StrangeSox

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:43 AM) You're saying it COULD happen and then pointing to what history has shown us about authoritarian regimes. You're implicitly saying Trump is following that same path, not that he COULD. If it's not a legitimate fear of yours there's little reason to point it out. It is a legitimate fear of mine, and I do think Trump presented himself and behaves as an authoritarian. That is still not the "freaking out" position you keep trying to ascribe to me where I've said that Trump will "freeze speech" or that he'll control NBC's news coverage of him or that he's inevitably the next Hitler. But if I'm right about him being an authoritarian, everyone who continually makes excuses for his actions only makes it that much easier for him to grab and hold on to power. Have a little bit of nuance in your world view. It's about influence and pressures, not binary yes/no positions. edit: ezio with a solid way of putting it: QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:46 AM) I see the argument you're making here, and it's not really without merit, but here's the thing - this even being a discussion with Trump is itself unprecedented, at least for modern presidents. This isn't normal and we are pushing back against normalizing it.

What's Q's value this year compared to next (or at the deadline), assuming he keeps pitching to form?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) Yeah, but then you go further and claim he will then control NBC and its coverage of him. THAT is the overreach and an extremist "freak out." Just like yesterday when you argued that responding to someone over twitter with his army of supporters means he's going to freeze speech in the future. See, that's the thing with this bulls*** tactic. I didn't claim either of those things. Those are your inflations, or being charitable, misreadings of what I was saying. Trump having business deals with a media company that will be covering his Presidency is a potential conflict of interest because it can influence their coverage decisions. That's what I said, that's what the article claufield posted said, and that's what you rejected out of hand. Trump targeting individual citizens who dare to point out his lies gets those people and their children harassed and threatened. That sort of behavior will almost definitely make other people less likely to speak up in the future, fearing a similar reprisal. That's a common authoritarian tactic to stifle dissent. Notice that both of those positions fall short of the "freaking out" histrionics you frequently try to ascribe to people you're arguing with rather than addressing what they're actually saying. They aren't the extreme positions you keep mischaracterizing them as.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:28 AM) Trump receiving a royalty check from a reality show is less serious than Clinton and her husband receiving millions of dollars through their foundation from s***ty countries and/or the people in power on Wall Street. In a perfect world should the President have zero conflicts? Absolutely. I don't believe it's realistic in 2016 given what it takes to get elected. Clinton had pledged to shut down the foundation if she was elected.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:24 AM) Then stop freaking out over every little thing about Trump and making a mountain out of a mole hill as you have done since the election. This is the same dumb bulls*** tactic, though. Saying "yeah, there actually is a potential conflict of interest for the sitting President to have business ties to a major media corporation" isn't "freaking out." I don't know what else you're referring to aside from your inability to understand how the President targeting individual citizens chills speech from yesterday, but if it's about his cabinet picks, they've all been steaming piles of dogs*** who have awful policy positions or are completely unqualified, sometimes even by their own admission.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) No one is making excuses here. Bulls***. You're doing nothing but making excuses for him. Bulls***, again. There's nothing extreme in pointing out the obvious potential conflict of interest here. There's nothing extreme about pointing out the effect of an incoming President calling out individual private citizens has on the willingness of people to continue to speak up.

you do this same dumb thing in every argument. stop it. it's not clever, it's not effective, it's just annoying and dumb.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:00 AM) Wait, so because he may or may not get a royalty check for a reality tv show that has never been political, there's now a conflict of interest between him and NBC/MSNBC news? Couldn't you have said the same thing the last 2 years? Has there been any indication that NBC/MSNBC has taken it easy on him? At least the Morning Joe show has been a pretty big cheerleader for him. But it's not about his dumb garbage TV show itself being political, it's about business deal ties and how that could influence decisions. If he's still executive producer and the Celebrity Apprentice is a good profit-maker for NBC, Trump can threaten to pull the program from the network explicitly or implicitly if they don't give him coverage they like. You don't seem to understand how much things changed when he went from an absurd joke of a candidate to President-Elect and soon President of the United States. He's the most powerful person in the country now.

I thought that, overall, premiums have been following the same curve if not slightly lower, but on the exchanges specifically that insurer costs were higher than anticipated.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 01:40 AM) I'm one of those people who has had their premiums more than double in the last few years. It was steady before the ACA. Didn't lose my plan so I'm grandfathered into a plan with a low ass deductible. It's weird feeling lucky that I'm only getting really screwed instead of super screwed. But I'm not getting screwed remotely close to the level the poor or sick were before the ACA. It still hurts though cuz I work my butt off. And the poor are poorer because of the ACA but they have insurance. But it's not like the super poor are happy now, working way less but having insurance. It's a really tough situation all around. The poorest of the 20 million people who have gained coverage, roughly 7-8 million people, have gained it through the Medicaid expansion and aren't impacted by insurance premiums. The sick, or those with pre-existing conditions, got zero coverage before and now have coverage. The reason we've been seeing premiums rise as much as they have is that insurance companies didn't anticipate how poor the level of health for people just getting insurance would be.

Trump names Andrew Puzder, a fast-food CEO and critic of substantially raising the minimum wage, to head the Labor Department He's also opposed to the expanded overtime pay rules that were set to go into effect on December 1st but have been blocked by Republican lawsuits. "Managers" making $30k-50k a year can look forward to not being paid any overtime for their 60-70 hour weeks because, in the words of Puzder, it would lower the "prestige" of those jobs to be paid for the work they're performing. Oh, and he was also a big donor to Trump's campaign.

John Glenn, first US astronaut to orbit the earth (and US Senator for 26 years)

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 01:09 PM) I doubt the conversation went: We want devers No Okay well we'll take Basabe and your 30th ranked prospect then dude you just spam them with offers until you find the one they accept, duh

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 12:03 PM) Nationalizing was a definite thing I was imagining. Much like MySpace Tom being everyone's friend on MySpace, everyone's twitter account will follow Trump. And having a twitter account will be mandatory, and you can't unfollow him.

From September, but it gives you an idea on the mindset going on there right now https://twitter.com/AP/status/781697270832046080

what a horrifying and dumb time we live in seriously though I'm sure someone will buy twitter's IP, google is always looking for ways to blow money. worst case, Trump nationalizes it!

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 06:41 AM) Neither Trump or Linda McMahon could sell the stunner worth a damn. lol McMahon was also a big donor to Trump's campaign, to the tune of $9M. Glad we've drained the swamp and ended pay-to-play politics once and for all. Boy do all of his supporters who were thought that he was getting money out of politics have egg on their faces now!

The world improves, even if only a little.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) The same union leader spoke out again today, publicly. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/i-stand-beh...eader-says.html So no, I'd say your fear/concern about the chilling effect of a reality star narcissist Republican President of the United States of America with a relatively new loyal cult following who has been responding to his critics on Twitter for years is utterly and completely unfounded. My Hitler comparison goes the to same extreme as your unrealistic fear about Trump and what he intends to do with his power as President. It's not burying my head in the sand. It's not ignoring the problems with Trump doing what he does as the public face of our country. But we also shouldn't jump to the extremes as you and others are doing since November 9th. yo you missed an important piece here! This man has already been targeted and is already known, so the risk of continuing to speak out is minimal compared to someone new. I think it's pretty baffling that you're assuming there is absolutely zero chilling effect from having the (soon) President of the United States call you out personally on twitter for daring to criticize him and then having his legion of followers harass you and send you death threats and threats about your children. Would you feel equally comfortable calling out Obama using your own name as you would Trump, given the way he's responded and knowing that it means your whole life might be doxxed including calls and threats to your house, your employer, your family? This is a well-documented phenomenon with a long history and there's not much of a basis to blithely assume it won't also happen with respect to Trump. That doesn't mean that the next step is death squads a la Duterte (whom Trump has praised), but it does mean it's a step on the road to authoritarianism. Being vigilante against that isn't jumping to an extreme. Trump has pined for the days when you could beat up protesters and get away with it. He's had a long history of using lawsuits to silence critics and unfavorable coverage. He's expressed a desire to "open up" libel laws to make that even easier. He's called for the revocation of the citizenship of people who protest him by burning flags. He's praised dictators and their tactics multiple times. He's called for "deportation squads," and some of his advisors are favorably referencing Japanese internment camps as policy guidelines. He's called for banning an entire religion from coming into the country. He repeatedly called for the jailing of his political opponent and has even questioned the legitimacy of the election that he won. He's not necessarily the next Mussolini, but right now, the scales are tipped pretty heavily towards "authoritarian." Don't hold Trump to a lower standard just because he's so obviously unfit for office. That's how he came to hold the most powerful single position on the planet. Don't make excuses for his behavior, don't pretend like his actions are normal and say stuff like "what he can't respond to criticism?" when you know damn well that this behavior is entirely unacceptable. Imagine the absolute meltdowns if Obama had done something even remotely similar to this. Not being taken seriously while still wielding very real power is another important tool in the kit, and we shouldn't help him to use it.

U.S. life expectancy declines for the first time since 1993

Trump considers naming FDA chief who would radically overhaul the agency Bannon, Trump's white nationalist senior policy adviser, has said in the past that he wants to blow up the federal government. Trump's picks all seem to be lined up to ensure that happens.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 11:01 AM) Oh f*** off. You're pointing to how authoritarian regimes operate (a vocal leader that criticizes people and has some fervent supporters that will act accordingly) and then, without support, you jump to the conclusion that Trump is showing signs of doing that. All while ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Your point is the equivalent of, "hey, Trump's a vocal leader....Hitler was a vocal leader.....i'm not sayin' i'm just sayin'! Trump is become Hitler and you can't prove he won't be!" No, it's really not. Trump has shown signs of doing it. The evidence is the event in question, in which someone criticized him for lying, he responded by personally attacking an individual citizen, and that citizen is now receiving death threats. It's not about future-tense at this point, it's already happened. Do you think a union leader at the next business he decides to individually call out is more or less likely to speak up against Trump publicly now? Your response has been to say that Trump didn't explicitly call for violence or silencing his opponents, which wholly misses the point of how this chilling effect works. Don't tell me to f*** off for pointing out that you're deliberately ignoring that as it's been explained to you multiple times. And it's not me who's jumped to the Hitler comparisons, it's something you're doing so you can just waive away the argument without actually bothering to address it. Trump ran as an authoritarian. That's where his rhetoric and his campaign messaging was firmly grounded. He is now acting like an authoritarian. I expect that to only get worse when he takes office. I think it's dangerous to ignore the pretty standard playbook he's following and to make excuses for it. There's no need to rush to "OMG HITLER," but there's also no need to bury your head in the sand.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 10:53 AM) There really is zero argument to this point. We're talking about an event that happened yesterday (and will likely continue to happen in the future because Republicans nominated and elected an unstable thin-skinned baby to the Presidency) and the impacts it will have going forward. Pointing out that the immediate post-election criticisms of his already-awful decision-making and appointments have increased doesn't say anything about what will be happening a few months or a few years from now. There's also really zero argument that Trump ran as an authoritarian strongman and that this is how authoritarian strongmen operate. Will he turn out to be one? Hope not! But so far all signs point to yes.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 10:52 AM) It's not a negative. You're saying his actions curb speech or will curb speech. Where is the proof of that? Criticism has INCREASED post-election, not decreased. And no, I'm not expecting anything explicit. But you don't have anything more than a guy using twitter to say "nu uh! you're stupid too! and you're bad at your job!" That's so far from actual, legitimate calls for his supporters to attack and suppress speech. you're only reiterating that you don't even understand the mechanism at play here.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 10:41 AM) (2) Responding to a critic knowing that his supporters will attack the person on social media means he's wielding his power to curb speech, to alter future criticism, all in a move to obtain more power and authority. That is the argument I think is conspiracy level nonsense. Regardless of whether Trump is doing it intentionally or not, that's the effect it has. If you see another of his critics have their lives disrupted, you will be less likely to speak out publicly. You haven't explained why it wouldn't have that effect beyond insisting that it wouldn't.