Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lord Dave

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 126  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:57:03 AM »
Gotta agree with Trekky.

Take what Trump said during the election and unless Stoltenberg suddenly changed HIS opinion once Trump was elected (which is unlikely) then Trump changed his to match Stoltenberg.

So really, Stoltenberg isn't agreeing with Trump, Trump is agreeing with stoltenberg.  A classic case of "Now that I read up on it, I realize I was wrong" but without the whole admitting he was wrong thing.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2017, 09:00:34 PM »
Sounds like Stoltenberg was basically saying:

"Terrorism is bad and we're trying to fight it."
and
"We need more money."

No where does it even imply that NATO hasn't been trying to fight Terrorism, it just hasn't gotten to the point of a unified front. 

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2017, 06:12:31 PM »
Then maybe he should look up the definition of Obsolete cause I think the word he should have used was "ineffective" or maybe just say "They should be focusing on Terrorism..." instead of using a word that means "No longer useful as newer things have replaced it's function/it's function is no longer required."

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 24, 2017, 03:05:46 PM »
Yeah, I had to stop around a quarter of the way.
He's a Terrible speaker.  He constantly pauses, uses filler words, repeats himself every few lines...

Yeah, great, he saved money.  I'm happy for him.  But ya only need to say it once or twice, not 10 times.

But hey, at least he understands that you shouldn't insult leaders if you want their help.  So... you know... progress.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 23, 2017, 06:03:00 PM »
Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

How nice for you that you think that.  Trump obviously doesn't agree as he has done such things as attend one of his hotel's openings instead of doing his job.  I think it is more likely that he is not attending because he could not stand the roasting.
He'd literally argue with every joke.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 23, 2017, 04:46:25 PM »
Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.
If he didn't spend nearly every weekend golfing, I might want to believe you. 

And attending a dinner party to mend fences with the press is a very valuable use of your time if you spent the better part of a year insulting them.  You know, the people whose job it is to get your message out to the majority of people? 

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 8values
« on: April 23, 2017, 10:12:18 AM »

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 23, 2017, 07:08:44 AM »
North Korea is threatening nuclear war.
Congress is trying to get another Health Care bill through.
Protests continue in America.
The Taliban kill 100 Afghan troops.


Trump: I'm gonna have a Rally to mark my 100 days in officer!  YEAH!
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-22-US--Trump-Rally/id-a121c9abad2c4361964e18965129c89a


9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2017, 06:15:46 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html



This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.
I agree.
While I think Trump is dangerous and possibly mentally ill, it's impossible to know without having a proper diagnosis and that does not include TV ads and twitter.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM »
I didn't say that's how it works bud.
I'm glad you retracted that claim. It would have been utter madness for you to pursue it further.

What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?
Tax-deductible insurance premiums were promised, tax credits were provided (similar enough, except better for the poor), the lack of an immediate cut to Medicaid and a close equivalent of block grants is there, and the remaining promise (increasing price transparency) couldn't have reasonably been part of a budget plan. So far, so good. I'm very surprised that you so conveniently forgot about all these.

It seems that your dissatisfaction stems from the assumption that Trump has to fulfil all his healthcare promises with a single bill (that and you didn't pay attention before the election, or didn't want to pay attention). That, while completely unrealistic and unrelated to how American politics has ever worked, is at least somewhat understandable. But not everything has to happen in one shot (or one successful shot). The man still has a year or two before ACA collapses (although these estimates may now be outdated given how quickly insurers are fleeing). By then, he has to either secure support from the Democrats or cave to the pressure from hardline Republicans. Time will tell which one he'll choose and how many of his promises he'll be able to fulfil as a consequence.
I don't recall him actually explaining anything about his health care plans during the campaign except maybe selling across state lines.
What I recall is that he said it was going to be terrific, the best and everyone will be covered.

But I'll take your word for it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
Here's his healthcare positions officially.

-Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
(The bill didn't completely repeal Obamacare but it did remove the mandate)

-Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
(The bill did not have this)

-Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
(As you said, this had it close enough)

-Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
(These already exist, he's just saying to remove the estate tax portion of it)

-Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
(Didn't have it but it's not actually practical anyway.  Have you ever SEEN medical billing and coding?  It's a nightmare.  It's not like ordering from a restaurant menu, a doctor's office visit can change in cost depending on what they find.  An X-Ray or MRI changes in cost based on what they are looking for.  In order to even write a bill you need months of special training.  To give it an analogy: It would be like a mechanic being just as transparent with car repair.  How would they easily say "Well, basic inspection of your engine costs $50, $10 additional per problem found, plus time for proper diagnosis* [time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details], plus extra time (calculated after the fact) for any difficulty in removing parts required for diagnosis." without it being a giant god damn mess?  You can't just say "this costs x" because that's just not how these things work.  Hell, you can't even do that with anything complicated.  Budget overruns are very common for a reason. 

-Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
(You mentioned this)

-Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

(He kinda did this already by trying to remove the FDA or at least make it weaker, which is the only real barrier.  Though this kinda kills his 'America First' idea.)

How much of that was in the AHCA?
Also, he said that it was a bill in 3 parts.  I'm like... WTF?  Ok, you want 3 bills to do it.  Fine.  But 1. you didn't do much of anything in the first bill and 2. why haven't you even outlined the other two bill parts?


[/time]
Quote
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.[/time]
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]
Wait, which Syria bombing?  I'm referring to the one in response to the chemical attack, not the MOAB bunker hit as that was well done.



Now, I don't expect him to do everything.  His job is to sell his ideas, not write the bill.  But I DO expect him to understand what he's trying to sell.  He promised things without having any understanding on what that meant.  He talks to state leaders without understanding their culture or nation's history.  Yelling at heads of state on the phone is also a fun thing you shouldn't do. 

But the one thing he promised, more than anything, more than any specific idea?
He had the best people.  The best.  People you've never heard of.
So yes, his team is very important and he surrounded himself with self interest individuals who have absolutely no idea what they're doing in the job they were assigned.  So not only has he failed to do his own research (he even bragged about not preparing for debates), he failed to get experts in the field who would do that for him.[/time]

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inside a Chinese iPhone factory
« on: April 19, 2017, 07:23:22 PM »
They can do that if they want to lose their citizenship and never be permitted to return or sell their product here.

Does this mean that there would be no importing at all? Or is it rather that people who move away from the US can never sell to this market ever again? How would you even enforce that?

It would mean the latter. And enforcing it would be fairly easy. I have no problem with importing things. I have a problem with AMERICANS making us import AMERICAN products.
If it's an import, it's not an American product.
You can't import something your country made.


Simple solution.
They sell the company, move out of the country, then buy it back again.  Or don't bother to start a company in the US in the first place.  I know I wouldn't.

Also, you seem to forget a lot of important facts.
1. Not all locations have enough people to do said jobs.  Let's say you manufacture CPUs so you need people who are skilled and can work in a clean room.  Where do you find enough skilled labor to do those jobs?  If you setup a factory in Oklahoma, you need enough people to fill it and just because you have no job, doesn't mean you can or will do THAT job.  You seem to think that Americans will just jump at any job within a 100 mile radius.  But that's not how it works.  An accountant can't become a construction worker just because it's available.

2. Money is not a 1:1 conversion.  Cost of living is radically different.  Hell, even per state.  Even INSIDE a state.  NYC cost of living is vastly higher than upstate New York.  Which is higher than North Carolina.  So pay varies.  Taxes vary.  The same occurs for other nations.  So you can't just say "minimum wage here vs there" because they don't equate.  Sometimes it'll be too little, so you're making said country happy to lower their cost.  Other times it's the kind of money you make a year, not in an hour.

3. Supply doesn't work so well.  Raw materials still need to be imported.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM »
But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?
The opposite is the case. We have no evidence that he (and his team) know nothing about healthcare or global politics. All we know about healthcare is that he failed to simultaneously manage the expectation of the more extreme Republicans and the Democrats (he needed support of one or the other, he bet on the latter, this failed. A mistake I'm sure he'll learn not to repeat). The Scotland gaffe was a lapse in judgement, but he was merely parroting the British government who insists over and over that "the British people have spoken", despite many issues with that claim.
I have little doubt that his team knows a great deal of things and are far more competent than he is.  But we're not talking about them, we're talking about him.

As for Healthcare, this is false.  He didn't make or even suggest the bill.  It was purely Paul Ryan's plan.  Trump's idea, as far as we know, was "Give everyone healthcare and make it cheap".  That is literally his entire plan to the best of our knowledge.  He tried to sell it but he hasn't shown any indication that he had any hand in it's production or language.

A lapse in judgement?  No, it was simply him getting information from a poor source.  Much like his comment about Sweden because he saw a segment on Fox news that turned out to be of questionable integrity anyway.

Quote
Meanwhile, we have ample evidence to the contrary (huge electoral successes, nationwide and international praise after Syria bombing, Democrats left with no choice but to oppose any legislative progress, which in turn will leave them with even less power over time). Trump's successes, as crude, brutish and unfavourable as they may look, are not leaving us anytime soon.
Electoral success is irrelevant to knowledge and you know it.  The US elections are a popularity contest, nothing more.  He won by the electoral collage, not the popular vote, AND he won by appealing to voters with simple language and simple solutions to complex problems.  Solutions that amounted to "I'll do what you want without a problem."
The Syrian bombing was done in reaction to an emotional video, not policy or strategic planning.

And the Democrats are literally doing what the Republicans did for Obama.  It worked for them, so why not for the Dems?  Heck, it seems to be working for them too.  They forced congress to change the rules for a supreme court nomination, paving the way for democrats to use that same rule in the future.  They helped stop the Republican Health care plan from being passed (though not the main reason).

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.  And when it comes time to make good on what he promises, he not only fails to do so, but shows he didn't even understand what he was trying to sell. 

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 10:22:02 AM »
The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
And this is where you taking things so literally gets in the way. He's blatantly exaggerating - you know that, and you point it out yourself in your post ("This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew."). You want to think he knows literally nothing, rather than accept that he's just doing politics and covering it up with his showbusiness skills. His positions change because that's how staying in power works - he has to balance policies that he promised with policies that will allow him to stay in power.

Perhaps.
But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 09:03:15 AM »
It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
I disagree with that assessment. He tells us nothing about what he does or doesn't know, and the assumption that he therefore must know nothing simply doesn't follow.
He doesn't say anything directly, true, but he often reverses his position and says how complicated it is or how difficult it is.  Words he never used before.  It's a very sudden about face.  Much like when Rick Perry went from "Abolish the EPA" to "Wow... I didn't know they did all that..." when he was in the running to be nominated to run it.

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody knew, that includes him.  This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew.  But my point is when you see him say that, it really does sound like he had no idea.  That every time he spoke about how great his plan would be (which he never delivered), that he really did think it would be a simple as "Make sure everyone has health care and it's cheap."

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 08:34:23 AM »
Oversimplifying his words is one thing and I can't fault him for that.(though it would be nice for more details sometimes)  It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

You can simplify your words but if those simple words are all you actually know, then you shouldn't be trying to solve it.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 19, 2017, 07:22:57 AM »
That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

There is literally no one better to ask about China's reasoning for supporting North Korea than the Chinese president himself. Your criticism of Trump for asking him about it reeks of a desperate smear attempt.
You are correct, there IS no one better.
Unless you think they'll give you select information to make themselves seem like they have less power than they actually do.

However, again, not my point.
My point is, Trump knew NOTHING!  Literally, nothing.  Not even a god damn refresher course on Asian history.  It's one thing to go in armed with some facts then ask for personal information.  It's another to go in totally ignorant then get a history lesson you didn't ask for.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, just because he's the president does not mean he's an expert on the history.  Would you ask Trump about the US's historical relations with Canada?  I wouldn't.  I doubt he'd know.  Do you think he would know?

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2017, 08:26:01 PM »
The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?
That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

It's like the health care law.  Trump was so amazed at how complex it was WHILE he was trying to get something through.  He didn't read up, he didn't do research, he didn't have a plan ready, nothing.  He tried to sell a product he didn't understand and wasn't even made yet.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2017, 06:26:06 PM »
Quote
Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”

Oh lordy.

You do realize that Congress, past presidents, and many foreign countries have all been calling on China to rein in North Korea for a long time now, right?

North Korea's existence relies on the massive support given to it by China, and it would be interesting to know why China cannot stop giving that support.
I believe his "oh lordy" was mostly about Trump's ignorance about the history of the two nations when any leader would have done research prior to the discussion.  Even a successful business man would research his clients before engaging in negotiations but clearly Trump did not and was shocked by the history lesson.  Kinda like how he suddenly said "Wow... health insurance is really complicated.  Who knew?"

As for China's support: Yes they could stop all support (they stopped buying coal) but NK has other sources of money and frankly, if my neighbor had nukes and is itching to launch them, I would not be so quick to piss them off.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2017, 02:31:26 PM »
Remember that one time Obama didn't salute a marine and the Republicans went ape shit ovee it?


Bet they won't on this.

Nice subtle racism LD...
Well someone's gotta do it.  Can't count on the Trumpettes to.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2017, 04:45:12 AM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/17/melania-trump-nudges-donald-remind-raise-hand-national-anthem/

Poorly trained Russian spy doesn't even know how to show respect to the anthem smh


Remember that one time Obama didn't salute a marine and the Republicans went ape shit ovee it?


Bet they won't on this.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 126  Next >