat.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is a slight exaggeration but not by much. Although it is worth pointing out that the tortfeasor isn't off the hook once their liability limits are reached, and are instead liable for the excess. Whether or not they can pay is another story.

The original comment was that auto accident injury leads to bankruptcy. It didn't specify who would be bankrupted.

 

[JPetroski]

The original comment was that auto accident injury leads to bankruptcy. It didn't specify who would be bankrupted.

Missed that, sorry.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Missed that, sorry.

No prob.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Blue MAGA hats can now be worn with an appended message on the back: flush the turd.

 

[Berzerker]

I think you are overestimating how minimum liability coverage matches up against actual medical costs in the event of accident related injuries. The kind of damage you get in a car wreck will blow through minimum required liability coverage before the injured party even reaches the hospital.

you're right, I thought it was much more

I think I confused it with FDIC insurance

 

[Traitorfish]

I assume if moderates and centrists leave both parties, then both parties will become more extreme...

Why? It's not self-evident. Most European social democratic parties do not contain a lot of what you would call "moderates", but they are also very far from "extreme". Likewise, European conservative parties contain less moderates, but are not extreme. Reducing ideological diversity within a party only means it will be less ideologically diverse, not that it will become suddenly radicalised.

We would just as easily cite the United States and United Kingdom as proof that parties with large moderate contingents are more vulnerable to extremism, because a hard-line faction can take control of the party apparatus, and the moderates and centrists are invested enough in that apparatus that they allow themselves, their resources, and their support base to be dragged along with the hard-liners, artificially inflating the unpopular fringe politics of the new leadership into the voice of half the country. Perhaps a Republican or Conservative Party that was more clearly committed to a specific and clearly-articulate vision of conservative politics, which did not have to moderate and compromise its principles chasing "centre" voters, would not have been so vulnerable to appropriation by a bunch of reactionary weirdos.

I don't think that's necessarily true, either. I think it's complicated, and I don't think your framing allows for that sort of complexity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why? It's not self-evident. Most European social democratic parties do not contain a lot of what you would call "moderates", but they are also very far from "extreme". Likewise, European conservative parties contain less moderates, but are not extreme. Reducing ideological diversity within a party only means it will be less ideologically diverse, not that it will become suddenly radicalised.

We would just as easily cite the United States and United Kingdom as proof that parties with large moderate contingents are more vulnerable to extremism, because a hard-line faction can take control of the party apparatus, and the moderates and centrists are invested enough in that apparatus that they allow themselves, their resources, and their support base to be dragged along with the hard-liners, artificially inflating the unpopular fringe politics of the new leadership into the voice of half the country. Perhaps a Republican or Conservative Party that was more clearly committed to a specific and clearly-articulate vision of conservative politics, which did not have to moderate and compromise its principles chasing "centre" voters, would not have been so vulnerable to appropriation by a bunch of reactionary weirdos.

I don't think that's necessarily true, either. I think it's complicated, and I don't think your framing allows for that sort of complexity.

I think the biggest hurdle is putting aside all examples and reasoning drawn from European parliamentary systems when talking about US politics, because they do not and cannot apply. For better or worse, and it can be argued either way, the US is committed to the two party system rather than the standard system in which coalitions are formed after the election. It can't legitimately be analyzed the same way.

 

[Patine]

Why? It's not self-evident. Most European social democratic parties do not contain a lot of what you would call "moderates", but they are also very far from "extreme". Likewise, European conservative parties contain less moderates, but are not extreme. Reducing ideological diversity within a party only means it will be less ideologically diverse, not that it will become suddenly radicalised.

We would just as easily cite the United States and United Kingdom as proof that parties with large moderate contingents are more vulnerable to extremism, because a hard-line faction can take control of the party apparatus, and the moderates and centrists are invested enough in that apparatus that they allow themselves, their resources, and their support base to be dragged along with the hard-liners, artificially inflating the unpopular fringe politics of the new leadership into the voice of half the country. Perhaps a Republican or Conservative Party that was more clearly committed to a specific and clearly-articulate vision of conservative politics, which did not have to moderate and compromise its principles chasing "centre" voters, would not have been so vulnerable to appropriation by a bunch of reactionary weirdos.

I don't think that's necessarily true, either. I think it's complicated, and I don't think your framing allows for that sort of complexity.

I think this kind of happened, in terms of a single, focused faction with a very assertive, uncompromising viewpoint (although not necessarily "extremists," in the classic sense) took over both of these parties almost completely from periods of previous internal factionalization, and did claim virtually all of the party's traditional voter base (and seemed to expand it), at about the same time as each other. Of course, I'm referring to Rotten Ronnie Raygun and the Wicked Witch of Whitehall.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

nonsense

This is a stupid strawman and you know it.

 

[Senethro]

This is a stupid strawman and you know it.

I mean, he only used your quotes so if its nonsense then its your own nonsense.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the biggest hurdle is putting aside all examples and reasoning drawn from European parliamentary systems when talking about US politics, because they do not and cannot apply. For better or worse, and it can be argued either way, the US is committed to the two party system rather than the standard system in which coalitions are formed after the election. It can't legitimately be analyzed the same way.

I don't think this has any bearing on my point, that the breadth of ideological diversity within a political party is not a reliable indicator of that party's susceptibility to extremism.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I mean, he only used your quotes so if its nonsense then its your own nonsense.

No, he didn't, he used someone else's Moderator Action: Redacted. strawman quote.

Moderator Action: Please note, evading the autocensor is not allowed. If we can tell what you've written then it is against the rules. If you are in doubt about the rules, then I suggest that you look at the link below this mod text. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think this has any bearing on my point, that the breadth of ideological diversity within a political party is not a reliable indicator of that party's susceptibility to extremism.

It points to context that makes your point, while accurate, somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The two party system forces ideological diversity within the parties, so whether it can be used as an indicator in the more common parliamentary system or not it can't be applied the same way in the US.

 

[Traitorfish]

It points to context that makes your point, while accurate, somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The two party system forces ideological diversity within the parties, so whether it can be used as an indicator in the more common parliamentary system or not it can't be applied the same way in the US.

Berzerker asserted that a narrow of ideological diversity will push a party towards "extremism". I disagreed, observing that we can very readily find examples of ideologically narrow parties resisting extremist influence, and ideologically broad parties proving susceptible to it.

I don't know what bearing the qualifications you're adding have on that.