ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd April 2019, 01:50 PM   #41
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Herman Cain served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City for seven years, including two years as chairman of the Omaha Branch, two years as deputy chairman of the board, and two years as chairman. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be competent to do more of the same.
From slate.com:

Quote:
What did Herman Cain do at the Fed, and what does it tell us about him? The answers: ďNot much,Ē and ďa little more than not much.Ē

...

What does the board of directors actually do? Every month that Cain was there, board members would meet, talk through the economic developments and data in their areas, and offer some advice. Fed economists would listen. The research would be taken up to Kansas City Fed President Tom Hoenig, who could use it however he deigned to use it.* ďTheyíre a source of economic information for the bank,Ē explains Bill Medley, public information director for the Kansas City Fed. Whatís their single biggest contribution? They recommend the discount rate, or what the Fed charges for loans. ďBut that,Ē says Medley, ďhas to be approved by the board of governors.Ē

That means that Cainís role was chiefly as a charismatic guy who ran meetings well and corralled good advice. He was not an economist. In This Is Herman Cain!, the candidate recalls the Fed job as a Frank Capra-esque affair; a lunch with the branch manager turned into a pitch for an unexpected job.
..doesn't instill confidence in me.

From: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...tually-do.html

Quote:
Anyway, this seems to be a vague concern, rather than a specific one. You're not pointing to any one unfilled or badly-filled position and saying, "this poses a special risk to the nation". You're saying simply that Trump could be doing it horribly wrong, but we won't find out until it actually happens. Whatever "it" is. Which we also won't know until "it" actually happens.

Meanwhile, every time "it" has happened so far, catastrophe has not emerged.
It's vague only due to the fact that I'm not a prophet able to predict the next crisis, which could be a virus outbreak, a hurricane/earthquake/tornado outbreak, a financial crisis et cetera. I'm can't point to a badly-filled position??

Betsy DeVos:

Quote:
DeVos isnít an educator, or an education leader. Sheís not an expert in pedagogy or curriculum or school governance. In fact, she has no relevant credentials or experience for a job setting standards and guiding dollars for the nationís public schools.

She is, in essence, a lobbyist ó someone who has used her extraordinary wealth to influence the conversation about education reform, and to bend that conversation to her ideological convictions despite the dearth of evidence supporting them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-of-education/

Andrew Wheeler, head of EPA:

Quote:
Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, was confirmed as Pruitt's No. 2 in April despite complaints from Democrats that Wheeler helped lead a fight by the coal industry to block regulations that protect Americans' health and begin to address climate change.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-...t-resignation/

..for a couple of specific examples. There are many positions filled by people in Trump's administration with an obvious antithesis to the very position being filled, such as Rick Perry as head of the dept he thinks shouldn't even exist. And I feel sure you are aware of these issues, what made you need to ask me for them? Just curious.

You seem to complain once more that I can't tell you what "it" is. Again, I am not a prophet, nor do I claim to be. But crises do happen; there will be another crisis. The fact that I can't predict one does not imply there will never be one, as I am sure you are aware. I can't tell you what type or when it will be; it's well within the realm of possibility that something like the hurricanes of 2017 will be the worst crisis we face under Trump's administration; but there is always potential for a crisis, and under a chaotic Trump admin I think we are woefully underprepared.

Quote:
I used "existential crisis" to be clear about the degree of seriousness and concern I thought we were talking about. That's what "catastrophe" connotes, for me. If we're widening the definition to include bad policy, politically contentious policy, and bombastic tweets, then sure. For millions of Americans, everything Trump has done so far has been catastrophic. But then the issue becomes a lot less serious, and a lot less concerning. I was really hoping we could avoid boiling this down to partisan differences, but it seems like here we are. I'll try one more time.
I took "existential" to mean "threatening the very existence of the country". That's rather extreme, and I think we both agree that "catastrophe" does not imply that specific definition of "existential". You can surely have a catastrophe that does not threaten our existence (such as 9/11). That's all I intended with that comment.

Quote:
The original claim (at the point I came into the conversation) was whether Trump has put the nation at risk of catastrophe by failing to fill one or more key positions in the Executive branch. I figure we can assess the risk by examining the positions in question. Maybe it's not as bad as we think. Failing to fill the position of Secretary of State is probably pretty risky. Failing to fill a federal judgeship is probably less risky.
Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear: I am not as much concerned with a catastrophe being [i]caused[/b] by the Trump admin as I am with an external catastrophe overwhelming the Trump admin. For example, putting Herman Cain (who has no real economic experience) on the Federal Reserve Board is a risk because the lack of experience may worsen a potential future recession. Putting a fossil fuel proponent in charge of the EPA has the potential to worsen our environment (more lax air quality/water quality regulations, for example) as well as reverse any steps we've taken to mitigate climate change (which I have no idea if you accept as real or not).

Quote:
But without specific positions to consider, there's no specific risks to assess. Just vague handwaving about imminent catastrophe. On the one hand, it's much easier to pitch the idea of grave danger, if you don't have to be specific about the danger. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to sell the idea of grave danger if your pitch doesn't actually include any specific dangers.
Again, many of the assigned positions in the Trump admin have already been controversial due to either lack of experience or antithetical views the holder has with the mission of the position. It seems rather uniform throughout the admin. Why you keep demanding I give you a specific example is beyond me; again, I am not a prophet, I merely see chaos and confusion in the Trump admin, which generally implies inadequate response to a crisis. Any crisis.

Quote:
Take Herman Cain, for example. He's had more experience with Federal Reserve boards than Barack Obama had with the Presidency when he took office. Are you aware of any catastrophes that befell the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City during Cain's seven years on the board there? Did he embezzle funds? Bankrupt the institution? Devalue the currency? Whatever it is that a Fed Reserve board member can do to cause a catastrophe? Anything like that? Did you even know he'd been a Fed board member before, when you first heard that Trump nominated him?
Again, what did he do in that position that really qualified him? Can you tell me, specifically, what his obligations were in that position and how he handled them in a way that would require special qualifications? According to the first link in this post, it seems as though it was more like a "ceremonial" position.

Quote:
I ask for specifics, and the closest you come is Herman Cain, who has experience with the job, and no history of catastrophe at the job that you can cite.
And again, I've balked at many of your requests for specifics because I interpret that as you expecting me to first predict the next catastrophe, followed by an analysis of the head of the relevant position in Trump's admin.

Quote:
You also come close with the Department of Energy. Do you know who the current DOE secretary and deputy secretary are? How would you rate their catastrophic risk, compared to previous DOE secretaries?
Sure. I already mentioned (before I even read this far) that the secretary is Rick Perry. I'll admit that I can't go into detail concerning his qualifications, but I well remember that of the three agencies Perry thought should be eliminated, the DOE was the one he couldn't even remember. I also recall when he was first appointed, he had no idea that the DOE had responsibility for nuclear weapons. None of these facts encourage my opinion of his competency for this position.

Quote:
Even if you just want to make general claims of incompetence across the board, those claims still have to be underpinned by evidence: Actual specific examples of incompetence. And since we're talking about catastrophes, it can't just be run of the mill "not very good at their jobs". And obviously it can't be partisan policy disagreements. We're talking about the risk of catastrophic incompetence in key positions in the Executive branch.

Like... Federal Reserve Board memberships?
Haven't I already covered this at this point?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 03:27 PM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
From slate.com:

..doesn't instill confidence in me.
I don't think it gives enough information to justify confidence or lack of confidence.

On the other hand, at lot of the biggest successes in my own career have come about when I've been on teams that include both skilled specialists and charismatic meeting organizers. My productivity isn't at its peak when my boss knows how to do my job. Instead, my productivity generally peaks when my boss trusts me to do my job, and focuses on encouraging my work and communicating it to the other leaders in the organization.

So I'm not a priori biased against the idea of a board chairman who takes the role of corralling experts and publishing their opinions, rather than being the lead expert themselves.

And the important thing here is that Cain didn't cause a catastrophe at the fed. We're talking about the risk of catastrophe. Cain doesn't seem to pose much of a risk at all. And I'm still not thinking that Fed board memberships are a particularly risky thing to begin with.

Quote:
It's vague only due to the fact that I'm not a prophet able to predict the next crisis, which could be a virus outbreak, a hurricane/earthquake/tornado outbreak, a financial crisis et cetera.
The basics of risk management isn't to predict the next event. It's to identify the kinds of events that could cause a catastrophe, and then figure out how likely they are and how to mitigate them.

You've gotten as far as identifying some risk areas - disease, weather, economy, etc. - but haven't actually pointed to any risk of catastrophe arising from key positions being unfilled (or badly filled) in those areas.

Quote:
I'm can't point to a badly-filled position??
I'm sure you can. But remember: This started with you warning us of a risk of catastrophe because of unfilled positions. Even expanding your warning to badly-filled positions, you're still reluctant to narrow down at all.

Quote:
Betsy DeVos:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-of-education/

Andrew Wheeler, head of EPA:



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-...t-resignation/

..for a couple of specific examples. There are many positions filled by people in Trump's administration with an obvious antithesis to the very position being filled, such as Rick Perry as head of the dept he thinks shouldn't even exist. And I feel sure you are aware of these issues, what made you need to ask me for them? Just curious.
I'm asking you for more specifics about the risk of catastrophe we face from how President Trump has filled or not filled key positions within our government.

Can you at least cite a key position that has not been filled, where we would normally want to see a bulwark against some catastrophe? I take it for granted that the kind of catastrophe would be related to the nature of the position. The Secretary of State is a hedge against diplomatic catastrophe, for example.

Quote:
You seem to complain once more that I can't tell you what "it" is. Again, I am not a prophet, nor do I claim to be. But crises do happen; there will be another crisis. The fact that I can't predict one does not imply there will never be one, as I am sure you are aware. I can't tell you what type or when it will be; it's well within the realm of possibility that something like the hurricanes of 2017 will be the worst crisis we face under Trump's administration; but there is always potential for a crisis, and under a chaotic Trump admin I think we are woefully underprepared.
But not specifically underprepared in any one area due to an unfilled key position in that area?

Quote:
I took "existential" to mean "threatening the very existence of the country". That's rather extreme, and I think we both agree that "catastrophe" does not imply that specific definition of "existential". You can surely have a catastrophe that does not threaten our existence (such as 9/11). That's all I intended with that comment.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear: I am not as much concerned with a catastrophe being [i]caused[/b] by the Trump admin as I am with an external catastrophe overwhelming the Trump admin. For example, putting Herman Cain (who has no real economic experience) on the Federal Reserve Board is a risk because the lack of experience may worsen a potential future recession. Putting a fossil fuel proponent in charge of the EPA has the potential to worsen our environment (more lax air quality/water quality regulations, for example) as well as reverse any steps we've taken to mitigate climate change (which I have no idea if you accept as real or not).
Herman Cain has a MS from Purdue. He has decades of experience in business and politics, and seven years experience on a Fed board already. He is also not the first non-economist to hold such a position at the Federal Reserve.

Neither this nor your other examples seem particularly catastrophic. "May worsen a future recession"? What even is that? The fact is, if we have another recession, no matter how bad it is, you'll say it could have gone better if it weren't for Cain and his ilk.

Quote:
Again, many of the assigned positions in the Trump admin have already been controversial due to either lack of experience or antithetical views the holder has with the mission of the position. It seems rather uniform throughout the admin. Why you keep demanding I give you a specific example is beyond me; again, I am not a prophet, I merely see chaos and confusion in the Trump admin, which generally implies inadequate response to a crisis. Any crisis.
This is a general complaint which is in form and content indistinguishable from the endless stream of ORANGE MAN BAD we've been seeing from the left for the past three years. That's why I'm asking you for specifics. If all you have to say to me is that you think the Trump Administration is incompetent... Well, we already know that tune.

We should also note that the Trump Administration has been at it for two and a half years already. Shouldn't the catastrophes have manifested by now?

Quote:
Again, what did he do in that position that really qualified him?
For the purposes of this discussion? He didn't cause a catastrophe.

Quote:
Can you tell me, specifically, what his obligations were in that position and how he handled them in a way that would require special qualifications? According to the first link in this post, it seems as though it was more like a "ceremonial" position.
To me it seems like a coordinator and facilitator position, which is actually pretty important to a lot of organizations. I'm inclined to think that by now the Federal Reserve has a pretty good idea of which roles they need to be effective. But if you're worried that Herman Cain is gonna **** up a ceremonial position, then I think we can all rest easy with regard to potential catastrophes.

Maybe Cain isn't such a good example of what you're talking about?

Quote:
And again, I've balked at many of your requests for specifics because I interpret that as you expecting me to first predict the next catastrophe, followed by an analysis of the head of the relevant position in Trump's admin.
Ah. That's unfortunate. I'm not asking you to predict catastrophes. You're already enumerating possible catastrophes in different areas of concern, which is all I'm asking for on that bit.

What I was expecting, since you'd expressed concern about Trump not filling key positions and thus exposing us to the risk of catastrophe, was for you to say which key positions hadn't been filled, and what kinds of catastrophe we'd be risking as a result.

Quote:
Sure. I already mentioned (before I even read this far) that the secretary is Rick Perry.
I apologize for missing that.

Quote:
I'll admit that I can't go into detail concerning his qualifications, but I well remember that of the three agencies Perry thought should be eliminated, the DOE was the one he couldn't even remember. I also recall when he was first appointed, he had no idea that the DOE had responsibility for nuclear weapons. None of these facts encourage my opinion of his competency for this position.
Fair enough. That's the kind of assessment I've been asking for. Do you have a similar assessment for any of the unfilled positions in the Executive branch right now?


Quote:
Haven't I already covered this at this point?
I'm not sure, to be honest. I think you're probably as close as you're going to get, though, so we can probably call it here. We've each said our piece, and we're not likely to change our positions much from this point on.

Let me know if you think of an unfilled position that puts us at significant risk of catastrophe. That was the one specific point that most interested me. Unfortunately it seems to be the one specific point that isn't going to be addressed.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 04:09 PM   #43
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,342
Oh my golly, Trump is going to end it all by:

- going full-on Nazi on the US
- having a nuclear exchange with N. Korea
- have us all speaking Russian
- being unprepared for a natural disaster

Come on, one of these just has to happen!
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 05:42 PM   #44
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think it gives enough information to justify confidence or lack of confidence.
It doesn't speak well of his experience for the position.

Quote:
On the other hand, at lot of the biggest successes in my own career have come about when I've been on teams that include both skilled specialists and charismatic meeting organizers. My productivity isn't at its peak when my boss knows how to do my job. Instead, my productivity generally peaks when my boss trusts me to do my job, and focuses on encouraging my work and communicating it to the other leaders in the organization.

So I'm not a priori biased against the idea of a board chairman who takes the role of corralling experts and publishing their opinions, rather than being the lead expert themselves.

And the important thing here is that Cain didn't cause a catastrophe at the fed. We're talking about the risk of catastrophe. Cain doesn't seem to pose much of a risk at all. And I'm still not thinking that Fed board memberships are a particularly risky thing to begin with.
I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I specifically said I was primarily concerned with the ability to respond to external catastrophes? Yeah, I thought you did.


Quote:
The basics of risk management isn't to predict the next event. It's to identify the kinds of events that could cause a catastrophe, and then figure out how likely they are and how to mitigate them.
Oh, you mean like climate change? Sure, I can agree. Gee, I'm glad we now have a president concentrating on reversing what has been do so far to mitigate the issue.

Quote:
You've gotten as far as identifying some risk areas - disease, weather, economy, etc. - but haven't actually pointed to any risk of catastrophe arising from key positions being unfilled (or badly filled) in those areas.
You mean like a fossil fuel professional heading the EPA. Yeah, I believe I already pointed there. You can continue to ignore it if you like; I won't force you to pay attention.


Quote:
I'm sure you can. But remember: This started with you warning us of a risk of catastrophe because of unfilled positions. Even expanding your warning to badly-filled positions, you're still reluctant to narrow down at all.
I never expanded my warning. That was the warning I intended in the first place. Sure, I can see the potential for a misunderstanding, but I'm pretty sure if you read my previous posts you will find they are consistent with being concerned of external catastrophes to begin with. And I didn't narrow it down? Did I not just mention the head of the EPA as an example? What do you want, an exhaustive list of incompetence in Trump's admin? Ain't nobody got time for all of that.


Quote:
I'm asking you for more specifics about the risk of catastrophe we face from how President Trump has filled or not filled key positions within our government.
And I am telling you I can't predict the future, yet again. If I could predict the nature of the next catastrophe I would spend my time winning Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. And the possibilities are so wide open that I again, I can't give an exhaustive list.

Quote:
Can you at least cite a key position that has not been filled, where we would normally want to see a bulwark against some catastrophe? I take it for granted that the kind of catastrophe would be related to the nature of the position. The Secretary of State is a hedge against diplomatic catastrophe, for example.
Again, the EPA seems a nice candidate. I never said I was worried with positions not filled, but positions filled with inappropriateness or incompetence. I'm not going to defend the position you pick for me; I'm going to defend what I actually say.


Quote:
But not specifically underprepared in any one area due to an unfilled key position in that area?
"Unfilled" again? Can you debate me on what I actually say rather than what you imagine I said?





Quote:
Herman Cain has a MS from Purdue. He has decades of experience in business and politics, and seven years experience on a Fed board already. He is also not the first non-economist to hold such a position at the Federal Reserve.
As I previously mentioned, I strongly question the hilited "experience".

Quote:
Neither this nor your other examples seem particularly catastrophic. "May worsen a future recession"? What even is that?
"Worsen a future recession" means respond to a recession in a counterproductive way. For example, I've noticed many Republicans with the philosophy that during a recession we should invoke austerity. I'll frankly admit I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area, but my memory is that some European countries did exactly that in the 2008 recession, and there's evidence it hampered their recovery. Was that sentence really that hard to parse?

Quote:
The fact is, if we have another recession, no matter how bad it is, you'll say it could have gone better if it weren't for Cain and his ilk.
Is it impossible to know what helps/hurts a recovery? Maybe so...We can't do lab controlled repeated studies, anyway. But loosening banking regulations tends to be detrimental; do you have an argument that loosening regulations would be helpful in economic recovery? It really looks like your argument here is: No matter what I say, you'll defend Trump because he's just like any other president. If you think that (I'm not saying you do, but I sometimes get that impression) you're in denial.


Quote:
This is a general complaint which is in form and content indistinguishable from the endless stream of ORANGE MAN BAD we've been seeing from the left for the past three years. That's why I'm asking you for specifics. If all you have to say to me is that you think the Trump Administration is incompetent... Well, we already know that tune.
Pointing out that many Trump admin positions are held by people actually opposed to the purpose of the position to "Orange Man Bad"? Quite the contrary. Pointing at specific points of incompetence is justification for orange man bad. Some people, apparently like you, evidently suffer from ORANGE MAN CAN DO NO WRONG.

Quote:
We should also note that the Trump Administration has been at it for two and a half years already. Shouldn't the catastrophes have manifested by now?
I've never claimed that Trump had the power to cause hurricanes or tornado outbreaks. He's not a wizard. You keep trying to pin me down on an internal catastrophe. I was never referring to that. Can we just drop it since that wasn't ever my point?


Quote:
For the purposes of this discussion? He didn't cause a catastrophe.
.....sigh.....external catastrophes are generally not willfully "caused".


Quote:
To me it seems like a coordinator and facilitator position, which is actually pretty important to a lot of organizations. I'm inclined to think that by now the Federal Reserve has a pretty good idea of which roles they need to be effective. But if you're worried that Herman Cain is gonna **** up a ceremonial position, then I think we can all rest easy with regard to potential catastrophes.
I've seen no evidence that the proposed position would be ceremonial. I was quite obviously referring to the previous position, and how IT was evidently ceremonial and not a good metric to indicate experience.

Quote:
Maybe Cain isn't such a good example of what you're talking about?
And yet he's the only one your harping on, even though he turned down the offer. Meanwhile, a curious silence regarding the EPA, DOEducation and DOEnergy.


[quote]Ah. That's unfortunate. I'm not asking you to predict catastrophes. You're already enumerating possible catastrophes in different areas of concern, which is all I'm asking for on that bit.

What I was expecting, since you'd expressed concern about Trump not filling key positions and thus exposing us to the risk of catastrophe, was for you to say which key positions hadn't been filled, and what kinds of catastrophe we'd be risking as a result. [quote]

Oh, the old "hadn't been filled" bit again. Please, just give it up. That was never my main issue. Do you not see the chaos in the White House? That's not good for competent response to anything


Quote:
I apologize for missing that.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you missed it; I was referring to the same post you just replied to. I was merely amused that, since I was responding as I was reading, I'd accidentally anticipated the Perry reference.




Quote:
Fair enough. That's the kind of assessment I've been asking for. Do you have a similar assessment for any of the unfilled positions in the Executive branch right now?
Didn't I already make similar comments about the Dept of Education and the EPA?



Quote:
I'm not sure, to be honest. I think you're probably as close as you're going to get, though, so we can probably call it here. We've each said our piece, and we're not likely to change our positions much from this point on.

Let me know if you think of an unfilled position that puts us at significant risk of catastrophe. [b]That was the one specific point that most interested me.[\b] Unfortunately it seems to be the one specific point that isn't going to be addressed.
"Unfilled" again? That's funny, because that's a specific point based on a claim I never made.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 05:43 PM   #45
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Oh my golly, Trump is going to end it all by:

- going full-on Nazi on the US
- having a nuclear exchange with N. Korea
- have us all speaking Russian
- being unprepared for a natural disaster

Come on, one of these just has to happen!
The fact that you can joke about it does not negate the fact that you should be concerned by it.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 05:52 PM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
The fact that you can joke about it does not negate the fact that you should be concerned by it.
The things that end up being a concern are rarely the things people warn me I need to be concerned about.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 06:28 PM   #47
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The things that end up being a concern are rarely the things people warn me I need to be concerned about.
Well, don't you worry: The next hurricane/earthquake/tornado outbreak/whatever most likely won't affect you directly. That's just basic probability.

I guarantee it will affect many others, however.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2019, 07:01 PM   #48
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,292
TDS.....the weather edition
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 12:15 AM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Well, don't you worry: The next hurricane/earthquake/tornado outbreak/whatever most likely won't affect you directly. That's just basic probability.

I guarantee it will affect many others, however.
If you are at risk of being hit by a hurricane, or any other natural disaster, there are far more important steps for you to take to mitigate that risk than whom you vote for. TDS indeed.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 04:16 AM   #50
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you are at risk of being hit by a hurricane, or any other natural disaster, there are far more important steps for you to take to mitigate that risk than whom you vote for. TDS indeed.
Weren't you the one claiming disaster responses are all on the local government? Are they not voted in?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:41 AM   #51
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you are at risk of being hit by a hurricane, or any other natural disaster, there are far more important steps for you to take to mitigate that risk than whom you vote for. TDS indeed.
Oh, so you don't believe receiving timely aid in the aftermath to be important enough to be a concern?

Fascinating.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:47 AM   #52
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,687
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
The 'let's blame the local government' bit also irks me. You can have the best government with the best systems and they will still get overwhelmed. North Jersey was one of the richest regions of the USA but when Sandy hit they needed outside help.
Notably, Republicans resisted federal aid for Sandy as well, and did so again last year with California.

California and the New York area are by far the largest net contributors to the federal government in comparison to what they get back so itís not a rich vs poor state thing nor a paying their fair share thing. Itís all part of a larger Republican attitude that money should be redistributed from Democratic voters to Republican voters and as such any time a disaster happens to a place that doesnít typically vote Republican, they resist Federal aid.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:00 AM   #53
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Weren't you the one claiming disaster responses are all on the local government? Are they not voted in?
The most important government response is local government. The most important response of all is the individual. Why isn't this common knowledge? It's not a mystery. Hell, even the government tries to tell people that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:03 AM   #54
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Notably, Republicans resisted federal aid for Sandy as well, and did so again last year with California.

California and the New York area are by far the largest net contributors to the federal government in comparison to what they get back so itís not a rich vs poor state thing nor a paying their fair share thing. Itís all part of a larger Republican attitude that money should be redistributed from Democratic voters to Republican voters and as such any time a disaster happens to a place that doesnít typically vote Republican, they resist Federal aid.
So Trump is like every other Republican, and doesn't represent anything out of the ordinary. So much for him being a unique and unprecedented threat.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:07 AM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
I wonder how many members here sit on their thumbs, thinking, "if anything happens, I just have to sit tight and wait for the city to take care of me."

Or maybe they think, "no problem, the national government will swoop in and take care of me."

But either way, they don't bother about having insurance, or money saved up, or bottled water on hand, or any contingency plan other than "why worry - FEMA's got this!"
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:22 AM   #56
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So Trump is like every other Republican, and doesn't represent anything out of the ordinary. So much for him being a unique and unprecedented threat.
I don't recall any previous president ever threatening to withhold federal aid from an actual disaster. By your post this has evidently happened before: Can you please give me an example?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:23 AM   #57
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,292
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh, so you don't believe receiving timely aid in the aftermath to be important enough to be a concern?

Fascinating.

The Rule if Oh So

Related to the rule of so but not nearly as clever
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:45 AM   #58
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The Rule if Oh So

Related to the rule of so but not nearly as clever
Ziggurat's straw man deserved another.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:48 AM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I don't recall any previous president ever threatening to withhold federal aid from an actual disaster. By your post this has evidently happened before: Can you please give me an example?
Ask lomiller, itís his claim. He said Republicans donít just threaten to withhold funding, they actually do so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:04 AM   #60
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The most important government response is local government. The most important response of all is the individual. Why isn't this common knowledge? It's not a mystery. Hell, even the government tries to tell people that.
You haven't lived through, or even seen any footage of disasters, have you?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:07 AM   #61
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I wonder how many members here sit on their thumbs, thinking, "if anything happens, I just have to sit tight and wait for the city to take care of me."

Or maybe they think, "no problem, the national government will swoop in and take care of me."

But either way, they don't bother about having insurance, or money saved up, or bottled water on hand, or any contingency plan other than "why worry - FEMA's got this!"
Same question I just asked Zig. Because looking at the idea that if, say massive flooding from a hurricane sweeps through, or large magnitude earthquake hits, and the thing you are worried about is insurance, money saved up, and bottled water? This demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what can go wrong and how little control an individual has over all of it.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:12 AM   #62
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,687
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So Trump is like every other Republican, and doesn't represent anything out of the ordinary. So much for him being a unique and unprecedented threat.
Trump is a train wreck but ultimately heís a symptom of deeper problems in the Republican party.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:51 AM   #63
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,303
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Trump is a train wreck but ultimately heís a symptom of deeper problems in the Republican party.
You mean stubborn selfish idiocy driven by lunatic special interest driven right wing conspiracy theory lunatic radio?
__________________
ď A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Ē
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:00 AM   #64
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You haven't lived through, or even seen any footage of disasters, have you?
That's not an argument.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Same question I just asked Zig. Because looking at the idea that if, say massive flooding from a hurricane sweeps through, or large magnitude earthquake hits, and the thing you are worried about is insurance, money saved up, and bottled water? This demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what can go wrong and how little control an individual has over all of it.
This is an argument, but it's a crap argument. Sometimes a natural disaster will simply kill you, and nothing you or the government can do will stop it.

But to the extent that something CAN be done to keep a disaster from killing you, most of that is best done by the individual. Having bottled water? Yeah, that's god-damned useful to have in the aftermath of a hurricane. Possibly an earthquake too. For hurricanes, for which there is now some advance warning before they hit, insurance and some money saved up are god damned useful too: they allow you to get the hell out of dodge before the storm even hits. Then you don't have to depend on anyone to rescue you, and you can recover afterwards. Both of those are a damned sight better than trying to ride out a severe storm in the hopes that someone will rescue you and rebuild your house if things really go south.

Now there is a bit of an exception for earthquakes: the most important step there is to make buildings earthquake-resistant, and most individuals can't really do that. But that's handled through state and local government building codes, NOT through the federal government. So for the present discussion, we can take that as a given. After that step, we're back to the most important things being what individuals can do to prepare. Know what to do in an earthquake (stuff like how to turn off the gas in your house), and keep an emergency supply of food and water. Now a few people may be unlucky and need rescue, but MOST people caught in an earthquake in the US will be able to take care of themselves just fine, if they prepare.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:16 AM   #65
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's not an argument.



This is an argument, but it's a crap argument. Sometimes a natural disaster will simply kill you, and nothing you or the government can do will stop it.

But to the extent that something CAN be done to keep a disaster from killing you, most of that is best done by the individual. Having bottled water? Yeah, that's god-damned useful to have in the aftermath of a hurricane. Possibly an earthquake too. For hurricanes, for which there is now some advance warning before they hit, insurance and some money saved up are god damned useful too: they allow you to get the hell out of dodge before the storm even hits. Then you don't have to depend on anyone to rescue you, and you can recover afterwards. Both of those are a damned sight better than trying to ride out a severe storm in the hopes that someone will rescue you and rebuild your house if things really go south.

Now there is a bit of an exception for earthquakes: the most important step there is to make buildings earthquake-resistant, and most individuals can't really do that. But that's handled through state and local government building codes, NOT through the federal government. So for the present discussion, we can take that as a given. After that step, we're back to the most important things being what individuals can do to prepare. Know what to do in an earthquake (stuff like how to turn off the gas in your house), and keep an emergency supply of food and water. Now a few people may be unlucky and need rescue, but MOST people caught in an earthquake in the US will be able to take care of themselves just fine, if they prepare.
This. The local government is there to take care of the outliers that can't completely provide for themselves.

The federal government is there for the outliers the local government can't help. And it's there for the overflow if the overall problem is simply larger than the local government can handle with local resources. And it's there to sustain a longer-term relief effort, beyond what the local government can afford. FEMA isn't supposed to be the front line of defense in an emergency. It's there to support and sustain the local government's own efforts, and to provide resources for planning emergency responses.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:39 AM   #66
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's not an argument.
It's an attempt to see if you have any idea what you are talking about. Based on the rest of your post, you haven't got a clue.
Rugged individualism sounds great to people who have no understanding or experience dealing with natural disasters.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:43 AM   #67
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post

It's an attempt to see if you have any idea what you are talking about. Based on the rest of your post, you haven't got a clue.
Rugged individualism sounds great to people who have no understanding or experience dealing with natural disasters.
Still not an argument, just posturing. You claim I'm wrong, but cannot provide any actual reason why except a weak ad hominem. One would think that if I'm as wrong as you claim, it would be easy to actually explain what I got wrong, but you can't even manage to try.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:49 AM   #68
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Still not an argument, just posturing. You claim I'm wrong, but cannot provide any actual reason why except a weak ad hominem. One would think that if I'm as wrong as you claim, it would be easy to actually explain what I got wrong, but you can't even manage to try.
Why should I bother? Your ignorant posturing stands as it's own rebuttal.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:57 AM   #69
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Ask lomiller, itís his claim. He said Republicans donít just threaten to withhold funding, they actually do so.
No it's not. You claimed specifically:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So Trump is like every other Republican, and doesn't represent anything out of the ordinary. So much for him being a unique and unprecedented threat.
...and I'm pointing out that a president threatening to withhold federal aid is both unique and unprecedented.

Can you support that he's not?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:58 AM   #70
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I wonder how many members here sit on their thumbs, thinking, "if anything happens, I just have to sit tight and wait for the city to take care of me."

Or maybe they think, "no problem, the national government will swoop in and take care of me."

But either way, they don't bother about having insurance, or money saved up, or bottled water on hand, or any contingency plan other than "why worry - FEMA's got this!"
Nice straw man, bro!
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 12:27 PM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Nice straw man, bro!
Sometimes it's fun to stake out the boundaries of the discussion. Now we've established that you don't expect the local or national government to take care of you during a disaster, without you being responsible to take care of yourself as well.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 12:33 PM   #72
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sometimes it's fun to stake out the boundaries of the discussion. Now we've established that you don't expect the local or national government to take care of you during a disaster, without you being responsible to take care of yourself as well.
I never implied otherwise and consider it absurd that you even thought you had to ask.

I hope you realize, however, that sometimes disasters are so overwhelming that your preparation ultimately won't count for much and you're going to need outside help in recovering.

Last edited by Cabbage; 24th April 2019 at 12:35 PM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 12:59 PM   #73
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,019
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Ask lomiller, itís his claim. He said Republicans donít just threaten to withhold funding, they actually do so.
Several Republicans voted against it. Thankfully not all. The GOP has not fully turned into Randian-based sociopaths but there are still a lot of them, enough to cause issues when aid is needed.

What's more thoughtlessly cruel is when they needed aid, their needs are somehow special:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.608863dd6939

(for the record, everything Imhofe said about the Sandy aid package was a lie).
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 01:39 PM   #74
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Nice straw man, bro!
This is ironic, given your own straw men:

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I hope you realize, however, that sometimes disasters are so overwhelming that your preparation ultimately won't count for much and you're going to need outside help in recovering.
Nobody here has argued that outside help doesn't matter. But that doesn't change the fact that for most people, most of the time, their own preparations matter more. Even when you do need outside help, it's a lot easier for outside help to help you if you've prepared yourself, and much harder for outside help to help you if you haven't. And that outside help is still dominated by locals (state, city, or even non-governmental), NOT the feds.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 01:40 PM   #75
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Why should I bother?
Why the hell are you even here then?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 01:45 PM   #76
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
No it's not. You claimed specifically:



...and I'm pointing out that a president threatening to withhold federal aid is both unique and unprecedented.

Can you support that he's not?
Why is Trump threatening to withhold aid worse than other Republicans actually withholding aid? I don't get the logic there.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 01:53 PM   #77
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why is Trump threatening to withhold aid worse than other Republicans actually withholding aid? I don't get the logic there.
I have never seen such callous behavior coming specifically from the president. Do you have an example I am missing? I hope you can see how it carries more weight when it's the president himself....and as far as I can tell it's unique and unprecedented.

And I can't honestly recall Republicans actually withholding aid, just threatening to do so. When did they actually follow through with their threats?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 01:56 PM   #78
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is ironic, given your own straw men:



Nobody here has argued that outside help doesn't matter. But that doesn't change the fact that for most people, most of the time, their own preparations matter more. Even when you do need outside help, it's a lot easier for outside help to help you if you've prepared yourself, and much harder for outside help to help you if you haven't. And that outside help is still dominated by locals (state, city, or even non-governmental), NOT the feds.
Hey, I wasn't the one that tried shifting the debate away from federal aid to local and self help. I'm just trying to keep you guys on topic.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 01:59 PM   #79
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So Trump is like every other Republican, and doesn't represent anything out of the ordinary. So much for him being a unique and unprecedented threat.
I let this one slip past the first time around, but let's revisit it and point out that you are basically defending Trump by saying hey, it's not that Trump individually sucks, Republicans just suck in general!

Hopefully one day you'll figure out how asinine that is.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 02:02 PM   #80
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I let this one slip past the first time around, but let's revisit it and point out that you are basically defending Trump by saying hey, it's not that Trump individually sucks, Republicans just suck in general!

Hopefully one day you'll figure out how asinine that is.
You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm doing here. I'm not defending Trump. I'm criticizing your hysterical chicken little doomsday bull ****.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.