Author Topic: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)  (Read 7431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #105 on: May 15, 2017, 10:37:53 AM »
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.
I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.   
Then what? That's where I always run into issues with this whole MSM conspiracy thing. Who are they taking their orders from? Where does FOX get its?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #106 on: May 15, 2017, 10:43:23 AM »
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.
I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.   
Then what? That's where I always run into issues with this whole MSM conspiracy thing. Who are they taking their orders from? Where does FOX get its?

I don't know that anyone is "getting orders".  I think to some degree it's down to the participants.  I guess that makes it tangentially "capitalism", but not in the sense of marketing and sale.   I think Sean Hannity likes being "Sean HannityTM, and broadcasts accordingly.   Same with Van Jones.  I think there is an arrogance and an entitlement from some of these new-fangled "journalists" who came up in the Twitter-era of "MY OPINION MATTERS!  MY OPINION MATTERS!" 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24822
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #107 on: May 15, 2017, 10:44:35 AM »
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.

I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.

Well, it's not solely the abstract concept of capitalism. It's capitalism responding to the interests of the people. The people want to be entertained. They want to be affirmed. They want their emotional responses heightened. Thus the press has moved toward doing that.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #108 on: May 15, 2017, 10:48:13 AM »
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.

I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.

Well, it's not solely the abstract concept of capitalism. It's capitalism responding to the interests of the people. The people want to be entertained. They want to be affirmed. They want their emotional responses heightened. Thus the press has moved toward doing that.

You're the expert here, and so I defer, but I would offer that subjectively, my gut tells me it's a different mechanism.  It's less about "entertainment" and "emotional responses" than it is the quick affirmation and the reinforcement of their subjective identity.   We don't like being told we're wrong (and in fact, in some cases, as we've seen here, to do so is counterproductive). 

I don't at all deny there is a capitalist/ monetary impact to this, but I see it as a secondary by-product, and not the primary objective.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24822
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #109 on: May 15, 2017, 10:51:04 AM »
Yes, I wasn't saying they were all even, just all factors, and I made sure to include affirmation.

Though, it might not apply to you and your friends/family, I can assure you that many people seek out and respond to things that emotionally heighten them.

You're coming from the perspective of a well educated, well-thought out, rather dashing, perspective. However, most people aren't.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20015
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #110 on: May 15, 2017, 12:36:22 PM »
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Given the way POTUS is flippant in his use of "words" (quotations to emphasize the fully intended pun), I find it ironic you are bothered the with the careless way the PRESS uses words in this case (and yes... in many others surely), yet you are repeatedly an apologist/defender of the "most powerful man in the nation" who is beyond careless with his use English - both written and spoken.

Let's try this - I'm going to flip Press and President in your statement...

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - Press.  The PRESIDENT should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESIDENT should not.  They are He is the most powerful man in the world professionals, they he deals in "words", they he should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They He should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Seems legit. Your move  ;) :D
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1514
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #111 on: May 15, 2017, 02:01:04 PM »
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know.

I'd certainly like for it to be transparent. I'd love to know if big money interests were behind the rally. However, I think it's fair to say that him calling it out that way is hypocritical at best. It's his side of the aisle that have rejoiced at things like Citizen United where free speech = big money. How thin skinned does he have to be to cry foul when the tools that he took full advantage of during his campaign are turned around and used on him? Also, he's been sworn to protect the constitution. There's no provision in that document barring anyone from paying participants for peaceful protest. We could argue about it being against the spirit of the founders that wrote the document, but then we'd arrive back at the supreme court ruling again.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #112 on: May 16, 2017, 06:34:31 AM »
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Given the way POTUS is flippant in his use of "words" (quotations to emphasize the fully intended pun), I find it ironic you are bothered the with the careless way the PRESS uses words in this case (and yes... in many others surely), yet you are repeatedly an apologist/defender of the "most powerful man in the nation" who is beyond careless with his use English - both written and spoken.

Let's try this - I'm going to flip Press and President in your statement...

Have you been reading?   My two biggest non-policy beefs with Trump are, in order, the TWEETING and his carelessness with words.  It drives me fucking CRAZY.   I'm not at all "apologizing" for Trump (I'm actually starting to slip quietly over to the "let's impeach him and get Pence in there ASAP" wagon, though I'm no Pence fan either.  His position on identity politics is not my thing.) but I am saying that those criticizing him don't get to pick and choose when to hold him at his word and when not to.    When Trump - carelessly and without forethought - says "MUSLIM BAN!" then to the critics EVERYTHING that comes after is a de facto Muslim ban.   Like the EO, which is in no way, shape or form a "Muslim ban" (how you can have a ban on Muslims that doesn't actually apply to over 90% of the world's Muslims is beyond me entirely.)    They hold him to his words when it helps their cause.   But when he ACTUALLY says something, and it doesn't jive with the agenda, all of a sudden he's "careless with his words".  Can't have it both ways. 

Quote
I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - Press.  The PRESIDENT should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESIDENT should not.  They are He is the most powerful man in the world professionals, they he deals in "words", they he should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They He should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Seems legit. Your move  ;) :D

There's no move.  I can't say I disagree, but it doesn't prove anything.   I'm not a doctor.  I just go by what I see on WebMD.  When I actually DO go see a specialist, is it then right for him to "flip words" and just use "WebMD"?  Of course not.   Should the President be more precise in his/her language? Of course.   (Why do you think so many lawmakers are lawyers?  We actually argue about whether there should be an "and" or an "or" in sentences that run a page and a half, I shit you not.)   But it's not a requirement.  It IS a requirement of someone who SELLS WORDS FOR A LIVING, which is what a journalist does.   Allowing a journalist to be flip and cavalier with his words is like saying to the aforementioned doctor, "you don't need to be precise with that scalpel. Not important."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #113 on: May 16, 2017, 06:39:49 AM »
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know.

I'd certainly like for it to be transparent. I'd love to know if big money interests were behind the rally. However, I think it's fair to say that him calling it out that way is hypocritical at best. It's his side of the aisle that have rejoiced at things like Citizen United where free speech = big money. How thin skinned does he have to be to cry foul when the tools that he took full advantage of during his campaign are turned around and used on him? Also, he's been sworn to protect the constitution. There's no provision in that document barring anyone from paying participants for peaceful protest. We could argue about it being against the spirit of the founders that wrote the document, but then we'd arrive back at the supreme court ruling again.

You mean like social media?  Twitter?  How about the failure to vote on Merrick Garland?  How about the nuclear option in the Congress?  Point being that while I abhor it, this is not the first time that there has been "hypocrisy" in Washington.  I too wish it was better, but it's not just Trump's "thin skin" that leads to this.

As for the Constitutional argument, go back to what I said above.  When Trump says "MUSLIM BAN!" we take him specifically and literally.  When he says "he wants to know who paid", all of a sudden we extrapolate it out to an attack on free speech.  Which is it? 

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1514
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #114 on: May 16, 2017, 12:18:19 PM »
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know.

I'd certainly like for it to be transparent. I'd love to know if big money interests were behind the rally. However, I think it's fair to say that him calling it out that way is hypocritical at best. It's his side of the aisle that have rejoiced at things like Citizen United where free speech = big money. How thin skinned does he have to be to cry foul when the tools that he took full advantage of during his campaign are turned around and used on him? Also, he's been sworn to protect the constitution. There's no provision in that document barring anyone from paying participants for peaceful protest. We could argue about it being against the spirit of the founders that wrote the document, but then we'd arrive back at the supreme court ruling again.

You mean like social media?  Twitter?  How about the failure to vote on Merrick Garland?  How about the nuclear option in the Congress?  Point being that while I abhor it, this is not the first time that there has been "hypocrisy" in Washington.  I too wish it was better, but it's not just Trump's "thin skin" that leads to this.

As for the Constitutional argument, go back to what I said above.  When Trump says "MUSLIM BAN!" we take him specifically and literally.  When he says "he wants to know who paid", all of a sudden we extrapolate it out to an attack on free speech.  Which is it?

To answer your last question, it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. In my view, it's not a big stretch when any sitting president utters the word "investigate" to easily come to the conclusion that he'd like to have some sort of legal action taken. Then again, I don't have anyone to compare this president to in a historic sense. No president in my life-time (I was born when Nixon was in office) has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has. The person in that position has the responsibility to choose their words wisely, and should be taken to task when they don't. The very fact that this president can't control himself during a small scale peaceful protest shows his thin skin, in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he's going to conduct himself when the real shit hits the fan. Every president faces a major crisis at some point during their administration, and if he's going to piss and moan on social media during the small stuff, then we're all fucked when something major happens.

To summarize: His words carry weight, and this thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't something there to begin with.

As far as social media goes for me, 99% of the time I don't participate in religious/political discussion on there. I have a very small friends list that is fairly diverse as far as those beliefs go. The big difference is that the people that I choose to communicate with on there usually abstain from shitting on each other over their differences. That's certainly not the norm on places like that, but I've weeded out the fools over the years.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #115 on: May 16, 2017, 01:45:54 PM »
To answer your last question, it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. In my view, it's not a big stretch when any sitting president utters the word "investigate" to easily come to the conclusion that he'd like to have some sort of legal action taken. Then again, I don't have anyone to compare this president to in a historic sense. No president in my life-time (I was born when Nixon was in office) has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has. The person in that position has the responsibility to choose their words wisely, and should be taken to task when they don't. The very fact that this president can't control himself during a small scale peaceful protest shows his thin skin, in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he's going to conduct himself when the real shit hits the fan. Every president faces a major crisis at some point during their administration, and if he's going to piss and moan on social media during the small stuff, then we're all fucked when something major happens.

And this is the underlying point to most of what I write here:  your sentence is factually incorrect; it's not that "no president in my life-time ... has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has".   It is more accurate to say "no president in my life-time... has openly conducted themselves so far from what my ideal of a president is".   We have a lot to compare this President to; we have 44 (43 if you account for Grover Cleveland).  We only have to go to his predecessor to see someone who exhibited similar traits.   (http://humanevents.com/2012/01/30/barack-obama-our-thinskinned-president/)  I know you said "my life-time", so that leaves on Nixon as another comparable, but FDR was NOTORIOUSLY thin-skinned.  He was EXTREMELY interested in what people said about him. 

Quote
To summarize: His words carry weight, and this thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't something there to begin with.

I respectfully do not agree with that one bit.   As long as there are people that view Trump as "not our guy", you will see threads like this.  After all, we have to RESIST!

Quote
As far as social media goes for me, 99% of the time I don't participate in religious/political discussion on there. I have a very small friends list that is fairly diverse as far as those beliefs go. The big difference is that the people that I choose to communicate with on there usually abstain from shitting on each other over their differences. That's certainly not the norm on places like that, but I've weeded out the fools over the years.

You're better than I am; I don't even bother.   I have resigned myself that there is nothing on social media that I need.  Yeah, I have to Google my favorite bands, and I can't stalk touch base with that cute girl in high school, to see if she's still cute, but small price to pay. 

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1514
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #116 on: May 16, 2017, 05:46:44 PM »
To answer your last question, it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. In my view, it's not a big stretch when any sitting president utters the word "investigate" to easily come to the conclusion that he'd like to have some sort of legal action taken. Then again, I don't have anyone to compare this president to in a historic sense. No president in my life-time (I was born when Nixon was in office) has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has. The person in that position has the responsibility to choose their words wisely, and should be taken to task when they don't. The very fact that this president can't control himself during a small scale peaceful protest shows his thin skin, in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he's going to conduct himself when the real shit hits the fan. Every president faces a major crisis at some point during their administration, and if he's going to piss and moan on social media during the small stuff, then we're all fucked when something major happens.

And this is the underlying point to most of what I write here:  your sentence is factually incorrect; it's not that "no president in my life-time ... has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has".   It is more accurate to say "no president in my life-time... has openly conducted themselves so far from what my ideal of a president is".   We have a lot to compare this President to; we have 44 (43 if you account for Grover Cleveland).  We only have to go to his predecessor to see someone who exhibited similar traits.   (http://humanevents.com/2012/01/30/barack-obama-our-thinskinned-president/)  I know you said "my life-time", so that leaves on Nixon as another comparable, but FDR was NOTORIOUSLY thin-skinned.  He was EXTREMELY interested in what people said about him. 

OK, I'll begin with the article since you were very recently critical of an article that I posted:

The only example sited that carries any weight is the meeting between Obama and Brewer. The other things sited were either taken out of context, or outright bullshit. For example, "But until recently, Obama was unaccustomed to hearing real criticism. He grew up in liberal cities and university towns, insulated from those who might have challenged his beliefs and values." His time in Indonesia is brought up by conservative commentators quite regularly(to prey on the xenophobia that a certain sub-section of the readership of those type of articles feeds on), but this one chose to ignore that because it didn't fit the narrative of this particular article.

Another example: "Last year, Majority Leader Eric Cantor called Obama “overly sensitive to someone differing with him on policy grounds.”

The same assessment was made by Kansas Senator Pat Roberts after he and other Senate Republicans had a combative meeting with the president last year. “He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Roberts said. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

You know as well as I do that none of them were going to come out of any meeting with him and have glowing things to say. That would be political suicide to say the least. Both sides are guilty of this, so I'm not pointing fingers. In fact, it may very well be true, but my original statement very clearly said "openly". Every person under the sun knows about Nixon's stupidity, but he did it privately. You brought up FDR as well, I'm not a fan of FDR because of the way that he treated Japanese-Americans, and I wasn't there for it. That's not to say that I'm choosing to ignore history, it's that I'm trying to gauge things off of my own personal experiences as much as possible. This sort of situation works better for me when I look at it this way.

We can argue about if my sentence is factually correct, or not, but I don't think that I'm being unreasonable if I expect someone in that office to handle themselves with a certain sense of decorum. All other things aside, diplomacy is part of the job description, and in my humble opinion, he's taking a shit on the very definition of that word in almost every way possible. I know that every person that has held that office has most likely got a lot of asshole qualities in their personality. However, asking to see someone show a certain amount of restraint when it's called for is simply asking for them to show a leadership quality that I would admire. He's seemingly incapable of this, so I can't find myself admiring him on any level.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #117 on: May 17, 2017, 07:30:10 AM »
We can argue about if my sentence is factually correct, or not, but I don't think that I'm being unreasonable if I expect someone in that office to handle themselves with a certain sense of decorum. All other things aside, diplomacy is part of the job description, and in my humble opinion, he's taking a shit on the very definition of that word in almost every way possible. I know that every person that has held that office has most likely got a lot of asshole qualities in their personality. However, asking to see someone show a certain amount of restraint when it's called for is simply asking for them to show a leadership quality that I would admire. He's seemingly incapable of this, so I can't find myself admiring him on any level.

I hope it's clear to you that I too expect the President to handle themselves with a certain sense of decorum.  But my point is, that's as far as it goes.   If they don't actually handle themselves with the level of decorum that YOU feel, your options are limited.    I didn't like how Obama whored himself out to late night TV.  I didn't like seeing Clinton on Arsenio with a saxophone and a pair of Risky Business glasses.   (I'm naming Democrats, because - despite decisions that many find controversial - I feel like in terms of demeanor, Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. handled themselves rather "presidentially"; I'm not saying they were better Presidents than the Dems; Clinton was our best President since Reagan.).   So be it.   I'm not suggesting that you have to ADMIRE them (I don't admire Obama, except in specific instances, and I do admire Clinton very much, except for the perjury thing) but it can't color everything after.   It's one variable in a bigger equation. 

I'm seeing a lot of this lately, and it's frustrating:    "I hate Trump and I oppose every thing he does, on PRINCIPLE. Oh, and Republicans are assholes to a man because of how they treated Obama!"   Uh, what?   

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1514
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #118 on: May 17, 2017, 11:03:51 AM »
I'm seeing a lot of this lately, and it's frustrating:    "I hate Trump and I oppose every thing he does, on PRINCIPLE. Oh, and Republicans are assholes to a man because of how they treated Obama!"   Uh, what?

Definitely not me. Yes, I'm mostly a lefty, but there's some folks on the right that I greatly admire. Had Jon Huntsman made it through to the nomination in '12 I would have easily voted for him. I voted for Perot in the 90's, and supported Ron Paul in his most recent efforts. Those men were very principled, and that's something that is extremely important to me. That's also why I like Bernie now. These men are ideologically opposites, but in my opinion they all share a similar trait of being true to their word.

I don't feel like I can trust The D. I'll try to be fair with him, and I did praise him when he appointed the aformentioned Mr. Huntsman to a post as a diplomat. However, there's certain things that I have zero tolerance for. Bush 2 and Obama both shit freely on civil liberties, and The D looks like he wants to turn that up to 11. I'm going to piss and moan everytime he does, or says anything remotely close to violating anyone's civil liberties.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #119 on: May 17, 2017, 11:47:12 AM »
If this is a derailure, I apologize, but in my own way, I'm with you on the civil liberties thing.   I'm far more "libertarian" than either D or R, but to couch things in "civil liberties", isn't that a subjective thing?    How can one say they are "for" civil liberties and be "for" the ACA?    Or Trump's tariffs?   

I know you said you're of "no party", so this isn't you, but I find that even the "civil liberties" argument is less about the actual liberties, than it is a way to couch "my outlook on life".    BOTH sides trample them, or celebrate them, as is convenient to their agenda. 

I try to be more consistent.  I recognize that in a free society there is always a compromise on rights, but for me, I err on the side of:
- marry who you want
- fuck who you want
- get an abortion if that's what you want
- get healthcare insurance if that's what you want
- watch the television, movies or porn that you want
- be racist if that's what you want
- pray to who you want



Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #120 on: May 17, 2017, 11:54:38 AM »
I agree with all of that, including the get health insurance part. The problem is that it really only works if you're willing to let people die if they willingly opt out and need emergency treatment. After all, isn't that part of personal responsibility?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #121 on: May 17, 2017, 12:00:26 PM »
I agree with all of that, including the get health insurance part. The problem is that it really only works if you're willing to let people die if they willingly opt out and need emergency treatment. After all, isn't that part of personal responsibility?

Well, what is "willing"?   I wouldn't say I'm "willing", but I do recognize that for many things, there is a transition period, and in those transition periods, people have a way of falling through the cracks.  I get that as a society we try like hell to avoid that, but I think at some point - and we've already made this reconciliation with respect to combat and war - there has to be harder conversations than we're willing to have at this point.   There are examples that don't involve "death", too, if you're interested. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #122 on: May 17, 2017, 12:13:18 PM »
I agree with all of that, including the get health insurance part. The problem is that it really only works if you're willing to let people die if they willingly opt out and need emergency treatment. After all, isn't that part of personal responsibility?

Well, what is "willing"?   I wouldn't say I'm "willing", but I do recognize that for many things, there is a transition period, and in those transition periods, people have a way of falling through the cracks.  I get that as a society we try like hell to avoid that, but I think at some point - and we've already made this reconciliation with respect to combat and war - there has to be harder conversations than we're willing to have at this point.   There are examples that don't involve "death", too, if you're interested.
I'm not sure where the variable with willing is. If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them. If somebody hobbles into the ER fixing to squirt out another bambino, ditto. If these people voluntarily decide to go without, do we still do this and eat the losses, or let them suffer the consequences of their own foolishness? I'm fundamentally opposed to letting them die on the front steps of Parkland, but that does create an inherent conflict with regards to civil liberties and ACA.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1514
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #123 on: May 17, 2017, 01:03:51 PM »
If this is a derailure, I apologize, but in my own way, I'm with you on the civil liberties thing.   I'm far more "libertarian" than either D or R, but to couch things in "civil liberties", isn't that a subjective thing?    How can one say they are "for" civil liberties and be "for" the ACA?    Or Trump's tariffs?   

I know you said you're of "no party", so this isn't you, but I find that even the "civil liberties" argument is less about the actual liberties, than it is a way to couch "my outlook on life".    BOTH sides trample them, or celebrate them, as is convenient to their agenda. 

I try to be more consistent.  I recognize that in a free society there is always a compromise on rights, but for me, I err on the side of:
- marry who you want
- fuck who you want
- get an abortion if that's what you want
- get healthcare insurance if that's what you want
- watch the television, movies or porn that you want
- be racist if that's what you want
- pray to who you want

I'm completely in line with you on all of those points. In fact, that's my attraction to Huntsman that I mentioned earlier. When he was governor of Utah many of his policies tended to lean in that direction.

This next section probably belongs in the ACA thread, but since you touched on it I'll talk about it a little bit here. I remember many years back a poster that was originally born/raised in Germany talked about their healthcare system, and I always thought that it would be a good basis for our own. I'm doing this from memory, so I could be getting much of this wrong. But he mentioned that they have a single payer system that you could opt out of, and get private coverage instead. If you decided to get back into the single payer system then you had to wait an entire year before you were eligible to participate. That would prevent people from abusing the system. It would also give those that didn't want government healthcare from being forced into it. On the surface, it sounds like a great approach to me, but I'm far from being very knowledgable about the subject.

As far as tariffs go, I'm usually not in favor of them. However, I've read about foreign governments that subsidize their exports to the U.S. that do undermine our domestic products ability to compete in the market. If we are able to produce a product domestically that is being undercut by foreign manipulation, then I'm in favor of us placing a tariff on that product to bring it in line as far as price to the domestically produced product. I do realize that this is a potentially slippery slope, but I think that it has played a big part in the weakening of our manufacturing base.

The one case that I wouldn't be in favor of doing this (and it's something that we already do), is the case of us importing ethanol from Brazil that is being made from cane-sugar. We currently make ours from corn, and our process is terribly inefficient as far as the amount of energy used to create the amount of energy gained. Our process also has forced higher prices domestically.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 269
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #124 on: May 18, 2017, 08:01:38 AM »

 If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them.

Maybe this belongs in the ACA thread but I'm curious about how this works in the US.  So if someone gets into a car accident,  the hospital is required to treat them.   If they happen to not have any insurance, once they're released from the hospital do they leave with a huge bill?   

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #125 on: May 18, 2017, 08:16:55 AM »

 If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them.

Maybe this belongs in the ACA thread but I'm curious about how this works in the US.  So if someone gets into a car accident,  the hospital is required to treat them.   If they happen to not have any insurance, once they're released from the hospital do they leave with a huge bill?

Don't know what the actual policies are for this, but my friend who is a surgeon in a hospital in a not so good area of NJ experiences this constantly.  Not necessarily car accidents, but emergency surgeries on people who have no money.  Essentailly he's told me they don't even bother billing most of their patients without insurance.  It's just pointless.  They eat the costs.  They are supposed to have sit downs and discuss payment plans, but how do you do that with someone who has no income and when you have someone else who needs surgery waiting on you?

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #126 on: May 18, 2017, 08:26:44 AM »
Speaking of careless use of words...
and it doesn't jive with the agenda
Dammitall
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 08:50:15 AM by bosk1 »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #127 on: May 18, 2017, 08:32:55 AM »
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #128 on: May 18, 2017, 08:34:36 AM »

 If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them.

Maybe this belongs in the ACA thread but I'm curious about how this works in the US.  So if someone gets into a car accident,  the hospital is required to treat them.   If they happen to not have any insurance, once they're released from the hospital do they leave with a huge bill?

Don't know what the actual policies are for this, but my friend who is a surgeon in a hospital in a not so good area of NJ experiences this constantly.  Not necessarily car accidents, but emergency surgeries on people who have no money.  Essentailly he's told me they don't even bother billing most of their patients without insurance.  It's just pointless.  They eat the costs.  They are supposed to have sit downs and discuss payment plans, but how do you do that with someone who has no income and when you have someone else who needs surgery waiting on you?
They might bill you, but for the most part they eat the costs. I know that in Dallas County 10% of your property taxes go to Parkland to help offset this, and plenty more in federal money. That was one of my arguments in favor of ACA. People were already paying to subsidize the uninsured, but in this case it was the irresponsible as well as the poor. In any case, to answer your question, yes they might well bill you. They don't really expect to make it back, though. When my brother broke his back he told every single person he saw when they wheeled him in, loudly and sternly "I have no insurance!" People mopping the floor who spoke no English heard it. They took very good care of him and then saddled him with a ridiculous amount of debt, which of course he could never pay. If you wound up with a quarter million in medical debt would you even think about how you might pay it back, or would you just plan for a life with wrecked credit?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #129 on: May 18, 2017, 08:35:01 AM »
Speaking of careless use of works...
and it doesn't jive with the agenda
Dammitall

I meant to say that.  :)   

Actually, I meant to use the archaic "gybe", but spell correct.  Emails.   Russia.  :) 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #130 on: May 18, 2017, 08:37:37 AM »
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #131 on: May 18, 2017, 09:27:03 AM »
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.

Well, you're right, but we've already covered this.  I wouldn't do any of this, necessarily, but that ship sailed a while ago (I think Copernicus was on that ship).  We're already past philosophical and into the land of compromise.   My position, though, is predicated on some sort of behavioral incentive short of "death".  I can get behind the notion - barely - that "letting someone die" is a stiff penalty for a bad decision, but if we want to encourage people to make GOOD decisions - especially when the "good" or "bad" isn't really tied to the outcome but to the decision itself, as we do with speeding, seat belts, etc. - we have to have SOME downside to the "bad" decision.    Though, I feel obligated to point out, we CELEBRATE the deaths that result from "bad decisions" every single day (Prince, Heath Ledger, James Marshal Hendrix, anyone who climbs Mount Everest and doesn't make it back to base camp). 

It's also a good time to remind that none of this exists in a vacuum.  I would be revising "income taxes" to "consumption taxes" as well.   Not everyone is paid over the table, or claims all of the income they receive.  But everyone has to buy things.    It's a cliché, but that kid on the street with the sweet kicks and the rad lid had to pay for them; he's likely not filling out a 1040A with his weed money on it, but by golly he can be paying sales tax on the uniform.    I would also sever the "employer/insurance" bond, and I would make it easier for insurers to save money and drive out cost layers.   

But I'm not backing off my "personal responsibility" baseline at all, just recognizing that some compromise is likely necessary.  Tend Your Own GardenTM

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #132 on: May 18, 2017, 09:35:49 AM »
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.

Well, you're right, but we've already covered this.  I wouldn't do any of this, necessarily, but that ship sailed a while ago (I think Copernicus was on that ship).  We're already past philosophical and into the land of compromise.   My position, though, is predicated on some sort of behavioral incentive short of "death".  I can get behind the notion - barely - that "letting someone die" is a stiff penalty for a bad decision, but if we want to encourage people to make GOOD decisions - especially when the "good" or "bad" isn't really tied to the outcome but to the decision itself, as we do with speeding, seat belts, etc. - we have to have SOME downside to the "bad" decision.    Though, I feel obligated to point out, we CELEBRATE the deaths that result from "bad decisions" every single day (Prince, Heath Ledger, James Marshal Hendrix, anyone who climbs Mount Everest and doesn't make it back to base camp). 

It's also a good time to remind that none of this exists in a vacuum.  I would be revising "income taxes" to "consumption taxes" as well.   Not everyone is paid over the table, or claims all of the income they receive.  But everyone has to buy things.    It's a cliché, but that kid on the street with the sweet kicks and the rad lid had to pay for them; he's likely not filling out a 1040A with his weed money on it, but by golly he can be paying sales tax on the uniform.    I would also sever the "employer/insurance" bond, and I would make it easier for insurers to save money and drive out cost layers.   

But I'm not backing off my "personal responsibility" baseline at all, just recognizing that some compromise is likely necessary.  Tend Your Own GardenTM

Maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't get it. Should people be required to pay for insurance? Should they have to pay a fine if they don't? What are the consequences we should be enacting should they take the Ned Flanders approach? The logical consequences would be that you don't get treated, but none of us actually want to see that happen. So what? I get that you see the need for compromise, but I'm not sure what form that takes when balancing it with personal responsibility.

(Ned didn't believe in insurance as he felt it was a form of gambling)
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #133 on: May 18, 2017, 09:59:31 AM »
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.

Well, you're right, but we've already covered this.  I wouldn't do any of this, necessarily, but that ship sailed a while ago (I think Copernicus was on that ship).  We're already past philosophical and into the land of compromise.   My position, though, is predicated on some sort of behavioral incentive short of "death".  I can get behind the notion - barely - that "letting someone die" is a stiff penalty for a bad decision, but if we want to encourage people to make GOOD decisions - especially when the "good" or "bad" isn't really tied to the outcome but to the decision itself, as we do with speeding, seat belts, etc. - we have to have SOME downside to the "bad" decision.    Though, I feel obligated to point out, we CELEBRATE the deaths that result from "bad decisions" every single day (Prince, Heath Ledger, James Marshal Hendrix, anyone who climbs Mount Everest and doesn't make it back to base camp). 

It's also a good time to remind that none of this exists in a vacuum.  I would be revising "income taxes" to "consumption taxes" as well.   Not everyone is paid over the table, or claims all of the income they receive.  But everyone has to buy things.    It's a cliché, but that kid on the street with the sweet kicks and the rad lid had to pay for them; he's likely not filling out a 1040A with his weed money on it, but by golly he can be paying sales tax on the uniform.    I would also sever the "employer/insurance" bond, and I would make it easier for insurers to save money and drive out cost layers.   

But I'm not backing off my "personal responsibility" baseline at all, just recognizing that some compromise is likely necessary.  Tend Your Own GardenTM

Maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't get it. Should people be required to pay for insurance? Should they have to pay a fine if they don't? What are the consequences we should be enacting should they take the Ned Flanders approach? The logical consequences would be that you don't get treated, but none of us actually want to see that happen. So what? I get that you see the need for compromise, but I'm not sure what form that takes when balancing it with personal responsibility.

(Ned didn't believe in insurance as he felt it was a form of gambling)

I'm not sure I have all the ins and outs.   But I think it's more than just "put a mandate in, make the rich pay, and we're close enough!". 

We need single payer.  Short of that, we need a comprehensive program that:
- reduces costs
- has clear, meaningful targets and metrics (outcomes, not just "number of people covered" while you force them into coverage)
- provides choice and flexibility
- reduces regulations that don't add to coverage or reduce costs (state lines; some of the prescription regulations; FSA regulations)
- has more transparency between the PAYER for the services and the RECIPIENT of the services (to get rid of the idea that "it's covered by insurance; it's free!")
- better educates the people that are using the system (so they can stop with this "FSA are for the RICH!" nonsense).

I don't think that people should be REQUIRED to buy insurance.  They should be incentivized to do so, and those incentives should be such that the people that WANT it, but CAN'T get it, are subsidized to do so.   That's not philosophically square with me, but it's morally square and a fair compromise.    I don't know what the exact best incentive is (perhaps it's a combo of incentives) but we have Harvard doctorates that do.  Get this out of the hands of Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi, and in the hands of people that know what the fuck they're doing. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #134 on: June 29, 2017, 09:06:20 AM »
Social media has officially gone full retard.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-tweets-mika-was-bleeding-badly-from-a-face-lift


He then went off the deep end, christening new nicknames for his one-time pals and tossing out an insult aimed at Brzezinski’s looks: “Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

Within minutes, Brzezinski shot back with a photograph showing text on the back side of a Cheerios cereal box: “Made for Little Hands,” a reference to the common refrain that President Trump has unusually small hands.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20015
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #135 on: June 29, 2017, 09:09:06 AM »
I loved Jake Tapper's response... 'So, FLOTUS, how's that anti cyber-bullying campaign going?'

Brzezinski's response was unprofessional, and hardly 'going high'.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #136 on: June 29, 2017, 09:11:35 AM »
It's like grade school on twitter but with people of some of the highest (and Trumps case, the highest) positions in our country.   Sad.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #137 on: June 29, 2017, 09:20:04 AM »
test 2
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 09:40:11 AM by Chino »

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7882
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #138 on: June 29, 2017, 09:56:40 AM »
Welcome to the new "normal"
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 15213
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #139 on: June 29, 2017, 05:05:56 PM »
I loved Jake Tapper's response... 'So, FLOTUS, how's that anti cyber-bullying campaign going?'

 :lol

The local SF congresswoman compared today's tweet to a grade school insult, and said 45 was due a time out.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of