What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Trump is like Londo Mollari.  The Trump from before the election campaign was Londo before his association with the Shadows, the election campaign Trump was Londo as an agent of Shadows, and Trump's presidency is Londo after getting his keeper.  Twitter to Trump must be like alcohol to Londo, a chance to wrestle few minutes of control for yourself so that you can deliberately sabotage yourself.

no vir cotto near to save this londo however

[crazy canuck]

Trump is like Londo Mollari.  The Trump from before the election campaign was Londo before his association with the Shadows, the election campaign Trump was Londo as an agent of Shadows, and Trump's presidency is Londo after getting his keeper.  Twitter to Trump must be like alcohol to Londo, a chance to wrestle few minutes of control for yourself so that you can deliberately sabotage yourself.

Well done 

[crazy canuck]

Would you regard someone calling out the certainty of US soldiers dying as a consequence of a DOW over the top or histrionic?

Overall, I find the rejection of  objections (that people will die) pretty lame - and fudging it in some odd indirect vs. direct separation is semantics.

Just say out loud that you care more about your tax dollars and personal cost than about the fact that other people might die. That is an actual POV. The idea that cutting back health care wont directly impact anyone is dishonest. Ridiculing people for stating that mortality rates among people dropping off insurance will go up, calling them hysterical and stupid, is an attempt to evade the actual conversation and dodge having to state the actual POV.

I think it's histrionic because, as I mentioned earlier, we can always spend one more dollar to decrease a chance of death somewhere in the world, or further regulate human activity to achieve the same end.  That's the point made by the rather brilliant parody video.  Obamacare didn't cover 100% of Americans, and by the logic you laid out PEOPLE DIED as a result.  To achieve internal consistency Warren would have had to give that same speech throughout the Obama administration, until the day we were spending 100% of GDP on health care.

I have also have an undeveloped idea that all attempts to cast shame are going to be met with derision.  Another one is that for an emotional outburst to have some impact the incident needs to be distinguishable from the person's base state.

Or the US could spend less than it spends now, have a single payor system and reduce the number of people who die because of a lack of medical care to pretty much zero.

But of course that won't happen while people like you defend destruction of the system the US does now provide and then everyone will realize the US system must be changed to a single payor system.  So I suppose you are a necessary evil.  If you did not exist we would have to invent you.

[11B4V]

  

[mongers]

In a later statement, the news network said "clearly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied... [he is] involved in juvenile behaviour far below the dignity of this office."

"We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his."

Indeed.

[Monoriu]

Trump is like Londo Mollari.  The Trump from before the election campaign was Londo before his association with the Shadows, the election campaign Trump was Londo as an agent of Shadows, and Trump's presidency is Londo after getting his keeper.  Twitter to Trump must be like alcohol to Londo, a chance to wrestle few minutes of control for yourself so that you can deliberately sabotage yourself.

[bogh]

I think it's histrionic because, as I mentioned earlier, we can always spend one more dollar to decrease a chance of death somewhere in the world, or further regulate human activity to achieve the same end.  That's the point made by the rather brilliant parody video.  Obamacare didn't cover 100% of Americans, and by the logic you laid out PEOPLE DIED as a result.  To achieve internal consistency Warren would have had to give that same speech throughout the Obama administration, until the day we were spending 100% of GDP on health care.

So anything not 100% achievable is pointless? Obamacare did not cover 100% and plenty of criticism was levelled against that (especially in retrospect as it fell short of its ambitions). People certainly died as a result of Obamacare only partially resolving the issue.

But improving it significantly, though short of the perfect coverage, versus massively and actively reducing the coverage rate are two pretty different things. Treating them as equivalents is patently false and Warren would be incredibly inconsistent if she gave the same speech in either situation.

Do you dispute the fact that lots people will go from insured to uninsured under the new scheme? Do you dispute that uninsured status will lead to poorer health and ultimately higher mortality?

Again - you are absolutely entitled to think that your money should not be spent saving other peoples lives (at all or to a specific level). Just argue that instead of trying to invalidate Warrens position as hypocritical.

[grumbler]

I think it's histrionic because, as I mentioned earlier, we can always spend one more dollar to decrease a chance of death somewhere in the world, or further regulate human activity to achieve the same end.  That's the point made by the rather brilliant parody video.  Obamacare didn't cover 100% of Americans, and by the logic you laid out PEOPLE DIED as a result.  To achieve internal consistency Warren would have had to give that same speech throughout the Obama administration, until the day we were spending 100% of GDP on health care.

So anything not 100% achievable is pointless? Obamacare did not cover 100% and plenty of criticism was levelled against that (especially in retrospect as it fell short of its ambitions). People certainly died as a result of Obamacare only partially resolving the issue.

But improving it significantly, though short of the perfect coverage, versus massively and actively reducing the coverage rate are two pretty different things. Treating them as equivalents is patently false and Warren would be incredibly inconsistent if she gave the same speech in either situation.

Do you dispute the fact that lots people will go from insured to uninsured under the new scheme? Do you dispute that uninsured status will lead to poorer health and ultimately higher mortality?

Again - you are absolutely entitled to think that your money should not be spent saving other peoples lives (at all or to a specific level). Just argue that instead of trying to invalidate Warrens position as hypocritical.

It is interesting that nowhere in this post do you actually address Yi's issue.  This is a sermon, not an argument.

[bogh]

It is interesting that nowhere in this post do you actually address Yi's issue.  This is a sermon, not an argument.

OK.

[Admiral Yi]

Treating them as equivalents is patently false and Warren would be incredibly inconsistent if she gave the same speech in either situation.

They are equivalents in that PEOPLE DIE.

Leave 18 million uninsured.  PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Leave 10,000 uninsured.  PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Roll back coverage for 30 million currently insured.  PEOPLE WILL DIE.

[CountDeMoney]

SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS

[Razgovory]

I wonder how To would answer the trolley   problem.

[garbon]

SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS

But not even. They'll just allocate collected funds to something else.

[CountDeMoney]

SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS

But not even. They'll just allocate collected funds to something else.

Says who?  It's all about tax cuts.  There will no be collected funds.

[garbon]

The Republicans who still manage to keep up spending?