PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Wow, you're just not a good person.

Shrug.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Teach your children that they are the biggest mistakes of your life... and that they are a paycheque away from being tossed aside like a salad* that was forgotten in back of the fridge.

If you want to disagree with my views and arguments, have at it. But don't attribute a view or argument to me that I did not make.

[CliffFletcher]

The only thing more tiresome than the notion that people's fortunes are determined entirely by their own decisions is the notion that individual decisions play no part in people's fortunes.

Everybody deep down knows both structural and cultural/individual factors shape our lives. But for some reason, when it comes to politics we have to pretend it's one or the other.

[HotHotHeat]

FFS

http://gizmodo.com/trump-just-dismis...nin-1790908093

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah awesome plan until you get sent to some bull#### war and come back so ####ed from PTSD that no one in their right mind will hire you, that's if you don't end up in jail or blow your own brains out first. Great plan that joining the army. Just ask the millions of homeless vets how awesome it is.

Or you could die in an industrial accident at work, or due to a random accident in your car/bicycle/mode of public transportation on the way to work, or as the result of an unknown heart condition while you are in the campus library studying for an exam.

So what?

Does the chance of death mean that you shouldn't go out and do something with your life? Or that you should instead expect the "wealthy" in society to provide for your every need?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Or you could die in an industrial accident at work, or due to a random accident in your car/bicycle/mode of public transportation on the way to work, or as the result of an unknown heart condition while you are in the campus library studying for an exam.

So what?

Does the chance of death mean that you shouldn't go out and do something with your life? Or that you should instead expect the "wealthy" in society to provide for your every need?

If there was a hall of fame for ridiculous false equivalences that one would get in on the first ballot.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The only thing more tiresome than the notion that people's fortunes are determined entirely by their own decisions is the notion that individual decisions play no part in people's fortunes.

Has anyone made that argument here, Cliff?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Has anyone made that argument here, Cliff?

Flash Walken, indirectly, here:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Like Adam Smith's "invisible hand", something that was once a joke saying is now used seriously.

Just do the impossible and you too can live the American dream.

It's not impossible. To suggest that it is anything of the sort is denying poor people agency to begin with. As Cliff said, it's just as crazy to say "just get a better job", as if it had never occurred to the homeless guy that he could just go and be a heart surgeon before. But people do have the capacity, in most cases, to overcome barriers placed in front of them to some extent. Sometimes they all give way and you have a great success story. Sure, that's by no means everyone's case, but it's no more rare than the person who simply cannot, no matter what they try to do, measurably improve their situation in life.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure, that's by no means everyone's case, but it's no more rare than the person who simply cannot, no matter what they try to do, measurably improve their situation in life.

I'd argue Flash was probably being a tad facetious, and I'd disagree with you here but we're kind of getting way off point. The fact is there is still a large amount of people who need health care and can't afford it due to factors that are beyond their control.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd argue Flash was probably being a tad facetious, and I'd disagree with you here but we're kind of getting way off point. The fact is there is still a large amount of people who need health care and can't afford it due to factors that are beyond their control.

That being said, you of course could provide it in some form... Obviously not endorsing everything HockeyIlliterate said, but one of his suggestions was interesting:

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Basic health care should be available to all, and should be paid for by all. More extensive health care treatments should be available to those who have the ability to pay for it and benefit from it.

This is challenging because it's a matter of pragmatism, arguably. Let's assume that we have 1,233 billion in federal money for health care (apparently this was the 2016 FY outlay by the US federal government on health care).

Would people be amenable to a system whereby that money is used so as to provide basic life-saving and quality-of-life preserving health care for as many people as possible, or to provide more extensive coverage for a smaller group of people?

This has the interesting and probably controversial dual effect of providing equal health care to everyone regardless of status, while practically speaking resulting in people with more money getting better health care (because presumably they can pay for it).

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Shrug.



If you want to disagree with my views and arguments, have at it. But don't attribute a view or argument to me that I did not make.

You said that if you couldn't afford your kids that you should give them up for adoption! Not that maybe there should be supports from the government to help ensure their safety and that they are offered the basic advantages of living in a first world nation.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That being said, you of course could provide it in some form... Obviously not endorsing everything HockeyIlliterate said, but one of his suggestions was interesting:

This is challenging because it's a matter of pragmatism, arguably. Let's assume that we have 1,233 billion in federal money for health care (apparently this was the 2016 FY outlay by the US federal government on health care).

Would people be amenable to a system whereby that money is used so as to provide basic life-saving and quality-of-life preserving health care for as many people as possible, or to provide more extensive coverage for a smaller group of people?

This has the interesting and probably controversial dual effect of providing equal health care to everyone regardless of status, while practically speaking resulting in people with more money getting better health care (because presumably they can pay for it).

I think if you're going to look at it pragmatically you have to consider the costs in lost economic activity due to people missing work, the burden on society and the economy when people self-medicate, etc.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think if you're going to look at it pragmatically you have to consider the costs in lost economic activity due to people missing work, the burden on society and the economy when people self-medicate, etc.

Probably, but wouldn't both sides of that equation likely have similar sorts of difficult-to-estimate impacts like these?

[GGG]

Hockey Illiterate

In your health care proposal would you include free birth control for all and free abortions as part of your minimal health care to support the poor?

[Ducay]

Good perspective article from Piers Morgan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-ovation.html

How much more effective would it have been had the most powerful woman in Hollywood called for unity not division, demanded a stop to all the teeth-gnashing and wailing over the election result, and urged Donald Trump in his inauguration speech to preach tolerance, fairness and equality?

That would have been a truly courageous and admirable thing to do.

Streep could have been courageous and brought the country together Sunday night.

Instead, Meryl Streep poured another 100 gallons of oil onto an already inflamed toxic fire.

She began by saying that Hollywood, foreigners and the press are ‘the most vilified segments of American society right now’.

At which point the cameras panned out to hundreds of the richest, most privileged people in American society sitting in the audience in their $10,000 tuxedos and $20,000 dresses, loudly cheering this acknowledgement of their dreadful victimhood.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The only thing more tiresome than the notion that people's fortunes are determined entirely by their own decisions is the notion that individual decisions play no part in people's fortunes.

Everybody deep down knows both structural and cultural/individual factors shape our lives. But for some reason, when it comes to politics we have to pretend it's one or the other.

People's choices have a definite impact but their choices are directly impacted by past experiences and situationally depending scenarios. People who live in inner city communities with poor early childhood development, educational opportunities and nutrition; in communities rife with violence, with poor role models, income insecurity.

I understand that people can better themselves, but it is a system that is developed to ensure that people don't have those opportunities. The Libertarian attitudes espoused by those like Hockey Illiterate further the inequalities that are inherent in the system.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Good perspective article from Piers Morgan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-ovation.html

I would agree the "most vilified" comment is a bit of an eye-roller, but I thought the rest of the speech was well measured and heart felt. She didn't call Trump an idiot, or a racist or anything of the sort. I don't believe she even used his name. What she said was the actions and words of the powerful have an influence on everyone. Obviously that applies to Trump, but likely also applies to most everyone in that room.

I don't see how a plea to the press to do its job is anti-Trump, unless of course, Trump does not want the press to do its job.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Probably, but wouldn't both sides of that equation likely have similar sorts of difficult-to-estimate impacts like these?

Is it? I don't see the big stretch or leap of faith required to assert that more productive and healthy people is better for society as a whole than less. Obviously that's simplifying it substantially but that's pretty much what it boils down to if you're strictly looking at it pragmatically, without even getting into the morality at play when societies of plenty refuse to care for their own.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is it? I don't see the big stretch or leap of faith required to assert that more productive and healthy people is better for society as a whole than less. Obviously that's simplifying it substantially but that's pretty much what it boils down to if you're strictly looking at it pragmatically, without even getting into the morality at play when societies of plenty refuse to care for their own.

Okay, now I'm confused. The options I put forward on the basis of a $1,233 billion federal health care budget weren't "more productive and healthy people, or less", it's better government health care for relatively few, or lower-quality health care for many. Either way you're going to have people whose health outcomes are worse and deleterious to society - how do you spend your money?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by New Era

Media literacy is where to begin. This needs to be taught at all levels of education. The ones that watch Fox news are already lost. Fortunately that set is dying out quickly. If you really want to reach them, you need to make it law that media must present the facts and start telling the truth again. They must present balance. Basically reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and then entrench it in law. Tie it to the 1st amendment and protect it as sacred in the function of our democracy.

I have family who home schooled their because school turns people into socialists.

Other members of that same family asked me if I was a socialist before I went to university or if it turned me into one, when I was suggesting that a single payer health care system would be the best option for the US.

You can't educate people who avoid being educated.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Good perspective article from Piers Morgan
How much more effective would it have been had the most powerful woman in Hollywood called for unity not division, demanded a stop to all the teeth-gnashing and wailing over the election result, and urged Donald Trump in his inauguration speech to preach tolerance, fairness and equality?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-ovation.html

ROFL! How naive a rube is Peirs Morgan? Has he not being paying attention? Trump is about the least tolerant, fair equitable person I could imagine. Streep calling for it wouldn't make him consider it longer than he considers which ill-fitting suit to put on in the morning.