Raider5678

I don't care about what the legislation is. Either you can fund it or you can't. That's how mathematics works. Yes. It'd be great to build solar panels on every home in the country, distribute free electric cars, give a house to everyone, and have free food for all. IT'd have clear benefits. Poverty would be eliminated. NOw how are you going to fund it? That's the simple question I'm asking. Stop skirting around the question, pretending that I'm just attacking AOC. It's mathematics. Not politics. I'm not doing the math. You're free to do so. Hence the point of "doing the math." Again. I've said repeatedly. Either we can fund it or we can't. It's that simple. This is a discussion on AOC. Do not attempt to turn it into a discussion about healthcare. It's a pure cost and an investment. Let's say I was planning on investing in Gold. (ignore any question about whether gold is actually a good investment or not. That's not the point.) Gold goes up, doesn't go down.(Not true, but for the sake of the example.) Therefore, the logic is to invest in as much gold as possible. Yes? But I can't just say "Alright. It's a great investment. I'll buy 400 tons." unless I have the money. The first thing you need to figure out is whether it's a good investment or not. I'm sure we can both agree that funding Medicare for all can be debatable. But let's just assume it's a perfect investment. If we don't have the money for it, we don't have the money for it. It doesn't matter how good of an investment it is. We still need to pay for it. That's the question. And I'm not going to let you drag me off on a tangent. Clearly. Let's not focus on healthcare, as you're missing my point. Again, for the sake of example. Let's imagine installing solar panels on every home in America and distributing electric cars to all. Either we can afford it or we can't. Correct? That's the simple point I'm making. The idea that AOC has some "broader concept" that we need to look at when it comes down to basic math, is ridiculous and absurd. I don't know. This thread isn't about the GOP. End of this discussion. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/politics/fact-check-pentagon-medicare-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html Yes. There is. We know where the money was. And if AOC would actually read the article/study before making claims about it, she'd know that. But she didn't. Yes. See above. Except they don't ignore the president. They accuse him of lying. Give me an example of a time Trump simply made a mistake and wasn't accused of lying. Theoretically, so was AOC. Yes. I would be to blame for it. Because I should do the damn math before making a claim about it. That's not somebody else's fault, that's mine for not fact-checking.

The question I think is important is whether or not she'll actually change.

Fair enough. However, humor me a little. Do you think Brexit should have had a super majority status, where it requires more then just a simple majority?

Agreed.

The 10% I referenced is that I think Brexit should have required 60% in order to pass, considering the magnitude of the vote. I don't know if it would go the exact same way. But I suspect it'd be relatively close to what it was, as based on statistics. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-how-would-you-vote-2/

I doubt it. If it results in a humiliating defeat for Trump this time, I doubt he'd do it again. If it results in a humiliating defeat for Democrats this time, I doubt they'd do it again. The people elected now will still be elected later. Memories might not stay in the general populations mind for long, but it will stay in politicians long enough to affect the likely hood of another shutdown.

Look. I'm sorry. The original question stated this: The second time I typed it I forgot to include it. Thank you for pointing that out for me. It's not a speculative answer. It's a statistical answer. Hence why I asked for statistics, not opinion/speculation. Statistically, within 2 years, the vote very rarely changes more than 5%, let alone 10%. Um. Alright.

The thread is about Brexit and the Brexit vote. We're talking about if the Brexit vote should have had a supermajority requirement. It's hardly off topic.

And that's assuming that all 1,000,000 who died voted one way, and all 1,000,000 who became eligible will vote the opposite. That seems like a stretch. Again. You're good with statistics. How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who it's voting for?

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2018/12/08/ocasio-cortez-for-2028-359210?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=00000167-7a3f-d33b-a5f7-7e7f4cff0000&nlid=630318 AOC: “No, not for a long time. Thank God. Although we’ve been joking that because the Equal Rights Amendment hasn’t been passed yet, the Constitution technically says he cannot run unless he’s 35. … So what we’ll do is we’ll force the Republican Party to pass the Equal Rights Amendment by threatening to run for president.” PHOTOG: “That is awesome. All the people who say a literal interpretation of the Constitution is the only thing you should be paying attention to.” AOC: “Exactly, all those Constitutionalists, I will keep vigilance.” See the aforementioned one. And yes, it is a pattern. See the thing about the $21 trillion that she said. Additionally, those are not the only 2 examples. 1. No. It wouldn't be different. I don't care what she wants to fund. If we can't fund it, we can't fund it. 2. The math that we can fund it. The price tag is $32 trillion dollars. Per decade. If you can't show me how we'd fund it, we can't fund it. That's how math works. 3. No. It's not worse. But I don't see why you're bringing that up. 4. The issue is, that if you're going to claim we can fund it, you need to prove it. Do you disagree with the idea that we can either fund it or we can't fund it? Do you disagree with me when I say that you should be able to mathematically prove how you're going to fund it before saying you can fund it? Do you think there is a broader point to math other then it being.......math? What do you not understand about making the mistake of claiming we have $21 trillion dollars when we don't? Is there some broader concept in mathematics that allows you to make up $21,000,000,000,000 simply because you mistakenly thought it was there? What are you talking about in regards to this "broader point." Isn't it important to be able to back your ideas up with proof? What point is there in an idea if you can't prove that you can pay for it? If I said we should build a Dyson sphere right now, and I mistakenly said we could simply dig up the iron found in California to get all the materials we needed because I made a mistake in my math, is there some broader concept that says "You're missing the point. We can build it." Sure. I can reply "We'll do California AND Texas." But that's not going to solve it. It wasn't a mathematical error by 2 or 5 times. It was a mathematical error of millions of times. Take for example if I said we could buy all the materials to build the wall out of silver for just $5,000,000,000. But I had mistakenly assumed silver was $1 an ounce(Still less of a mathematical mistake then AOC made). What is the broader concept that says "We can actually afford it."? Again. Very simply. I think that if we can fund it, you can prove we can fund it. Tell me how you're going to fund it. Otherwise I'm not going to believe in some "broader idea that we can still fund it." Look guys. I must be missing something. This is a science forum. Yes? We believe in mathematics. I'm not saying it's impossible to fund Medicare. I'm not saying we can. I'm simply saying you need to be able to mathematically prove that you'll be able to come close/fully fund it.

Eh. The U.S. has a constitution and half of my classmates want to abolish it. Grass isn't always greener on the other side. You're good with statistics. How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who/what it's voting for?

Like saying the constitution doesn't technically prohibit her from running for President because she's female, and threatening to run against Trump. That type of thing. I'd completely disagree. Very much so. In this case, relatively accurate numbers are very important. I mean, the very question is "How are you going to fund it?" If your answer is wrong and uses false numbers, I'm not going to be like "Oh. Okay. Your numbers were wrong but the broader idea is that you can still fund it." That sounds ludicrous to me. I mean it's math. Either you can pay for it or not. There is no "broader idea" when it comes to being able to afford something. Especially with the difference in numbers. It's one thing if the actual number was like 15 Trillion or something. It's not. It was literally nothing. Except the number wasn't wrong. The researcher wasn't wrong either. AOC simply didn't read the entire article, and quoted it from one of the first few sentences in the article, instead of reading the entire thing to get context before making a claim. Which is a problem I have with our current president as well. Nobody gives Trump a break when he makes stupid mistakes like this. It's just that. A stupid mistake. Read the entire article before making a claim based on it. And just as I don't think Trump should be given a break about making stupid mistakes like that, I don't think AOC should either. Except they do exist with other programs. Because the broader point of "Medicare could be funded by it" is doubly worse then being simply wrong. Because you can't just "accept the broader point." For example. If I said "We could fund the wall by just increasing the taxes on Americans by 0.00000000000000000001%", you'd correctly assess that the number was wrong and that we could not, in fact, fund the wall. That number would be 1,000,000,000% off(or something like that. I didn't actually do any math) If you corrected me, and my response was "It's important that we look at the broader point of things. Not making sure that our numbers are exactly correct." you should call me an idiot. Because that's what I'd be. When you're talking about math, you don't just get to say "well it's the broader point that counts." Because it's not. It's the math that counts. Again, guys, this is just my opinion. I think math is math. If the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. I don't see some broader point behind it. If you can't pay for something, you can't pay for it. If you can prove to me, mathematically, how you'd pay for it, then you can pay for it. If you can't prove to me, mathematically, how you'd pay for it, then you can't pay for it. And I agree. Normally, I wouldn't have responded to a question asking me to explain further because it was off topic, but it was @swansont . If he asked for further clarification, I was gonna give it to him.

I get the impression from her that her fame is going to be short lived. She seems to really believe in what she's saying, but what's she's saying often doesn't add up. She promises a lot, but she's not going to be able to deliver much.

Because of his views on Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby offers it's employees 16 different forms of birth control fully covered under their healthcare plan. It rejects 4 of them because it views them as or equivalent to, abortion. Hardly the great threat to "birth control" that Harris made him out to be. FTFY ON a side note, this applies to both Republican and Democratic candidates.

Arbitrary. https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/moby.html See. We're designed to look for patterns. So as a result, we see patterns where there really is none.

It's not genetic, it's cultural. African countries aren't genetically stupid, they're simply overwhelming culturally primitive.

Don't even bother. TenOz and iNow can claim you said anything they like, and they'll rack up a total of 18 upvotes over the last three pages. Equivalent to patting themselves on the back. However opposing them posts have racked up -11 votes. And they continually refuse to even address what you say. They simply straw man you and then continue to argue with you over something you never said. I figured at some point a moderator would step in and point out how much they're lying about what's being said, but that's clearly not going to happen. I suggest just letting it go.

You have a bad habit of repeatedly claiming people say things they didn't. And you do it under the pretense of "what he really meant is X." It's lying.

So. If you had missed two paychecks at this point and you were already struggling with your bills prior to the shutdown, by this point you'd be even more adamant that no matter what you don't give into Trumps demands. Again. Easy for you to say that the deal is worthless and everything when you're not being affected by it. You care more about pinning the blame to someone and holding onto your ideological ideals, then you do about actually helping people who need it. Congratulations. Politics has beaten your humanity.

Agree to disagree.

So we're back to sitting here looking each other as 800,000 federal employees aren't getting paid because Democrats have suddenly decided the things Trump is offering in this deal is worthless. Fine. But in my personal opinion, I now blame the Democrats for an extension of this government shutdown. Not Trump.

Actually they've agreed to negotiate on it if Trump opens the government AND offers a permanent extension to DACA and TPS. Just my 2 cents here, but it's supposed to be negotiations here. It's not negotiations to say "we'll discuss border security if you give us what we want." Imagine negotiating for a house and being told "you give us $10,000 more, and we'll consider potentially repairing the roof." No. You claimed that it was already offered in December. Which wasn't true. Additionally, how in the world is a three-year extension to DACA nothing? At the moment there are 600,000 DACA immigrants who can't get work permits. The extension would give them the ability to. That's not "nothing". THat's very significant. As well as a three-year extension to TPS for 300,000 more people. That's significant as well. How can you just sign this away as nothing changing?

Because a three year extension means they don't have to spend the rest of 2019 negotiating a DACA deal, and that in 2020, when they have another election, then they'll either win more control and be able to have far more leveraging power in DACA then when Republicans control the Senate and Trump controls the white house, or, if they don't gain more control and it remains relatively the same, then at least they still have another year to negotiate. A three-year DACA extension gives them a lot. Especially since SCOTUS is highly expected to side with Trump(even though it's not guaranteed). Saying that it doesn't really give them anything is rather.........incorrect.

So, to you, it's not compromising unless he gives up the wall, or at least reduces it. It doesn't matter if he compromises elsewhere, such as DACA, TPS, increasing legal immigration capabilities, etc. Only if he compromises his wall. That's not compromising. That's just refusal to negotiate.

The previous Republic bill included a three year extension on DACA and TPS?