What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[derspiess]

Did you sense people dying from lack of healthcare or something today?

PEOPLE WILL DIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

It's all a joke to you isn't it?

Not all of it.

[CountDeMoney]

The part about government money going to niggers is no laughing matter.

[Jacob]

Not all of it.

Is the prospect of people dying from lack of health care on the joke side or the serious side?

[Valmy]

I think the implication is that it is a bunch of absurd fearmongering.

[derspiess]

There we go.

[garbon]

Isn't it a given that people without health insurance will die / we'll see increases in health costs as many people are forced to seek treatment from ERs?

[Admiral Yi]

One can certainly find Warren's speech histrionic and over the top without necessarily thinking "it" is all a big joke.

[Admiral Yi]

Also a nice example of left appeal to emotion that DG and I were discussing earlier.

[garbon]

One can certainly find Warren's speech histrionic and over the top without necessarily thinking "it" is all a big joke.

Oh everything Warren does is over the top. That's her shtick.

[Jacob]

Seems pretty factual and reasoned to me.

I mean, there are people who have coverage under the current system who will not have coverage after the repeal. The CBO has scored the number at 23 million, which seems fairly factual rather than an appeal to emotion.

It also seems fairly reasonable to conclude that some of those 23 million will die as a result of their lack of access to health care, especially when we're talking about people with existing conditions whose medication and treatment are no longer available to them because they no longer have coverage and they can't afford them without coverage.

I believe it's fairly well established that preventative medicine and early detection have a significant impact on good health outcomes (including survival). Similarly I believe it's fairly well established that people without coverage lack significantly behind those with coverage in those areas.

Seems to me that the "you're being emotional" is immaterial to the fact that it is very reasonable to predict that people are going to die as a direct consequence of the ACHA repeal.

[Admiral Yi]

Seems pretty factual and reasoned to me.

I mean, there are people who have coverage under the current system who will not have coverage after the repeal. The CBO has scored the number at 23 million, which seems fairly factual rather than an appeal to emotion.

It also seems fairly reasonable to conclude that some of those 23 million will die as a result of their lack of access to health care, especially when we're talking about people with existing conditions whose medication and treatment are no longer available to them because they no longer have coverage and they can't afford them without coverage.

I believe it's fairly well established that preventative medicine and early detection have a significant impact on good health outcomes (including survival). Similarly I believe it's fairly well established that people without coverage lack significantly behind those with coverage in those areas.

Seems to me that the "you're being emotional" is immaterial to the fact that it is very reasonable to predict that people are going to die as a direct consequence of the ACHA repeal.

The arguments made in the farce video are all factual and reasoned too.

[11B4V]

The part about government money going to niggers is no laughing matter.

AND THEY EAT UP ALL THE CKICKENS.



http://www.cc.com/video-clips/7nnosh/chappelle-s-show--frontline----clayton-bigsby-pt--1---uncensored

[Jacob]

The arguments made in the farce video are all factual and reasoned too.

What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that statement?

[Admiral Yi]

What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that statement?

I see you as having two choices.  You can either agree that the statements made in video are not over the top, or that factual accuracy is not a sufficient rebuttal of histrionic and over the top.

[Valmy]

So the tone of the speech can damage its credibility even when it is factually correct? I guess that can be true 

But I have learned from many years of Texas politics that factually correct things can be used to tell pretty impressive lies