Raider5678

No. A new universal healthcare program would help everyone going forward. Paying off student loans helps some people now. That's about it. Making college education free helps everyone going forward.

For future students is the key. *Sorry. Wrong thread. My bad.

Cancer is not a choice(at least that I'm aware of.). That's the difference. And as for the treatment analogy, at the end of it, the outcome is the same. Both people are cured from cancer. Imagine a poor man. Made a decision to go into debt so he can get a high paying job. Worked his ass off to get into college, taking $100,000 in student loans. Got out. Got a job. Worked his ass off to pay off all his debt. He finally does it. He buys a small house for $30,000. Net worth: $30,000. Image another poor man. Made a decision to go into debt so he can get a high paying job. Worked his ass off to get into college, taking $100,000 in student loans. Got out. God a job. Payed the minimum on his student loans while then going and getting a mortgage for his home. Student loan get's forgiven by the government. The government pays his student loan off while he had only payed off a third of it. He spends his remaining $66,000 on a house too. Now he has a $100,000 house. Net worth: $100,000. Man #2 did nothing wrong. Neither did man #1. But man #2 essentially won $70,000 because of his choices. Man #1 has a LONG way to go now. The outcome is not the same. $70,000 is nothing to laugh over for the vast majority of people. They're going to feel screwed over. Rightfully so. This isn't related though. At this point, both groups are enjoying the benefits of higher education. I don't see why it's easy to believe. If Bill and Johnny are sitting at the table, and the government gives Bill $70,000 and tells Johnny not to feel bad, and that he should just be happy for Bill, I think that'd be ludicrous. And at the end of the day, that's what your doing. A relief is helping someone get to where you are. You're now both equal. This is not a relief though. This is a benefit. Because the person getting it will be substantially farther ahead then the person who did not get it.

Ah, nvm then.

Is that not routine CIA behavior for ambassadors?

Thanks for the summary. +1

The link incorrectly reports that the second qualifying poll was Yang getting 5% in a new Hampshire poll. The qualifying polls were by ABC News/Washington Post and Fox, putting Yang at 6% and 5% respectively, nationally. I've been watching closely and seriously hoping it would succeed. Funny thing is, the Washington Post released a scathing article against Andrew Yang calling him "naive" due to him not wanting to engage in identity politics as one of the last non Caucasian candidates. And now their poll qualified him.

Another thing I would not be a fan of in this impeachment hearings is speculating on intent, especially when it's not explicit. I wouldn't look at that conversation and think that Trump is saying to kill her. I think that's a jump(not a leap by any means, but still a decent jump) in logic to conclude that he meant to kill her. Also, I'm skeptical how you know mob bosses talk. From hollywood? Do you know them in person? In the court of law, I'm not sure that'd be an admissible piece of evidence. I haven't been following as closely due to being busy for the last few days. What's up with Trump wanting to remove the ambassador, and what does it have to do with the impeachment?

@iNow But yeah, a summary of what I was gonna say, just less pointed: I agree with impeaching and removing Trump. I think the evidence is overwhelming. Therefore, I don't think the logical conclusion of what I'm saying is that I support allowing election cheating. But I think that basing how we go about that in a way that purposefully aims to influence the election, compromises the integrity of what we're trying to do overall, which is to have a healthy democracy. As for the "Nice Guys" philosophy @MigL, I've never believed in it anyways. Cheers.

Right when I had an entire post written up. Purposefully timing it right up until the last second I see...... (joking of course.)

Two wrongs do not make a right. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a corrupt president from office via impeachment. It's purpose is not to drag them through the mud so they lose an election. And you may say it's perfectly okay now, but if the Republicans turned around and did it as well, I'm sure there'd be hell to pay for anyone claiming that it's a perfectly valid use of impeachment. It'd be like me bringing accusations against someone publicly. And then waiting months to initiate formal charges and bring it to trial until I know it'll hurt that person the most. And then, I go out and say: "I waited until now to bring these accusations to this court so that It'd hurt the defendant as much as possible, regardless of the outcome." If you heard someone say that in court, do you think it'd make you more inclined to believe their accusations, or do you think it'd make you more inclined to think they're just doing it to damage the person? And, I want you to put yourself into the shoes of someone who is friends/acquaintances with that person. If your friend had accusations brought up against them, you're probably skeptical of the accusations. But depending on what happens, you can still change your mind. Now imagine the person who brought those accusations went and said that in court. Any resemblance of skepticism of those accusations is now cemented into your mind as flat out lies. That's the position of Republicans. It doesn't matter if you have the strongest case on earth. Going out and saying stuff like that is a ridiculous thing to do. It's taking a perfectly valid case, and then compromising the integrity of all of it. I'm glad the Democrats took the high road and didn't do that. I think they realized how damaging that'd be to their cause.

As long as it's the other side who's undergoing the fatigue. As soon as it's their turn, suddenly they're no longer so willing to say stuff like that. (This isn't targeted at you specifically MigL. I'm commenting more against the people who keep pushing for this on news networks, facebook, forums, etc. It seems like you just heard the idea and mentioned it) People wonder why the republican voters feel this is a political stunt to influence the election. A part of it is because people keep repeating stuff like this. The purpose of impeachment should NOT be to influence the November election. Two wrongs do not make a right. The idea that the House should have held the impeachment papers for the explicit purpose of making sure the memory is fresh in voters mind is a bad one. It's counter to democracy. It's counter to the original intent of impeachment. By all means. Impeach the person. Is he guilty? It sure looks like it. Should he be removed? I believe so. Should impeachment be executed in a particular way for the purpose of influencing the November election? NO! And spreading ideas like this simply feeds the confirmation bias that Republicans have that this is just a political stunt.

Basically, whoever is in the driver's seat of this hypothetical car looks bad. But they also can't stop the car at any given point, they have to drive it to the end once they start. So the House started driving this car, and then worked as hard as they could to quickly send the car to the Senate to drive. Then, they try to make the Senate look bad for driving as fast as they can. Likewise though, the Senate decried the House driving as fast as they could. But now that the Senate has the hypothetical car, they want to drive as fast as they can too. The only difference between the Senate driving and the House driving is the party who controls it.

I understand that. But if there are two ways of accomplishing that, making women stronger or men weaker, why would we make men weaker? You originally asked why wouldn't we make men more like women instead of women more like men. I pointed out that in the context of strength, you could either strengthen one group, or weaken the other group. Why would you weaken a group, instead of just making the other group stronger?

That's not the point I was making. Why would we make one group weaker, as opposed to the other stronger? Not saying we should do either. But if we have to pick one......

If the only metric we're using here is pure utility, it doesn't make sense to make men more like women. Strength is far more often a helpful trait then a bad trait. It's like saying because person X has a disadvantage, we should give person Y a disadvantage. Why not just get rid of person X's disadvantage? Tallness is debatable. But tallness(at least in the metric you guys are talking about), isn't necessarily the thing giving the advantage. It's the strength. I was responding to Zapatos' comment about women understanding biology, psychology, and sociology better then men. As for the physical, if we're focusing on eliminating all our differences(which in and of itself is a debatable concept to me. I think the differences between men and women should be applauded, not eliminated), it makes more sense to start injecting women with hormones to force them to be stronger and bigger like men, then it does to inject men with hormones to force them to be weaker and smaller like women.

Wouldn't this fall under the same area as saying men are more ambitious then women? (Any statements in the following paragraph is about averages. If I accidentally make a blanket statement, assume I meant it as an average). "Men are more assertive and more aggressive then women." This is commonly used to describe why men and women seem to have different success levels in different fields. I.E. Men are more assertive and more aggressive, therefore, they have a higher tendency to do demand raises more often, etc. This in turn can result in the gender wage gap. However, that doesn't mean it's biological. It's quite easy to look at the culture and see why men tend to be more aggressive and assertive: it's encouraged for boys more then it is for girls. And that manifests itself as they grow older into repercussions that last for decades and persists across generations. Likewise though, women having a better understanding of biology, psychology, and sociology can easily be explained by differences in how they're raised. I.E. Women understand emotions and health more then men, therefore, they have a higher tendency to understand biology, psychology, and sociology better then men. However, that doesn't mean it's biological. It's quite easy to look at the culture and see why women tend to understand that more: it's encouraged for girls to express themselves and get help when they're in pain. Boys are taught to "man up" and deal with it. At the end of the day though, both forms of being raised have their advantages and disadvantages.(Whether or not the advantages/disadvantages are evenly distributed, is a matter of debate. But not in this thread.) But regardless of that, biologically modifying someone isn't likely to change this. P.S. This is an example. If latest data shows something about men/women and aggressiveness being contrary to what I just said, it still doesn't defeat the point of my example.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what else was left to investigate of much importance? I mean, I get it, it's always useful to have evidence to examine and learn from. But we know how the plane went down, that there were zero survivors, and I'm struggling to understand what more there is, even if the wreckage materials were still there, for the Americans to come investigate.

I saw about that third wave of missiles on at least 3 different news sites as well, yet I cannot find a single instance of it now.

I originally replied with what I considered to mean as most of the 112th congress. So I modified what you said there(in bold). That's my position. This is what I believe you would say is somewhere in between. We both agree here, or at least agree closely enough that it doesn't matter to continue discussing. I doubt all of this was purely to distract from impeachment. I do not doubt that it is a bonus in Trump's mind, however.

Just to be sure we’re clear, it appears you cannot name even one. Is that correct? I'll be truthful with you, I find it a little dishonest of you to quote the first part of what I said, and entirely ignore the second. Even cutting the sentence in half. If you didn't wish to read into the link, and/or didn't take that to be as good as providing a name directly, you could simply quote the entire thing and say something like "I don't believe providing a list is as good as you personally giving some examples." If we're going to have a good faith discussion, I think this is a must. No. That is not correct. Allow me to pull a top name from the list, which was seemingly your justification for picking Mitch McConnell as an example (it seems like a reasonable way to do it.) In 2011, Nancy Pelosi did not believe Obama required congressional approval for his air operations in Libya. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/166843-pelosi-backs-obama-on-libya In 2011, Chuck Schumer also did not believe that Obama required congressional approval for his air operations in Libya, however he did believe they should remain "limited" in scope. https://observer.com/2011/03/schumer-cautions-against-expanding-role-in-libya/ Again, for reference, those killed well over 1,100 individuals, and injured around 4,500 more, and involved hundreds of US air strikes across a countries sovereign territory. Now, with Trump ordering a drone strike on an Iranian terrorist, both of them have stepped up saying Trump has crossed the line and violated the war powers resolution. This is hypocrisy of the democratic party. Note two things however. Firstly, I fully acknowledge that the GOP is just as hypocritical in this area. And Secondly, I fully acknowledge you never claimed that democrats are not hypocritical. This is in response to your request.

It's debatable. But if that's adhering to the war powers act, then Trump also adhered to the war powers act in the assassination. I said that Democrats largely said nothing. So literally just pick a random Democrat who was in office at the time, and they likely said nothing. Here's a list of names of the 120th congress (2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

Obama started a bombing campaign that killed more then 1,100 people and injured more then 4,500 in Libya, Democrats didn't have an issue. Republicans say it's a massive overstep of presidential powers. Trump killed 1 high profile terrorist and 5 more not so high profile terrorists, and Democrats suddenly have an issue. Republicans don't care. How either side can argue with a straight face if baffling to me.

It was a joke.

The hilarious(in a sick sort of way) thing, is that the same Democrats who said the president(Obama at the time) needed those powers and fought against the GOP movement to limit the president, are not trying to limit the president(Trump). Now it's the other way around. The GOP are not the only hypocrites here. I don't know if I entirely agree with this. To me, Iran using proxies and the such is kind of like a bully constantly stealing your lunch money. Except, instead of beating you up or anything, they just quietly steal it from your desk and leave you nasty "F**k you" sticky notes. Sure, they're not in your face stealing your money. But they're still doing it. An in your face approach is a very direct way to deal with this. We didn't beat them up. We stood up, walked over, and said they will stop it. Immediately. Beating them up would be going to all out war, which, contrary to those saying Donald Trump violated the constitution by doing, we have not done. Yet. That's my two cents at least. We literally just assassinated one of the highest ranking members of Iran, and we're discussing whether a tweet(which for better or worse, served the purpose the constitution wanted), counts as notification. Perhaps there are more important things to discuss? 🙂 I agree. If he wants to do it via twitter, he should have to @tag each of the 535 members of congress.