Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Goukosan

Official Politics Thread.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ghostz said:

according to the link it would say 100+ billion over the next 10 years

 

It's an estimate by the administration with no rationale or justification provided. It's unlikely to be accurate based on the reasons I stated, so I'm wondering why you feel it will be cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Substatic said:

He probably fired all the good people because they had moral and/or political objections to the stupid shit he's been doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghostz said:

do you know what the word replace means

I'm sure those poor people will be able to trade those canned goods for rice or beans at the local supermarket. :| 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

It's an estimate by the administration with no rationale or justification provided. It's unlikely to be accurate based on the reasons I stated, so I'm wondering why you feel it will be cost effective.

i'm not saying it would be. i'm just saying if it did, and the families needs were adequately handled, would this be a good thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, McWickedSmawt85 said:

I'm sure those poor people will be able to trade those canned goods for rice or beans at the local supermarket. :| 

if you need help buying rice you should probably just call it quits and kill yoruself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostz said:

if you need help buying rice you should probably just call it quits and kill yoruself 

We've already established that you don't understand immigration or healthcare, so this time, instead of getting into an argument that I know I'm gonna win, I'mma just let you be ig'nant. :cmpunk1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, McWickedSmawt85 said:

We've already established that you don't understand immigration or healthcare, so this time, instead of getting into an argument that I know I'm gonna win, I'mma just let you be ig'nant. :cmpunk1:

how exactly are you winning? how did you win any of those? :tom: all of the trends are swaying in my direction, not yours :hehe: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostz said:

how exactly are you winning? how did you win any of those? :tom: all of the trends are swaying in my direction, not yours :hehe: 

Sure they were, pumpkin'.  Sure they were. :roff: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, McWickedSmawt85 said:

Sure they were, pumpkin'.  Sure they were. :roff: 

well let's see, a wall is being built, daca in it's current form has less than 3 weeks left, and there's no individual mandate in 2019

 

you were saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghostz said:

well let's see, a wall is being built, daca in it's current form has less than 3 weeks left, and there's no individual mandate in 2019

 

you were saying?

Glad to know you're indirectly admitting your support for Trump's shitty policies, and by proxy, Trump himself.  That's a big first step for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

The only Republican I've ever voted for is The Terminator. I was Team #BurnItAllDown during the campaign.  

 

Trump's a complete mess on policy. His only virtue, and it's a great one, is that he absolutely drives the SocJus idiots crazy.

 

 

I love it when Democraps best retort is "aren't you a Trump supporter"?  Lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Biohazard said:

I love it when Democraps best retort is "aren't you a Trump supporter"?  Lmao

I'm sure other people accurately guessed that you were just a person who got duped by Russians into following meme wars and rooting for "burning it all down."

 

that's not really all that far from a Trump supporter, if you sit down and analyze it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, McWickedSmawt85 said:

Glad to know you're indirectly admitting your support for Trump's shitty policies, and by proxy, Trump himself.  That's a big first step for you.

oh nice damage control, doesn't change the fact i am right about tending directions, and you're in the wrong :reg:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ghostz said:

i'm not saying it would be. i'm just saying if it did, and the families needs were adequately handled, would this be a good thing

 

Yes, of course.

 

I think basing policy support on best-case scenarios in the face of unfriendly real world conditions is silly, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

Yes, of course.

 

I think basing policy support on best-case scenarios in the face of unfriendly real world conditions is silly, though.

I mean it just depends who you support. Bc it’s trump you think it will turn out like shit. If obama or Clinton said it dems would run with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ghostz said:

I mean it just depends who you support. Bc it’s trump you think it will turn out like shit. If obama or Clinton said it dems would run with it. 

 

That must be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostz said:

It is generally true with both sides.

 

You're not wrong, but I think dismissing arguments on that basis is reductionist and doesn't accomplish much. Grouping people into sides can be helpful to identify information that may be taken out of context or selectively chosen to fit a narrative, but you can't just throw up your hands and claim bias every time somebody presents an argument you disagree with. An argument isn't wrong because the person making it is biased, it's wrong because the person making it let their bias dictate what is right and then fit the argument around that while ignoring conflicting information or misrepresenting it.

 

I never said the program would be shit, just that it's unlikely to be cost effective because the grocery business model already adheres to economies of scale and runs on razor thin margins. I'm biased, sure, but what about what I said is a result of my bias? Is it just that I wouldn't point this out if a democrat administration proposed it? I made the same argument about the ACA's claims of increasing coverage and lowering premiums for all because it was the exact same situation where there just wasn't a path to make that feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

You're not wrong, but I think dismissing arguments on that basis is reductionist and doesn't accomplish much. Grouping people into sides can be helpful to identify information that may be taken out of context or selectively chosen to fit a narrative, but you can't just throw up your hands and claim bias every time somebody presents an argument you disagree with. An argument isn't wrong because the person making it is biased, it's wrong because the person making it let their bias dictate what is right and then fit the argument around that while ignoring conflicting information or misrepresenting it.

 

I never said the program would be shit, just that it's unlikely to be cost effective because the grocery business model already adheres to economies of scale and runs on razor thin margins. I'm biased, sure, but what about what I said is a result of my bias? Is it just that I wouldn't point this out if a democrat administration proposed it? I made the same argument about the ACA's claims of increasing coverage and lowering premiums for all because it was the exact same situation where there just wasn't a path to make that feasible.

Well, I highly doubt they would be doing this to spend more money, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ghostz said:

Well, I highly doubt they would be doing this to spend more money, do you?

Republicans will end up spending more money if they channel these government dollars through private contracts.

 

See: The Private Prison system for an example of it costing more money.

 

NOTE: This is why we've made fun of Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, because Obama pretty much took a textbook Republican policy. It originated when Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachussetts, and it was created by the Heritage Foundation.  It is distributing taxpayer money to assist healthcare costs through privately-run health insurance providers.

 

We're talking about entities who, by their very own design, HAVE to have a profit over their operating costs.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

    Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
×