Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Does it matter? 2 elements take care of that: $0 payments/ premiums for those below a certain income threshold, and an opt-in system with universal acceptance and coverage of those who choose to opt in.

Don't know why free university tuition is claimed to be insane, since many countries do it and they seem to be doing fine. Heck, you can go to Germany as a foreign national and get a tuition-free college education, in English. If Germany can offer that to foreigners I would think pretty much any country can implement tuition-free university for its own citizens, if there's the political will.

I'm sure in financial terms the USA and New Zealand could do it. but "pretty much any country" is a rather overblown statement as the majority of countries in the world are a lot less rich than Germany. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, if you just looked at basic, easy-as-fuck-to-look-up facts, you would know that the number of uninsured Americans went down drastically once the ACA was implemented:

Now, the number of uninsured has ticked up since the first quarter of 2017.  Now, what happened quarter of 2017 to stem the tide?  Hmm...

It was cuz Tool announced a new album was forthcoming right?  Extra-credit me Prof!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Zorral said:

They are really trying to kill Us.

Among the many dreadful newses that came down today regarding These monsters is this:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/epa-california-obama-waiver-1500336

"EPA to revoke California’s power to limit vehicle emissions"

Also to sell carbon credits.

Manufacturer's Rights!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, who wants to get rid of the the California emissions standards? Not the car manufacturers.

It seems the Koch brothers have been behind many attacks on energy efficiency. Hey, vehicles should burn more gas! 

The Koch brothers are also apparently behind an organization asking that Energy Star be defunded. The reports on 25 different appliances are months behind schedule. The EPA wants to get rid of energy efficiency regulations. Manufacturers say the government wants 20 year old inefficient technology back in America’s kitchens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ormond said:

I'm sure in financial terms the USA and New Zealand could do it. but "pretty much any country" is a rather overblown statement as the majority of countries in the world are a lot less rich than Germany. 

I would argue developing countries get more benefit from free education than developed countries.  A big problem is the quarterly and annual reporting cycles that lead to short term thinking on govt spending.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The question is, who wants to get rid of the the California emissions standards? Not the car manufacturers.

It seems the Koch brothers have been behind many attacks on energy efficiency. Hey, vehicles should burn more gas! 

The Koch brothers are also apparently behind an organization asking that Energy Star be defunded. The reports on 25 different appliances are months behind schedule. The EPA wants to get rid of energy efficiency regulations. Manufacturers say the government wants 20 year old inefficient technology back in America’s kitchens.

[pedant] There's only one brother now [/pedant]

Hopefully that number will reduce further ASAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

[pedant] There's only one brother now [/pedant]

Hopefully that number will reduce further ASAP

[pedant] There were 4 Koch brothers and 3 are still alive and kicking [pedant]

Yes, one of the politically active ones died. But the organizations were backed by the Koch brothers, plural. Does one now say ‘the organizations were backed by the Koch brothers’ as if they once were and are no longer  backed up by a Koch? Does one say the organizations are backed up by a Koch brother, singular, when they were backed up by the brothers plural and are doing what they do because of the brothers, plural?

Do you not think the dead brother has a foundation that is continuing to support his pet projects for decades to come? Does one have to start saying ‘a Koch brother and a Koch foundation’? 

I think I’ll stick with the Koch brothers. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I would argue developing countries get more benefit from free education than developed countries.  A big problem is the quarterly and annual reporting cycles that lead to short term thinking on govt spending.

If you can't afford something in the first place, whether or not you would "get more benefit" from it is irrelevant. I would assume countries like Liberia and Haiti need to first spend money on making sure their populations don't starve to death before they can afford universal higher education benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

[pedant] There were 4 Koch brothers and 3 are still alive and kicking [pedant]

Yes, one of the politically active ones died. But the organizations were backed by the Koch brothers, plural. Does one now say ‘the organizations were backed by the Koch brothers’ as if they once were and are no longer  backed up by a Koch? Does one say the organizations are backed up by a Koch brother, singular, when they were backed up by the brothers plural and are doing what they do because of the brothers, plural?

Do you not think the dead brother has a foundation that is continuing to support his pet projects for decades to come? Does one have to start saying ‘a Koch brother and a Koch foundation’? 

I think I’ll stick with the Koch brothers. :) 

We could just use the shorthand "a bunch of Kochs"

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

[pedant] There were 4 Koch brothers and 3 are still alive and kicking [pedant]

Yes, one of the politically active ones died. But the organizations were backed by the Koch brothers, plural. Does one now say ‘the organizations were backed by the Koch brothers’ as if they once were and are no longer  backed up by a Koch? Does one say the organizations are backed up by a Koch brother, singular, when they were backed up by the brothers plural and are doing what they do because of the brothers, plural?

Do you not think the dead brother has a foundation that is continuing to support his pet projects for decades to come? Does one have to start saying ‘a Koch brother and a Koch foundation’? 

I think I’ll stick with the Koch brothers. :) 

This forum has already established one zombie, BIRD! Please don’t create another unless he has a three sick enough to save Team USA.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The question is, who wants to get rid of the the California emissions standards? Not the car manufacturers.

It seems the Koch brothers have been behind many attacks on energy efficiency. Hey, vehicles should burn more gas! 

The Koch brothers are also apparently behind an organization asking that Energy Star be defunded. The reports on 25 different appliances are months behind schedule. The EPA wants to get rid of energy efficiency regulations. Manufacturers say the government wants 20 year old inefficient technology back in America’s kitchens.

Is it coincidence that bedbug's in CA, doing massive fund raising from the likes of the Kochs (even though at least one of them is dead?) and announces this assholery?

Is it a coincidence that the price of crude was drastically falling and West Texas shale field corps were shutting down extraction because of falling prices due to 'over capacity' and an attack on the Saudi's and the Middle East's largest refining oil facility at the same time?  (Ya ya They Say Iran, but can anybody believe a word that comes out of the mouths of the Sauds or D.C.?)

Also, must get homeless off the streets of CA's cities because they 'drag down the value of the city brand," also sheer coincidence?

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious thing is probably true - this fucks over California and Trump is punishing them. That's all it is. Car makers aren't asking for it, Cali isn't asking for it, lobbyists aren't asking for it, oil companies aren't asking for it. 

Trump is just doing his version of bargaining, just like he has with China and Europe and Iran. This is what he does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The most obvious thing is probably true - this fucks over California and Trump is punishing them. That's all it is. Car makers aren't asking for it, Cali isn't asking for it, lobbyists aren't asking for it, oil companies aren't asking for it. 

Trump is just doing his version of bargaining, just like he has with China and Europe and Iran. This is what he does. 

And ... and ... AND! don't leave out the concluding section which is his subverting, ignoring and corrupting all the institutions federal and local and LEGAL, does drags down the US brand and destroys individual, personal lives all around the world, not just within the US and all of its states, and brings us closer to global, national and local total destruction environmentally and socially, and all out war of group against group.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a guy who sat down at a charity event that he didn't even donate at, took the seat of a kid from the charity and spoke at it because he wanted to. Of course his brand is destruction for the sake of self-aggrandizement. It's far easier to have the mental model of Trump as someone who will simply strike back when people oppose him in whatever way he can. Remember before how he wanted to drop migrants off in San Francisco because it's a sanctuary city? 

The cruelty is the point. There are other actors who care about things like the price of oil and the like and are manipulating things, but this isn't them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

This is a guy who sat down at a charity event that he didn't even donate at, took the seat of a kid from the charity and spoke at it because he wanted to. Of course his brand is destruction for the sake of self-aggrandizement. It's far easier to have the mental model of Trump as someone who will simply strike back when people oppose him in whatever way he can. Remember before how he wanted to drop migrants off in San Francisco because it's a sanctuary city? 

The cruelty is the point. There are other actors who care about things like the price of oil and the like and are manipulating things, but this isn't them. 

And his base loves it. Dems should retaliate by rolling back federal subsidies for things like food stamps and Medicaid. Let the fuckers try to austerity their way out of that.

They won't though, because I have a habit of siding with weak willed losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

They won't though, because I have a habit of siding with weak willed losers.

Yeah!  Not wanting to force poor people off food stamps and Medicaid totally makes you a pussy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah!  Not wanting to force poor people off food stamps and Medicaid totally makes you a pussy!

Want has nothing to do with it. The enemy keeps escalating. At some point liberals will just give up as the deck becomes increasingly stacked against them. 

So excuse me if I find little sympathy in my heart for the red necked fucks in Kentucky who would suddenly have all those sweet sweet heretical Californian tax dollars stop propping up their failed theocracy. Put SNAP and Medicaid funding on the table and lets find out just how much Mitch likes the Grim Reaper moniker.

I mean this is all academic anyway. I don't think I should have to make that qualification, but the times we live in and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This is a guy who sat down at a charity event that he didn't even donate at, took the seat of a kid from the charity and spoke at it because he wanted to. Of course his brand is destruction for the sake of self-aggrandizement. It's far easier to have the mental model of Trump as someone who will simply strike back when people oppose him in whatever way he can. Remember before how he wanted to drop migrants off in San Francisco because it's a sanctuary city? 

The cruelty is the point. There are other actors who care about things like the price of oil and the like and are manipulating things, but this isn't them. 

I've maintained for some time that Trump is a sadist. He doesn't perfectly reflect the symptoms like he does with NPD, but it's not a stretch to say it's a part of his personality. 

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

They won't though, because I have a habit of siding with weak willed losers.

Damn Jace, why you got to subtweet @Jaime L like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...