And the COUP continues... EPA blocks CNN and Associated Press.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
We are, but you delight in it, which is tragic. Hopefully one day your suffering will lessen but not if you embrace it as if it were a beloved child. That is for you to decide.
Thanks, and I'll also try to remember that we'd have been worse off with Hillary.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The point is when we get to the level of GOP vs Dem policy we are talking about things that are subjective and usually with low certainty. If there was a policy that was clearly good all-around with no uncertainty, it would belong only to one party.



I'm not saying what's good or bad. I'm just noting that it is discordant with some of the logic posted in this thread.

While I obviously disagree with Dank's burn it down attitude I think you're bullshitting (maybe yourself) about the difference in policy between the parties.

For example, I can say with objective certainty that GOP tax cuts only benefit the people who actually receive them.That's not the lower 50% of tax filers who already pay negligible federal income tax and also have negligible financial wealth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
Undoing parts of Dodd Frank that crippled small local and community banks.

By all accounts this is a bi-partisan effort: even party Frank is strongly behind redefining the 50 billion qualifier for "small banks," and he has been for several years. Only issue is that GOP wants to go from 50 billion to 250 billion in assets for "small banks," which is rather quite asinine.

The takeaway here is that universally, decade after decade after decade, you are predictably going to see democrats far, far more willing to change and adjust policy, switch positions, or even flip, if the actual data in practice doesn't hold true after the theory pushed the policy into being.

The GOP never does this. NEVER. This is why they are still full speed ahead with the thoroughly discredited fantasy of "supply-side economics," which has only brought misery to an ever-growing sector of shrinking middle-class and growing poverty-line Americans.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
This is not true. There is plenty of evidence that Keynesian economic theory is correct yet the GOP clings to trickle down. Same for climate change. Same for abortion. Those are just 3 broad policy positions off the top of my head.

If you think economics is clear then that's deluded even though I'm closer to your side on policy.

Abortion? Pretty sure the stance rests on when a person believes that life begins. That is hardly an objective thing.

Certainly climate change denial is despicable.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
If you think economics is clear then that's deluded even though I'm closer to your side on policy.

Abortion? Pretty sure the stance rests on when a person believes that life begins. That is hardly an objective thing.

Certainly climate change denial is despicable.
My friend who used to post here and had a 6 degrees one a PhD in economics, would never participate in debates on that subject here, telling me that the level of understanding to have an intelligent discussion was very much lacking. :) Just saying. I do suppose, though, it's hard to find a one armed economist. My own limited sense of the situation is that economic theory very much supports unconsciously held beliefs whatever they may be. I would guess, therefore, that the less of those one has the more objective the theory. Then there are those who have an economic stake in recommending gold, if you know what I mean.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
My friend who used to post here and had a 6 degrees one a PhD in economics, would never participate in debates on that subject here, telling me that the level of understanding to have an intelligent discussion was very much lacking. :) Just saying. I do suppose, though, it's hard to find a one armed economist. My own limited sense of the situation is that economic theory very much supports unconsciously held beliefs whatever they may be. I would guess, therefore, that the less of those one has the more objective the theory. Then there are those who have an economic stake in recommending gold, if you know what I mean.

Understanding may be lacking, but the ability to hear is also required. I hope LR is well if that's who you mean.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
I don't need a degree to see that the rich are getting richer and the middle class and especially the lower class are getting fucked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
While I obviously disagree with Dank's burn it down attitude I think you're bullshitting (maybe yourself) about the difference in policy between the parties.

For example, I can say with objective certainty that GOP tax cuts only benefit the people who actually receive them.That's not the lower 50% of tax filers who already pay negligible federal income tax and also have negligible financial wealth.

I agree with that. I think that's playing politics, really, because their base has been brainwashed into thinking it is good for them.

Nonetheless, I want to be clear I'm not attempting to draw equivalence. That's absurd. Merely that there are generally well-intentioned Republicans. I think that this is critical to recognize because those people need to be connected to in order to fight Trump.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I don't need a degree to see that the rich are getting richer and the middle class and especially the lower class are getting fucked.
That's true. The question is how to effectively (note that word) address it. I'm not an economist, but I could give some people a really good kick in the nads if essential.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
If you think economics is clear then that's deluded even though I'm closer to your side on policy.

Abortion? Pretty sure the stance rests on when a person believes that life begins. That is hardly an objective thing.

Certainly climate change denial is despicable.
I'm not talking about the finer points of economics but the evidence from the 2008 recession and subsequent recovery pretty much put the final nail in the coffin for any detractors.

Since the context of this discussion is what is best for society the question of when life begins is irrelevant. Studies have conclusively shown that the dramatic drop in crime rates we've enjoyed since the 90s are strongly correlated with the legalization of abortion.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Since the context of this discussion is what is best for society the question of when life begins is irrelevant. Studies have conclusively shown that the dramatic drop in crime rates we've enjoyed since the 90s are strongly correlated with the legalization of abortion.

I think it's pretty obvious that doesn't really pan out if you are of the belief that abortion is murder. Some people believe differently than you. Some might argue that diversity is a strength...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
I think it's pretty obvious that doesn't really pan out if you are of the belief that abortion is murder. Some people believe differently than you. Some might argue that diversity is a strength...
What we believe is irrelevant. Evidence is all that matters. We can base our decisions on religion or feels when there is no evidence either way. For example, back in the 80s there wasn't a preponderance of evidence to disprove trickle-down. So fine, let's give it a shot conservatives. We think it's a bad idea but it's really just a theory at this point so let's try it in practice. Even Bush Sr. recognized it was a failure early on. There was no excuse for what Dubya and his shit admin did and double no excuse for what these fuckstains are doing again today. But they will NEVER admit liberals were right about it, or anything else.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
What we believe is irrelevant. Evidence is all that matters. We can base our decisions on religion or feels when there is no evidence either way. For example, back in the 80s there wasn't a preponderance of evidence to disprove trickle-down. So fine, let's give it a shot conservatives. We think it's a bad idea but it's really just a theory at this point so let's try it in practice. Even Bush Sr. recognized it was a failure early on. There was no excuse for what Dubya and his shit admin did and double no excuse for what these fuckstains are doing again today. But they will NEVER admit liberals were right about it, or anything else.

It baffles me why you would continue this argument. I can see I'm not going to make you use reason when it weakens your position.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
It baffles me why you would continue this argument. I can see I'm not going to make you use reason when it weakens your position.
It probably baffles you because you don't seem to understand that I understand fully what you are saying.

Believing that abortion is murder doesn't change the fact that it isn't murder. This isn't up for debate. Murder is a legal definition and abortion does not fit the legal definition. Now, people can argue that the legal definition should be changed to include abortion but now we are way off the point.

The point is that there is actual evidence that outlawing abortion is detrimental to society. If people choose to believe this is not true then they are by definition choosing not to believe in reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
From your link:
So in essence this is a bipartisan policy. The only part that you could claim was GOP policy was to make the limit $250 billion instead of $100 billion. A change that lets some banks that were already bailed out be more reckless again.

Would you like to try another policy?

The fact that this bill was introduced by the GOP, with NO Democratic sponsors, and garnered support from both sides qualifys as, as you say, "GOP policy that benefits the country.".
You asked for just one, I gave it to you.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Now, people can argue that the legal definition should be changed to include abortion but now we are way off the point.

Your approach to assessing the validity of a pro-life requires by definition that the stance be invalid. Have you ever considered challenging yourself to understand the position of another before rejecting it?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
The fact that this bill was introduced by the GOP, with NO Democratic sponsors, and garnered support from both sides qualifys as, as you say, "GOP policy that benefits the country.".
You asked for just one, I gave it to you.
I asked you for a policy. You produced a bill that encapsulates many policies. For example, helping small banks may be a beneficial policy. Raising the ceiling to $250 billion may be a bad policy. You said you supported the parts helping small banks. Democrats have also expressed support for that. That is not a GOP policy. It is a GOP bill that enacts policies that both sides agree on and one major policy that you can legitimately claim as a GOP policy: raising the cap to $250 billion.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Your approach to assessing the validity of a pro-life requires by definition that the stance be invalid. Have you ever considered challenging yourself to understand the position of another before rejecting it?
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall here. What the fuck does validity have to do with anything? I am talking only about policy that can be demonstrated to positively or negatively affect society.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall here. What the fuck does validity have to do with anything? I am talking only about policy that can be demonstrated to positively or negatively affect society.

I don't think we are going to get anywhere if you think it's me who is failing to understand something here.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I asked you for a policy. You produced a bill that encapsulates many policies. For example, helping small banks may be a beneficial policy. Raising the ceiling to $250 billion may be a bad policy. You said you supported the parts helping small banks. Democrats have also expressed support for that. That is not a GOP policy. It is a GOP bill that enacts policies that both sides agree on and one major policy that you can legitimately claim as a GOP policy: raising the cap to $250 billion.

mmmmkay...

The policy of transferring power away from federal to local.