Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[mvaliz]

I wonder what @Skroe stance will be when an orthodox progressive wins 2020 nomination (whether that's Bernie or Beta Rourke) and the workers-party-movement overtakes the Democrats wholly and completely during the next recession (which is anywhere from 1 or 3 years at most away).

In this garbage-spew post you’ve insinuated a talking point of “Beta males”, mention “orthodox” to somehow link Dems to jewish people (is this a bad thing?) and then imply with “Workers-party” to insinuate the lie of it being communism, whihc is nothing to do with communism whatsoever.

In short, welcome to the ignore list.

[Thestrawman]

Skroe's made his position known in the past favoring a system similar to Japan's two payer system.
If I recall the short version of it, was that the government paid 70%, the people pay 30% capped to a certain % of their income, with the final key being strict government checks on the pricing of medical goods every two years.

Should be able to do a search and find Skroe's post on that. It's a pretty good read, and a (in my opinion at least) decent compromise solution. I don't believe it will happen anytime soon in today's environment, but it is a valid and workable solution to kick around.

That's better then nothing. I could even see that as something I could support. Currently even the thought of having to go to the ER makes me have a panic attack.

[Felya]

Stealing from @Skroe:

Medicare for all - Yes
Housing as a right - depends... where?
Jobs guarantee - depends... on a lot of factors.
Gun control - depends... on a lot of factors.
Criminal justice reform / end private prisons - yes, on prisons, justice reform depends... on a lot of factors.
Immigration justice / abolish ice - yes, on ICE, immigration justice depends... on a lot of factors.
Solidarity with PR - yes
Mobilize again climate change - I want to say yes, but “mobilizing” is not the right word
Clean campaign finance - Yes
Higher education for all - maybe, but you need to fix education we provide first.
Womens rights - Yes
Support for LGBTQIA - Yes
Support seniors - Yes

In Favor: 7
In Favor, but: 2
It Depends: 5

Most yes are not solid. I can see how a lot of them can go wrong.

[Dsonsion]

I wonder what @Skroe stance will be when an orthodox progressive wins 2020 nomination (whether that's Bernie or Beta Rourke) and the workers-party-movement overtakes the Democrats wholly and completely during the next recession (which is anywhere from 1 or 3 years at most away).

You know O'Rourke is right wing, right?

[PACOX]

You know O'Rourke is right wing, right?

No he isn't...

If you took an average of his political leanings and placed it on a chart, he sure wouldn't land right of being a moderate. Like most Democrats, he occupies a spectrum from moderate to progressive.

[cubby]

You know O'Rourke is right wing, right?

Lol, um, no. You have to get out and read more than one news source. Beto is a democratic former congressman from TX - and that might be why you think he's "right-wing" (whatever that means). He's a middle of the road democrat.

If you're also suggesting that "right-wing" is conservative, then you've clearly missed the boat. "Conservative" nowadays refers to the GOP, and those idiots that put party and hatred over country and compromise.

[Spectral]

Since we're all doing this:

Medicare for all - Having a government option for all as at least a backup plan is a good idea, but I wouldn't necessarily term it "Medicare for all", as I'm not keen on the actual administration of Medicare. Tentative yes.
Housing as a right - Firmly against defining this as a right, as the creation of positive rights tends to come with substantial inflation of costs for those "rights" and unfunded liabilities for governments. As a matter of policy, I'm in favor of housing-first solutions to homelessness and subsidies for the low income, but I wouldn't characterize it as a right.
Jobs guarantee - Absolutely not, easily the worst idea on the list. Not practical in anyway and strictly inferior to UBI as a poverty mitigation strategy.
Gun control - We presently have a lot of gun control, so I'd need specifics. I'm not strictly opposed though.
Criminal justice reform / end private prisons - Yes, but there's so much leeway in what this means that it's not a great talking point.
Immigration justice / abolish ice - I wouldn't frame it through the lens of "justice" since I'm in favor of shifting to a more heavily skills-based system, but I am in favor of a number of reforms, particularly with easier pathways for good future Americans. I agree with @Skroe that we've arrived at a point where ICE is a toxic organization due to internal culture, it likely needs substantial restructuring or replacement.
Solidarity with PR - Yes, it should have been a state decades ago.
Mobilize again climate change - This is another huge area for wiggle room. Broadly speaking, I'm in favor of Pigouvian carbon taxation and funding for clean energy research though, so it's got to be a yes.
Clean campaign finance - I don't know what this means. I'd bet on politicians to be using "clean" as a euphemism for "strips my opponents of funding". I'm probably against most versions of this, but could see bills I'd support.
Higher education for all - Vigorously against, this is an obvious waste of money. Many Americans, perhaps a solid majority, will not benefit from "higher education", but would benefit greatly from better training prior to adulthood.
Womens rights - Again, I don't know what this means. I don't see much need for reform here. I'm in favor of equal rights for women, but see very few areas where they don't have them.
Support for LGBTQIA - Yes, at least in the classic political sense. I'm in favor of gay marriage, protections for trans people, using preferred pronouns for people that have transitioned, etc.
Support seniors - We spend a fortune on seniors at present and specifically spend too much on end of life care. So, I guess not. But I don't know what this means.

This is challenging to quantify, since a lot of these don't really mean much as standalone points of rhetoric. I only find a couple that I object to immediately, but there are quite a few that could have so many different meanings that providing unmitigated support or opposition would seem silly to me.

[Mekh]

So... why are we not talking about the nude selfie Mueller has collected in his probes?

[Belize]

So... why are we not talking about the nude selfie Mueller has collected in his probes?

Because everyone is doing their best to not think about it.

[Canpinter]

So... why are we not talking about the nude selfie Mueller has collected in his probes?

because the non0% chance that we may all end up seeing a nude of trump is so disconcerting we are choosing to ignore it.

[Stormspark]

because the non0% chance that we may all end up seeing a nude of trump is so disconcerting we are choosing to ignore it.

There isn't enough brain bleach in the observable universe for that.

[Felya]

I hope you realize that, what your saying here is never going to happen? Well, I don't know about the Trump going to jail part (still highly doubt), but there isn't going to be some great purge of Trump supporters just to sooth your hurt feelings. I honestly think its something for you to have a reason to continue being a hard-core RINO even after Trump is gone, if anything.

I absolutely adore how you can't confidently define conservatism without spending most of your time dunking on people who identify as conservatives. There must really be No True Scotsman.

When you use Republican In Name Only, then call out someone else’s no true Scotsman... both an irony and hypocrisy angels get their wings.

[Felya]

RINO, properly used, is not a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Especially when the person that it's being applied to is the person that thinks the vast majority of conservatives are the ones doing it wrong.

Yes, Republican in name only, is totally different than no true Scotsman. After all, if applied correctly, those RINO are no true Republicans, just in name only. lol

[Sky High]

hey guys, lest we forget the only thing that makes you a conservative is not liking teh leebruls! every other principal and MO there in can and will be purely cosmetic.

[Felya]

It's not all in the name of the concept. Read up on No True Scotsman before you comment on it, you might learn something.

Yeah, I need to read about something you cannot explain, because you understand it so well. Get back to me when you can actually explain what you are talking about. Until then, you are so wrong, that you cannot even explain it.

[Wyrt]

It's not all in the name of the concept. Read up on No True Scotsman before you comment on it, you might learn something.

RINO is probably the best modern example of No True Scotsman.

[Fugus]

Might be a good time to refer to my signature.

[Felya]

I clearly explained it in the post that you selecta-quoted. Go back.

Alternatively, you could also just understand what the concept means before engaging in an argument about it. It's not my fault that you ignorantly queued in on the name of the logical fallacy that doesn't fully explain what it means.

No, you didn’t. You went off attacking @Skroe for being no true Republican, while bitching about Scotsman in name only. If I didn’t know what it means, I wouldn’t be doubling down on having you explain it. I’m anxiously awaiting what new attack on me, because you obviously have no clue to actually prove me wrong. It’s hilarious...

[Travis B]

Might be a good time to refer to my signature.

Just a small correction to make to your sig. I believe the bad-faith poster you meant to include is Sulla and not Sully.

[Felya]

It can certainly be used that way. I don't disagree on that at all. But there is a difference in the way I used it and the actual fallacy. Skroe actively hawks progressive ideas and claims to be a conservative. Me pointing that out isn't an example of my defending conservatism by calling him a RINO. I was accurately categorizing him and pointing him out as ideologically flawed, as he is. It's not a statement on conservatism, as was his attempt.

That’s exactly what no true Scotsman means. lol