Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 738049 times)

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #900 on: March 02, 2016, 05:24:00 PM »
Okay, if the primary driver of increased health care costs is government, then you should be able to explain why even more government (i.e., the single-payer systems in most other first-world countries) hasn't driven even higher cost increases in those places.

Trump sucks, I hate that guy. I hate him less than Bernie though. The studies aren't detailed because Sanders hasn't released specifics on his plans. Just reading his general proposals depresses me.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

Single payer is cheaper because of two major things (probably more, I'm no expert in healthcare): they pay fixed prices on drugs, forcing US to pay the majority of the development costs, AND they control the supply. The national healthcare systems control all aspects of the service. So if you're a doctor, more than likely you're a government employee. The UK's NHS is under considerable stress as the population ages, young doctors are speaking with their feet, the doctors are even striking.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35535704

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #901 on: March 02, 2016, 05:30:10 PM »
Ulysses S. Grant... Dwight Eisenhower... Washington

I did think about them, but then decided that being in charge of the federal government's army is probably just as valid for political experience as being a Senator or Governor.  It's not like those people became generals because of their marksmanship skills.  They had decades of leadership experience inside of government.

Vertical Mode

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Location: Central MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #902 on: March 02, 2016, 05:33:54 PM »
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom

Why is that?  I'm not sure the GOP can avoid a Trump nomination at this point.  Even if Cruz and Rubio were to team up on the same ticket, I think they'd lose to Trump.  The party is broken.

And Trump will get absolutely savaged in the general election.  America has never elected a President without any prior political experience.  It would be like nominating my three year old, a complete blank slate of unknown and unknowable opinions, but clearly backed by irrational temper tantrums.

Hillary will point out that she has a lifetime of political experience at the highest levels, has worked tirelessly for the same causes and ideals her entire career, and while she's accumulated some mistakes along the way she is still clearly a competent and experienced politician.  Trump is a reality tv star who has gone bankrupt four times.  He's openly racist and hateful.  I still believe in the American people enough to think that he has no chance at all.  I predict Hillary will take 400 electors.

You may be right that Trump is inevitable at this point. That aside, Jeremy may be on the mark about the relative chances just looking at Rubio and Cruz, though - the establishment in Washington HATES Ted Cruz. Almost nobody else in Washington likes the guy, so he won't have many establishment power players to pull him upward like they will for Rubio.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #903 on: March 02, 2016, 05:37:11 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #904 on: March 02, 2016, 05:39:35 PM »
Ulysses S. Grant... Dwight Eisenhower... Washington

I did think about them, but then decided that being in charge of the federal government's army is probably just as valid for political experience as being a Senator or Governor.  It's not like those people became generals because of their marksmanship skills.  They had decades of leadership experience inside of government.

Indeed.  We live in interesting times, however; so I think anything could still happen.  The Republican party establishment seems to be going out of their way to cut Trump off at the ankles, but it looks like that has been backfiring so far.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #905 on: March 02, 2016, 05:41:25 PM »
Okay, if the primary driver of increased health care costs is government, then you should be able to explain why even more government (i.e., the single-payer systems in most other first-world countries) hasn't driven even higher cost increases in those places.

Trump sucks, I hate that guy. I hate him less than Bernie though. The studies aren't detailed because Sanders hasn't released specifics on his plans. Just reading his general proposals depresses me.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

Single payer is cheaper because of two major things (probably more, I'm no expert in healthcare): they pay fixed prices on drugs, forcing US to pay the majority of the development costs, AND they control the supply. The national healthcare systems control all aspects of the service. So if you're a doctor, more than likely you're a government employee. The UK's NHS is under considerable stress as the population ages, young doctors are speaking with their feet, the doctors are even striking.

The reason health care costs are higher in the US is not because of drugs.  Pharmaceuticals account for ~10% of all health care spending in the US, compared to ~15% in for example the UK.

Most universal health care systems do not control the supply – the UK does, yes, but I would encourage you to look at Canada, the Netherlands, or Germany, which have universal health care without national control.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 05:43:50 PM by beltim »

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #906 on: March 02, 2016, 05:42:59 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

"That’s not to say Sweden still doesn’t have a long way to go in restoring its social atmosphere. Sweden is still in many ways a cultural-Marxist hellscape and its restriction on owning firearms or other tools for self defense has earned it the title of “rape capital of the west.”"

uh huh.....



I doubt this source, the libertarian republic, is biased at all.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 05:44:35 PM by zoltani »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #907 on: March 02, 2016, 05:49:07 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #908 on: March 02, 2016, 05:51:21 PM »

I doubt this source, the libertarian republic, is biased at all.

It's what I found on the topic.  I would be fine with another article with an opposite bent.  I was wondering about the accuracy of the claim that private health care plans have been on the rise for several years.  I can't verify that claim, nor dispute it. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #909 on: March 02, 2016, 05:57:14 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

Yes, it is.  But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense.  These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #910 on: March 02, 2016, 05:58:35 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

Yes, it is.  But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense.  These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.

What do people think of this piece from Bloomberg View?  http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #911 on: March 02, 2016, 05:58:59 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

To put that 10% in context. And other crazy things.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #912 on: March 02, 2016, 06:07:37 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

Yes, it is.  But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense.  These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.

I think it is much more likely that those people do not think that it is of poor quality (and seriously, if that's how you interpret it, shouldn't you be marveling that 90% thinks that it is of great quality?) but rather that they have some special case that makes them want some supplemental insurance.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #913 on: March 02, 2016, 06:23:18 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

To put that 10% in context. And other crazy things.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/

Speaking of crazy things, check out this open letter to Trump from a fan.  Every candidate has some truly devoted fans, but few that are as articulate as this one...

Quote
To: President Trump

From: Just a simple man

I’ve been following your campaign since your announcement, reading millions of words written about you, watching thousands of hours of video and speeches, listening to many talk radio show segments, and engaging in dozens of debates with people around me.

No candidate has ever captured my attention the way you have.

Now that it’s clear you will be the Republican nominee, I want to share with you something so personal, painful, and uplifting, that I almost don’t want to write it, but I will anyway…trolls be damned:

My whole life, up until yesterday, has been based on reaction to fear.

Growing up as a black man in Washington D.C. during the “crack 80’s”, when Marion Barry was mayor, I lived a lower middle class childhood in one of the most dangerous cities in America. Though I had many friends, I was also subject to the threats, intimidation, and bullying that happens when you’re not like the people around you.

There was no father in my life to steel me against the world I lived in. My mother was strong, but it’s not exactly the kind of strength I needed. I was a boy, and needed a Man.

Without strong male guidance, I learned to fear…but not how to face fear and win. Even joining the military and going to war didn’t overcome my weakness, and all my future decisions considered strongly the level of fear I had at the time.

As a result, my life has been full of conflict, as I have unintentionally signaled to adversaries that I am an easier opponent to beat than others. I have won victories, but never truly enjoyed them knowing the battle is never won for me…only endured. I have also suffered crushing defeats, and important people in my life lost confidence in me as a result. I have not reached my potential, and settled instead into apathy and stasis, content to only being “smart enough” or “good enough”…not great. Not strong. Not resolute…

Not a leader. Not a winner.

My life, in many important ways, mirrors the American experience. Potential to be great, but paralyzed by fear. Full of conflict. Enduring, not winning. No leadership. No strong Male inspiration. And occasional, crushing defeats that hit to the core of our country…most notably 9/11, but also with the erosion of our middle class and uniquely American culture.

Like you say so often: we don’t WIN anymore.

Watching your campaign, and being as invested in it as I am, has been an exercise in recognizing, and confronting, fear that I never expected. Every time your opponents hit you…I feel fear for your candidacy and our country. Every charge of racist, sexist, facist, etc. causes me to worry that no one, not even you, can really change the country for the better. That we’re doomed to failure…

Then…inevitably…you win the battle. You don’t “survive”, or “endure”…you attack, and put fear into your opponents. You don’t stop until they are buried under your feet. Until they become paralyzed…

Sometimes, you even bait them into hitting you, just so you can beat the crap out of them again. Your life is full of conflict, but it becomes yet another opportunity to WIN, and makes you MORE powerful…not less.

Then, once they are eliminated as a threat, you are generous to the vanquished. It’s not personal, and they are not evil. They were, simply…in the way. Once they are not, they become worthy of kindness and respect.

Furthermore, you’re not just a blunt instrument…your strategy is impeccable. You go into every conflict knowing exactly what your opponents weaknesses are, how to exploit them, and what levers to pull to ensure victory. Clearly, you spend good time before announcing your candidacy doing the things the military taught me as a young soldier: surveying, recon, intelligence-gathering, ammunition, discipline, execution…

You are defending America from our enemies within, and it’s an AMAZING thing to watch.

Last night, you also did something else. You became the Man that helped me see fear for what it is: an illusion of power, a powerful teacher, and the path to winning if used properly. There is no reason, regardless of the enormity of the task, to lose to fear if you prepare well, are disciplined in your execution, and have the faith necessary, in God, yourself, and in others…that leads to victory.

Winning is always possible, but becomes probable if you never back down, never quit, and become your dominant self. Once the battle is won, treat the vanquished with kindness and respect. Be the bigger man.

You taught me how to Win.

I appreciate what you’ve done for me personally, and what you’re doing for our country. I know I’m not the only man who admires you, and can’t wait for you to become the father, and leader, of our country. It’s been a long, cold winter for men in America the last 8 years, and I believe that your election will dramatically improve the level of respect, admiration, and love people will show for strong men and Fathers, and will create a new generation of leaders from impressionable young boys.

That, more than anything, will Make America Great Again.

-Troy

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140353736681/a-letter-to-donald-trump-from-a-voter-not-me

Once again, Americans love a winner.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #914 on: March 02, 2016, 07:01:07 PM »
...banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.
That's a fair statement regarding Trump, so we agree on that.  Go back 8 years and it seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of Obama also....
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps you can disagree with the policies he proposed, but he certainly seemed to have a good grasp of what he was proposing.

I didn't think you would. :)

But Obama has modified his public position on major items, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/10/did-obama-warn-about-obamacare/

Obama has in the past, and Trump has recently, said things to promote his own election chances.  One could say that Obama appealed to our better instincts, and Trump is appealing to our baser instincts, and that is defensible.  One could also say, with good supporting reasons, that both Obama and Trump have worked to appeal to a majority of voters by running against "the elites," although each has made different insinuations about who "the elites" comprise.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 07:02:57 PM by MDM »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #915 on: March 02, 2016, 07:08:06 PM »

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out.  Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.

Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.

Yes, it is.  But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense.  These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.

I think it is much more likely that those people do not think that it is of poor quality (and seriously, if that's how you interpret it, shouldn't you be marveling that 90% thinks that it is of great quality?) but rather that they have some special case that makes them want some supplemental insurance.

I suppose that is a valid perspective.  BTW, accepting health care that costs the person net-zero has a value is not the same as quality.  I said nothing about quality; I only said value, as in the program is worth what they pay.  10% are saying that it's not worth what they pay, whether or not the plans are supplemental in nature or not.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #916 on: March 02, 2016, 07:12:37 PM »
I suppose that is a valid perspective.  BTW, accepting health care that costs the person net-zero has a value is not the same as quality.  I said nothing about quality; I only said value, as in the program is worth what they pay.  10% are saying that it's not worth what they pay, whether or not the plans are supplemental in nature or not.

Er, no.  10% of Norwegians use supplemental health care in addition to the public health care system.  That does not mean that 10% of people think the public health care system is worthless.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #917 on: March 02, 2016, 07:18:09 PM »
What do people think of this piece from Bloomberg View?  http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

That's probably the best challenge I've ever seen to a single-payer system.  Of course, I may think that because I've been thinking much of it for several years, and people tend to more highly rate arguments they agree with.  Single payer health care is not a panacea; it will not reduce costs overnight or even over a few years. 

And single payer health care is only one of several options for universal health care.  The ACA actually moves us closer to the European systems I admire most, namely the Netherlands and Switzerland.  Both depend on individuals purchasing insurance from private companies.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #918 on: March 02, 2016, 07:33:12 PM »
Okay, if the primary driver of increased health care costs is government, then you should be able to explain why even more government (i.e., the single-payer systems in most other first-world countries) hasn't driven even higher cost increases in those places.

Trump sucks, I hate that guy. I hate him less than Bernie though. The studies aren't detailed because Sanders hasn't released specifics on his plans. Just reading his general proposals depresses me.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

Single payer is cheaper because of two major things (probably more, I'm no expert in healthcare): they pay fixed prices on drugs, forcing US to pay the majority of the development costs, AND they control the supply. The national healthcare systems control all aspects of the service. So if you're a doctor, more than likely you're a government employee. The UK's NHS is under considerable stress as the population ages, young doctors are speaking with their feet, the doctors are even striking.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35535704

Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research.  No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 07:35:52 PM by Gin1984 »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #919 on: March 02, 2016, 07:37:15 PM »
...banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.
That's a fair statement regarding Trump, so we agree on that.  Go back 8 years and it seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of Obama also....
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps you can disagree with the policies he proposed, but he certainly seemed to have a good grasp of what he was proposing.

I didn't think you would. :)

But Obama has modified his public position on major items, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/10/did-obama-warn-about-obamacare/

Obama has in the past, and Trump has recently, said things to promote his own election chances.  One could say that Obama appealed to our better instincts, and Trump is appealing to our baser instincts, and that is defensible.  One could also say, with good supporting reasons, that both Obama and Trump have worked to appeal to a majority of voters by running against "the elites," although each has made different insinuations about who "the elites" comprise.

Yes, both candidates (all candidates) say things to promote their own election chances. But that's not what I was talking about: I was talking about each candidate's ability to actually develop a coherent policy that might arguably be based in some reasonably intelligent person's reality (regardless of political bent).

Perhaps Trump and Obama seem equal to you on that score. I honestly disagree. But Insuppose that my perspective might be based on the fact that Trump objectively speaks English to his voting base at a fourth-grade level, which, I think, might be somewhat indicative of his ability to articulate or even think througha coherent domestic or foreign policy. So yeah, I think there is a difference.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/10/donald_trump_talks_at_a_fourth_grade_level_maybe_thats_why_the_fox_news_audience_loves_him/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/20/donald-trump-and-ben-carson-speak-grade-school-level-that-today-voters-can-quickly-grasp/LUCBY6uwQAxiLvvXbVTSUN/story.html


Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #920 on: March 02, 2016, 07:48:04 PM »
The non partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's plan will add $9.5 trillion to the deficit over a 10 year period. Plus another $15 trillion in the second decade. Trump has left major details out so the TPC is using assumptions most favorable to deficit reduction and came up with those numbers.

Trump's budget numbers do not include the cost of invading Iraq to seize their oil for US coffers which is something he overtly said he would do. It also doesn't cover the cost of fighting the Kurds when Turkey invokes Article 5 of the NATO charter due to a policy Trump said he would impose.


http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000560

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-take-iraqs-oil-wealth-and-give-it-wounded-warriors

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trump-foreign-policy-middle-east-oil

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/01/donald-trump-take-oil-isis/



Cruz would add $8.6 trillion in the first decade and another $12 trillion in the second. There are major assumptions being made - assumptions most favorable to Cruz's plan. Cruz has openly said he would eliminate the IRS as his first act. People under his plan would write what they earned on a post card and mail it in with a check.

This means no W2s get reported. No audits are done to verify income stated on those postcards. No capital gains information gets reported. A person who earns $1 million a year can say they lost money and under Cruz's plan, they would get a check. Highly profitable multi billion dollar corporations could says they lost money and they would receive a refund. And they would all get it no questions asked under Cruz's plan.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000612

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #921 on: March 02, 2016, 08:21:42 PM »

I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research.  No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.

Sorry, I am calling BS on this.

The majority of the development costs are in the phase I to phase III clinical trials.   Very few if any of these trials are funded from grants or taxpayer money.   Most of these expensive trials end in failure, leaving investors (the people actually paying for them) with worthless stock.

The initial chemical compound might come out of some university environment but it is worthless without the extensive, expensive trials our government requires a drug to go through before it can be sold.

Perhaps if we want cheap drugs we should cut out these trials and severely limit the lawsuits for bad drugs.   If we cap the price on drugs, no investor worth his salt is going to pour money in the black hole that is biotech, where 19 out of 20 drugs fail.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #922 on: March 02, 2016, 08:22:50 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions. Honestly, the more outrageous they get, the more they draw in the nutjobs hoping for the pie-in-the-sky dream that beyond all expectations they might work. Idealism is just that, it's not reflective of our reality.

I honestly love the idea of eliminating withholding income. By forcing people to write a check at the end of the year, it'll engage the average person on a much more personal level to ensure that the government spends our money more efficiently.

Maybe my libertarian dream will come true and people will realize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide healthcare, social security, education, and other services. More pie-in-the-sky dreaming?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #923 on: March 02, 2016, 08:38:57 PM »

I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research.  No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.

Sorry, I am calling BS on this.

The majority of the development costs are in the phase I to phase III clinical trials.   Very few if any of these trials are funded from grants or taxpayer money.   Most of these expensive trials end in failure, leaving investors (the people actually paying for them) with worthless stock.

The initial chemical compound might come out of some university environment but it is worthless without the extensive, expensive trials our government requires a drug to go through before it can be sold.

Perhaps if we want cheap drugs we should cut out these trials and severely limit the lawsuits for bad drugs.   If we cap the price on drugs, no investor worth his salt is going to pour money in the black hole that is biotech, where 19 out of 20 drugs fail.
To get to a clinical trial, one needs pre-clinical data aka animal studies, most often done at the university level.  Then you have the clinical trials.  And given that I work with multiple investigators who are working in both pre-clinical and clinical trials at the university funded in part by grants by the federal government, so you can call BS all you want, it is true.  If you want to say it is not, show me a citation.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #924 on: March 02, 2016, 08:45:14 PM »
To get to a clinical trial, one needs pre-clinical data aka animal studies, most often done at the university level.  Then you have the clinical trials.  And given that I work with multiple investigators who are working in both pre-clinical and clinical trials at the university funded in part by grants by the federal government, so you can call BS all you want, it is true.  If you want to say it is not, show me a citation.

The animal studies are important, but really have so little value in the grand scheme of things.   I have followed quite a few biotech companies that have each spent $1B to $2B walking chemical compounds from the post animal trial stage up to getting denied approval by the FDA because the study group did not meet endpoints.  Most of these companies are gone now or trade for $0.05 on the OTC market (pink sheets).

If you are saying the animal trials also cost $1B per compound, then I think we know where the healthcare money is going.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #925 on: March 02, 2016, 08:48:25 PM »
edit:  And I am not sure the stuff I am quoting below is accounting for survivorship bias.   If a drug fails, the $2.6B cost must be tacked on to the next drug when figuring out an overall ability to actually make a profit.

Here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/

"A new report published by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) pegs the cost of developing a prescription drug that gains market approval at $2.6 billion, a 145% increase, correcting for inflation, over the estimate the center made in 2003.

CSDD’s finding, a bellwether figure in the drug industry, is based on an average out-of-pocket cost of $1.4 billion and an estimate of $1.2 billion in returns that investors forego on that money during the 10-plus years a drug candidate spends in development. The center’s analysis drew from information provided by 10 pharmaceutical companies on 106 randomly selected drugs first tested in humans between 1995 and 2007.

The study concludes that another $312 million is spent on postapproval development—studies to test new indications, formulations, and dosage strengths—for a life-cycle cost of $2.9 billion."
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 08:50:40 PM by Roland of Gilead »

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #926 on: March 02, 2016, 08:59:24 PM »
Yes, both candidates (all candidates) say things to promote their own election chances. But that's not what I was talking about: I was talking about each candidate's ability to actually develop a coherent policy that might arguably be based in some reasonably intelligent person's reality (regardless of political bent).

Perhaps Trump and Obama seem equal to you on that score. I honestly disagree. ... So yeah, I think there is a difference.
That's fair, and I'll grant a very important difference: we look at Obama's policies based on what has actually happened, while Trump is still in campaign fantasy land and we look at his "policy proposals*" through the lens of what we fear or hope he would do in reality.

*I had policy proposals in quotes because I didn't think he had made any serious proposals.  Scott Adams' take on that (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/137089875456/the-oddest-thing-about-trump) seems reasonable.  But now he has at least offered something more specific: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/donald-trump-health-care-plan/.  Haven't studied it.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #927 on: March 02, 2016, 09:23:20 PM »

I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research.  No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.

Sorry, I am calling BS on this.

The majority of the development costs are in the phase I to phase III clinical trials.   Very few if any of these trials are funded from grants or taxpayer money.   Most of these expensive trials end in failure, leaving investors (the people actually paying for them) with worthless stock.

The initial chemical compound might come out of some university environment but it is worthless without the extensive, expensive trials our government requires a drug to go through before it can be sold.

Perhaps if we want cheap drugs we should cut out these trials and severely limit the lawsuits for bad drugs.   If we cap the price on drugs, no investor worth his salt is going to pour money in the black hole that is biotech, where 19 out of 20 drugs fail.
To get to a clinical trial, one needs pre-clinical data aka animal studies, most often done at the university level.  Then you have the clinical trials.  And given that I work with multiple investigators who are working in both pre-clinical and clinical trials at the university funded in part by grants by the federal government, so you can call BS all you want, it is true.  If you want to say it is not, show me a citation.

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development estimates 31% of the cost of developing a drug occurs before human trials. (http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_RD_cost_study_-_Nov_18,_2014..pdf)

This can be estimated back-of-the-envelope style by comparing the NIH budget ($32 billion) to total US. pharmaceutical company R&D spending of $52 billion.

32/ (32 + 52) = 38%, not too bad for back of the envelope.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #928 on: March 02, 2016, 09:24:50 PM »
edit:  And I am not sure the stuff I am quoting below is accounting for survivorship bias.   If a drug fails, the $2.6B cost must be tacked on to the next drug when figuring out an overall ability to actually make a profit.

These analyses do take into account failed drugs, which account for about 90% of drugs that enter Phase 1 trials.  The actual cost to take a single drug through every phase of the approval process is about one-tenth of that headline number.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #929 on: March 02, 2016, 09:28:39 PM »
I cannot take any Trump supporter seriously who has not watched this video in its entirety and responded to thr pounts it raises.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #930 on: March 02, 2016, 09:41:39 PM »
I cannot take any Trump supporter seriously who has not watched this video in its entirety and responded to thr pounts it raises.

In the MMM poll of who we'd vote for, we had 13 people (5.7%) say they would vote for Trump.  Who and where are they???
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/poll-who-would-be-president-if-mustachians-were-the-only-voters/

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #931 on: March 02, 2016, 10:16:46 PM »
edit:  And I am not sure the stuff I am quoting below is accounting for survivorship bias.   If a drug fails, the $2.6B cost must be tacked on to the next drug when figuring out an overall ability to actually make a profit.

These analyses do take into account failed drugs, which account for about 90% of drugs that enter Phase 1 trials.  The actual cost to take a single drug through every phase of the approval process is about one-tenth of that headline number.

Yes, I did reread it and saw that they are taking that into account.   Still, there is a good reason that the best way to invest in small biotech is to short the stock.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #932 on: March 03, 2016, 07:21:24 AM »
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

In Canada, dental and eye care are not public.  I use private health care for both, not because private is the best option . . . but because it's the only option.  It's quite a bad assumption to believe that this is indicative of personal preference for private health care.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #933 on: March 03, 2016, 07:44:42 AM »
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.

In Canada, dental and eye care are not public.  I use private health care for both, not because private is the best option . . . but because it's the only option.  It's quite a bad assumption to believe that this is indicative of personal preference for private health care.
... and just because I constantly feel like I need to explain how things work north of the US border...

One often overlooked fact of the Canadian healthcare system is that each province is in charge of funding and distributing their own health care. This means the level of health care is different across provinces.  It is not the 'unified, single-payer national healthcare system" that most people from the US envision. 





Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #934 on: March 03, 2016, 07:52:28 AM »
[Canada does not have] the 'unified, single-payer national healthcare system" that most people from the US envision.

Indeed. In fact, as I've previously explained, it would likely be unconstitutional for the Parliament of Canada to attempt to establish a national healthcare system. My post that I just linked to contains citation to authority for the proposition that Parliament cannot establish national insurance-style social programs unless specifically authorised by the Constitution. Also explained in that post is that the only reason that the federal government can run the Canada Pension Plan (and related benefits) and unemployment insurance is that those particular benefits are specifically authorised by very explicit constitutional provsions.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #935 on: March 03, 2016, 08:46:26 AM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #936 on: March 03, 2016, 10:45:00 AM »
I honestly love the idea of eliminating withholding income. By forcing people to write a check at the end of the year, it'll engage the average person on a much more personal level to ensure that the government spends our money more efficiently.

We're going to have to build a lot more white-collar prisons. I'd be shocked if more than 15% of Americans were able to do that.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #937 on: March 03, 2016, 11:06:24 AM »

I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

Politico's analysis puts Trump's victory speech at a 3rd grade level (not 4th).  Sander's was at a 10th grade level.
Just sayin'.
http://www.vocativ.com/news/282749/donald-trump-reading-level-new-hampshire/


Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #938 on: March 03, 2016, 11:55:24 AM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.

Bernie's a fringe candidate, his whole campaign revolves around manipulating your fears and weaknesses. Worse, he's a US Senator that actively works on undermining the Constitution with his proposals when the Constitution grants no authority to the federal government in those areas, in fact it explicitly gives those rights to the states and to the people via the 9th and 10th Amendment. Bernie is probably the foremost candidate that's promising to whore out the government for votes.

James Madison, one of the Founders concerned about politicians selling votes said "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Meaning, if the voter has the option to give himself stuff with votes, his desire for those benefits will corrupt the political process.

So yeah, Trump is a fool, a liar, and a sociopath. Bernie is a fool, a socialist, and a manipulator every bit as bad as Trump.

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #939 on: March 03, 2016, 11:58:43 AM »
So yeah, Trump is a fool, a liar, and a sociopath. Bernie is a fool, a socialist, and a manipulator every bit as bad as Trump.

lolololol

yaeger has officially jumped the shark.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #940 on: March 03, 2016, 12:00:40 PM »

Bernie's a fringe candidate, his whole campaign revolves around manipulating your fears and weaknesses.

Trump plays on fears (mostly of foreigners--Muslims and Mexicans). I would say Bernie plays more on anger (at Wall Street).

Bernie has some great policy ideas though.

He's the only mainstream candidate I'd vote for. Alas, looks like I'm voting third-party again.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #941 on: March 03, 2016, 12:04:46 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...



Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #942 on: March 03, 2016, 12:09:04 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #943 on: March 03, 2016, 12:12:10 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #944 on: March 03, 2016, 12:13:35 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

If Trump decides to personally join this discussion I think he should be held accountable to the same forum rules as everyone else.

Now THAT I'd like to see.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #945 on: March 03, 2016, 12:20:41 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.

This.

Plus, notice the title of this thread.  That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate.  That is what this thread is for.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #946 on: March 03, 2016, 12:27:08 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.

This.

Plus, notice the title of this thread.  That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate.  That is what this thread is for.

Please, Kris. Though, you guys are right. I apologize to Trump and Sanders supporters in this thread for my offensive generalization.

That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details.  That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting.  So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.  Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 12:36:26 PM by Yaeger »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #947 on: March 03, 2016, 12:32:44 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.

This.

Plus, notice the title of this thread.  That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate.  That is what this thread is for.

Please Kris.

Quote
That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details.  That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting.  So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.  Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
Yaeger - You can't spot the difference here?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #948 on: March 03, 2016, 12:33:45 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level.

I think you need some of this


Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #949 on: March 03, 2016, 12:50:52 PM »
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.

"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.

Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules and common decency...

A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?

Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.

This.

Plus, notice the title of this thread.  That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate.  That is what this thread is for.

Please, Kris. Though, you guys are right. I apologize to Trump and Sanders supporters in this thread for my offensive generalization.

That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details.  That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting.  So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.  Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.

I think everything I said above is a legitimate criticism of the candidate.  I do not think that I have engaged in any ad hominem attack of anyone who would vote for him.  I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him.  I legitimately can't.  It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.