Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 481 of 584 FirstFirst ... 381431471479480481482483491531581 ... LastLast
Results 7,201 to 7,215 of 8760
  1. #7201
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,863
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Being condescending doesn’t actually make you smarter or sound smarter
    And in this case, it definitely doesn't make you factually accurate.

  2. #7202
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Being condescending doesn’t actually make you smarter or sound smarter


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I really do earnestly try not to be but then sometimes people throw studies at me from Bernie Sanders advisers as evidence of the viability of Bernie Sanders' plans in direct contrast to every other study out there from people with nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and it just gets to be like, really really hard.


  3. #7203
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,718
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    I really do earnestly try not to be but then sometimes people throw studies at me from Bernie Sanders advisers as evidence of the viability of Bernie Sanders' plans in direct contrast to every other study out there from people with nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and it just gets to be like, really really hard.
    Another bold claim.

  4. #7204
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    See above. Apparently you've missed a few studies (22 to be exact).
    This is so wildly dishonest it's actually disheartening. Like it's sad - it's actually very sad - that this is allowed to be this severely misrepresented by what is considered a somewhat reputable outlet.

    Thankfully the internet affords you the ability to see what the publishers of these studies are actually saying, you know, themselves.

    Just mind blowingly dishonest. And not only that, but Trump enriching. Actual, bonafide, fake news.


  5. #7205
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    ^ For the sake of clarity, the above post references results published the by the authors of a study that The Hill article would have you believe supported these looney tune estimates of Sanders and his ilk.

    Spoiler: It doesn't.


  6. #7206
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    23,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Some people are just stupid. Now offering a position of power to a black woman is racist?
    it depends on the intent. if the reason is to use them to better secure the black vote (or female vote) then yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Either care about all of it like a decent human being or shut the **** up and stop selective outrage based on whether it serves your political purposes.

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  7. #7207
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    44,792
    maybe try harder
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  8. #7208
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    it depends on the intent. if the reason is to use them to better secure the black vote (or female vote) then yes.
    What if you're attempting to better secure the black/female vote in order to advance a pro black pro female agenda that you believe is not only not advanced, but impeded, by your opponent?


  9. #7209
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    23,583
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    What if you're attempting to better secure the black/female vote in order to advance a pro black pro female agenda that you believe is not only not advanced, but impeded, by your opponent?
    evidence contradicts this.
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Either care about all of it like a decent human being or shut the **** up and stop selective outrage based on whether it serves your political purposes.

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  10. #7210
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    evidence contradicts this.
    Tough to contradict a hypothetical.

    Also if you're referring to the other Dems, then ok whatever.

    If you're referring to Trump, whether or not any part of his agenda is actually anti black or anti female is irrelevant, it's impossible to deny that his opponents certainly believe this to be the case.

    So same question I guess, plug the big "opponent" in there instead of this still inexplicably crowded field of "opponents." Not sure going through all that was actually necessary, I feel like you likely knew what I meant, but there it is. What say you?


  11. #7211
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    23,583
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    Tough to contradict a hypothetical.

    Also if you're referring to the other Dems, then ok whatever.

    If you're referring to Trump, whether or not any part of his agenda is actually anti black or anti female is irrelevant, it's impossible to deny that his opponents certainly believe this to be the case.

    So same question I guess, plug the big "opponent" in there instead of this still inexplicably crowded field of "opponents." Not sure going through all that was actually necessary, I feel like you likely knew what I meant, but there it is. What say you?
    I'm guessing by what you said that Democrats want to push that Trump is impeding black success/impeding pro black agenda, and that isn't accurate. I've covered multiple things to support this, both Hispanic and African American unemployment is record low, black wages are finally rising. this could be why Trump's support among black people has rising significantly since the 2016 election.
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Either care about all of it like a decent human being or shut the **** up and stop selective outrage based on whether it serves your political purposes.

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  12. #7212
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I'm guessing by what you said that Democrats want to push that Trump is impeding black success/impeding pro black agenda, and that isn't accurate. I've covered multiple things to support this, both Hispanic and African American unemployment is record low, black wages are finally rising. this could be why Trump's support among black people has rising significantly since the 2016 election.
    Oh - yeah no I said that already. Whether he is or he isn't doesn't matter with relation to the question.


  13. #7213
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    ^ So before risking getting too far off track here, I'll re-word.

    What you or I think about Trump and how pro or anti black/woman he is doesn't have anything to do with what I'm asking.

    If you're Sanders (or Bloomberg or Biden but let's go with Sanders) and you nominate a black, female VP solely because you know it will help with intersectional optics, and make you more likely to be elected based on that intersectionality so that you can get into office and promote the advancement of women and African Americans, while you believe that Trump won't promote that advancement, are you wrong in nominating your "token" VP for those reasons? That's the question.


  14. #7214
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    23,583
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    ^ So before risking getting too far off track here, I'll re-word.

    What you or I think about Trump and how pro or anti black/woman he is doesn't have anything to do with what I'm asking.

    If you're Sanders (or Bloomberg or Biden but let's go with Sanders) and you nominate a black, female VP solely because you know it will help with intersectional optics, and make you more likely to be elected based on that intersectionality so that you can get into office and promote the advancement of women and African Americans, while you believe that Trump won't promote that advancement, are you wrong in nominating your "token" VP for those reasons? That's the question.
    I don't think that is a good reason to pick a black woman for this role. it should be based on what makes them qualified, not race or gender.

    I'm not against Stacey Abrams or Kamala Harris being Vice President. I don't think either of them should even want to tie them self to Joe Biden right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Either care about all of it like a decent human being or shut the **** up and stop selective outrage based on whether it serves your political purposes.

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  15. #7215
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,863
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    This is so wildly dishonest it's actually disheartening. Like it's sad - it's actually very sad - that this is allowed to be this severely misrepresented by what is considered a somewhat reputable outlet.

    Thankfully the internet affords you the ability to see what the publishers of these studies are actually saying, you know, themselves.

    Just mind blowingly dishonest. And not only that, but Trump enriching. Actual, bonafide, fake news.
    Here is what the author actually said:

    “Some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All. But that decline, relative to current projections, relies on an assumption that (M4A) would immediately and dramatically cut provider payment rates by roughly 40 percent.”

    So yes, the study actually said if you assume that M4A would immediately cut provider payment rates by 40 percent, we'd see a reduction. But I agree, they took that one sentence and extrapolated a conclusion completely at odds with the authors point.

    But more importantly, that is one out of 22 studies mentioned.

    You said: The "assumption" is based on every projected cost, from everywhere, by everyone - provided by anybody not affiliated with Bernie Sanders. That is where my "assumption" comes from.


    So even if that one doesn't say that, it's still 21 studies. Heck, if even 50% of them don't say that, that is still 11 studies.


    Basically the only thing we can say with certainty about this debate is that you are utterly, completely and unequivocally full of **** when you claim there is nothing that says Medicare for All will save us money.

    Sad, very sadly, full of ****.
    Last edited by valade16; 02-25-2020 at 09:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •