Can a conservative explain to me why i should be paying for Texas' disaster relief when ...

[[DHT]Osiris]

Nope, part of it is that i've been working at a shelter for the last couple of days, our son is working a boat with a neighbor and our grandkids are out of school bouncing between our house and their parents house.. I'm kinda busy.

So you've got plenty of time for astroturfing, just not enough time to defend your talking points?

 

[fskimospy]

You're right about the Heritage Foundation staffers and the biased journalists from the Times and the Post. The difference is that the HF staffers are honest about their biases.

Yes, so honest that her biggest dollar amount of 'bad stuff' was a lie so transparent it could be debunked in minutes.

Which bothers you more?

1) that conservative media has so little respect for you that they feel like they can lie with impunity and you'll eat it up or,
2) that they're right.

 

[pmv]

Here you go Jhhnn you can donate to the SEIU fund to rip off people in need in Houston and use the money for union organizing. Sounds like it's right up your alley.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/big-labor-exploits-harvey/

Read the article - seems they are collecting voluntary donations from people who support their stated objectives - to ensure workers rights are protected during the rebuilding. 404 rip-off not found. If you don't support that, don't donate.

Also I only clicked 'cos I misread the link title as freebacon

Edit - needless to say it turns out there really is a freebacon.com, but it fails to live up to it's name just as much as does freebeacon.com

 

[agent00f]

My response from the other thread:


We shouldn't lower ourselves to Ted Cruz's pathetic, hypocritical standards. Americans need help, even they are Ted Cruz voters.


That being said, I think there are consequences and concessions that Ds can force.

Basically further frustrate the Trump agenda. Wall money in 2018 is gone. Can't spend a dollar on a useless wall while people sit homeless.

Tax cuts gets slowed way down, and likely scaled way back. None of those idiotic department cuts Trump proposed. Climate change won't be going away.


Lots of favors to be called in if anything is going to be done on infrastructure.

Lastly, it's going to be hard to terrorize the Mexican immigrant community when so many construction workers are going to be needed for a long time.

Naw dude, the worst people out there in particular deserve the best. The worst people out there who would never lift a finger for anyone else said so, and therefore we must all comply.

No wonder democrats lose in politics. Seriously, just watch them desperately help defend every clever conservative position:

You want me to back up a claim of future events? Jesus Christ, stop being so stubborn and just admit you said something dumb.

Are you arguing that states can raise billions through bond sales as quickly as the feds can? If so, that's dumb and you know it. If not, my point stands. Are you arguing that mass bond issuance that will likely equal approximately 50% of Texas's entire budget wouldn't lead to decreased services or other malign effects that would lead to excess mortality? If so, why bother funding government at all? If not, my point stands. Also, I'm still waiting for you to identify this mysterious straw man, haha.

Finally yes, you are being stubborn and you have your back up because you don't want to admit being wrong. Texas shouldering this burden alone will cause excess mortality and that should be obvious. It's weird that you ever got the idea in your head that it wouldn't.

He's just playing the jerk. Houston is a major trans-shipment point for container freight of every sort, a major hub for both the BNSF & the UP not to mention trucking.

 

[agent00f]

My link specifies 1/2, your link uses the 2/3 number. And yes, I no longer consider the Wasteington Post a reliable source. Thanks for not bothering to link the Times or CNN.

Let's be honest here, even if he does find those provisions it's going to be him parroting a right wing blog from somewhere. It's almost certain to be filled with mistakes and/or lies but do you really think he will change his mind even if confronted by undeniable proof? I mean... really?

He rejects the New York Times and Washington Post categorically but uncritically accepts blog posts from Heritage Foundation staffers. These are not the actions of someone who is interested in anything more than hearing what he wants to hear. He's not rational enough to get through to.

Post-truth, Baby! Facts don't matter unless they're alternative facts from the well paid bloviators of right wing billionaires.

Frankly this is all just friendly fire at this point. The conservatives and dumbest layer of democrats all agree that we must extend basically unlimited funds with no strings to any red area in trouble.

 

[ivwshane]

If you're only talking about rebuilding aid instead of disaster relief we can leave that part off. I mean of course not rebuilding is going to cause deaths but it's not necessary to go that way.

So now you've gone from, "of course it will cause deaths", to "its not necessary to go that way".

Think about what you're saying for a second. You are arguing that state spending has literally no effect on human health. Seems like they are wasting an awful lot of money then, huh? I mean if cutting state spending, which would nearly certainly mean cutting health spending, has no effect on human health/mortality, why bother?

Nope, that's what you want me to be arguing. No one said anything about cutting state spending but if that is what is needed you've made assumptions to support your conclusion. Hyperbole surely is a good sign of a solid argument. /s

As an easy example, states spend quite a bit on public health. If you cut that, you are increasing deaths. Here's a study on the Medicaid expansion and while this is federal and not state, health spending is health spending.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099

Now armed with this information are you willing to admit you were wrong? Enough with the stubborn refusal to back down. My guess is that you will try to claim that federal spending is somehow different than state spending and provide no plausible reason as to why.

So your proof of a state not receiving additional federal aid for a disaster causing deaths is to show how a federal healthcare program not expanding has lead to deaths? You are making quite the jump to conclusions. Your posts could have been a lot shorter had you responded by saying, "ta da! Magic!", you've stated A and then said because of Y, therefore Z.

You have most definitely not shown me where my supposed straw man was. If you think you have, show it again.

Feel free to re read my post where I responded to your so called answer, I quoted the exact part.

Regardless, predictably people's evaluation of my character and quality of argument directly relate to whether or not I agree with them. There's no need to better understand the context of your posts, you stated word for word the thing you claimed never to have said. I even quoted it to you. The fact that you can't admit to being wrong there even when the evidence is right in front of your face does not leave me hopeful that you will be willing to admit you were wrong above.

You quoted it and took it out of context as I explained to you already, you also conveniently dismissed it just a few paragraphs below.
But you are right, criticism of you is really just a reflection of the person you are talking with, right? You've insulated yourself quite nicely, congrats.

I'm not out of character, you're just not used to being on the other side of what I write. I have no patience for stupidity regardless of the ideology of the person it's coming from.

I've counted about four uses of logical fallacies from you, if that's not out of character for you then I guess I need to pay better attention to your arguments.


These are self serving manipulations of what you have been trying to argue and aren't worth responding to.

That's awfully convenient of you.

And now hopefully we've dispensed with that nonsense. (hope springs eternal)

Assuming you continue your refusal to admit being wrong, if you believe government spending has no relationship to human health can you provide any evidence to back this up as I have for the opposite?

This would be another straw man and now you are asking me to prove a negative. Let me help you out to show where your logic breaks down:

Your argument
Some government spending cuts/lack of spending leads to citizens dying unnecessarily. = true statement

Therefore all cuts to government spending lead to citizens dying. = not a true statement

No, in response to this:



You said this:



You directly argued against a post that said we should help but point out their hypocrisy and touted the (false) claim that it wouldn't cost any lives and then the rest of America wouldn't have to pay anything. There was no caveat that this only applied from a political perspective and that you overall disagreed with that approach, you simply said it wasn't a smart choice. If you want to change your mind about that it's fine, but don't try and pretend you never said it. Just so you know, when you write things on here other people can read them.

So seriously, enough with this nonsense.

You can see my responses in bold.

Here's my original post, to you btw, because context does indeed matter.

So when they act shitty and it affects people lives and people die as a result of their policies, we should be doing what exactly? The way I see it is that there aren't any consequences for their actions. They can continue voting for shitty politicians, who then vote for shitty policies that affect other people because they know that when it comes to protecting themselves or supporting policies that benefit them that the dems will happily vote along with them. So what's the mechanism to stop this?

You'll note I'm specifically talking about voting and support of shitty policies and I asked you how do we stop such a thing (you didn't respond).

Here is my second post, again its arguing with another poster about the politics of the situation.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ster-relief-when.2517194/page-6#post-39055329

We then have this quote which was responding to another poster about those that would die would be liberals (who don't vote).
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ster-relief-when.2517194/page-8#post-39056282

Which the poster rightly pointed out that it's not liberals who would watch others die its the right that would.

Which is why my response was one about politics and not one about morals and economics as you and jhnnn would like to make it out to be.

The reason I summarized for you is because my posts were few and far between and I don't expect anyone to follow them to understand their context. Of course when I explain the context of my posts I wouldn't expect you of all people to dismiss it but here we are.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So you've got plenty of time for astroturfing, just not enough time to defend your talking points?

Bullshit, why bother to now debate the fact that + or - 50% of the so called "Sandy Disaster Relief Bill" actually went to Sandy disaster relief? We all know that a large portion of it didn't and was never intended to be "Sandy Disaster Relief" it was just the political machinations to get money to supporters or cronies. Just make sure the same ole, same ole political swamp crap doesn't happen in upcoming "Harvey Disaster relief Bill"

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Bullshit, why bother to now debate the fact that + or - 50% of the so called "Sandy Disaster Relief Bill" actually went to Sandy disaster relief? We all know that a large portion of it didn't and was never intended to be "Sandy Disaster Relief" it was just the political machinations to get money to supporters or cronies. Just make sure the same ole, same ole political swamp crap doesn't happen in upcoming "Harvey Disaster relief Bill"

You mean this one?
https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ2/PLAW-113publ2.pdf
The one titled 'Disaster Relief Appropriations', who's very first line states 'Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.', the one intended for not only Hurricane Sandy relief, but also for other disaster-level events which took place in 2013? You are upset that this bill has a portion of which goes to purposes other than a single event? All other events are 'the political machinations to get money for supporters or cronies'? I'm sure those who submitted disaster claims in FY2013 would take issue with this statement.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Only Democrat swamp dwellers think that when only 50% or so of the funds spent actually go to disaster relief that it's a victory.

 

[Jhhnn]

You mean this one?
https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ2/PLAW-113publ2.pdf
The one titled 'Disaster Relief Appropriations', who's very first line states 'Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.', the one intended for not only Hurricane Sandy relief, but also for other disaster-level events which took place in 2013? You are upset that this bill has a portion of which goes to purposes other than a single event? All other events are 'the political machinations to get money for supporters or cronies'? I'm sure those who submitted disaster claims in FY2013 would take issue with this statement.

He's just marching to the tribal drumbeats.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Only Democrat swamp dwellers think that when only 50% or so of the funds spent actually go to disaster relief that it's a victory.

And only a dishonest water-carrier would describe going above and beyond the minimum relief effort to be political machinations of 'political swamp crap'.

You still haven't stated which financial provisions you take issue with. Care to discuss?

 

[Jhhnn]

Only Democrat swamp dwellers think that when only 50% or so of the funds spent actually go to disaster relief that it's a victory.

And only right wingers would make such a claim w/o supporting linkage.

 

[Geekbabe]

Those people in Texas aren't objects, they are real humans who are suffering mightily right now. We, as a country need to help them, politics be damned.

 

[ivwshane]

Those people in Texas aren't objects, they are real humans who are suffering mightily right now. We, as a country need to help them, politics be damned.

And politics will be damned but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the political implications of such issues, does it?

I would think that someone with your life experiences would very much care about the politics as I'm sure you and pretty much everyone else here would rather not have another person suffer like you have. So my question to you is how? How do we change the politics of this? For years dems have been doing what's right and during that time dems have lost power not gained it. We are moving backwards not forwards and in my opinion it's partly because the right is free from the consequences of their actions because the left always takes care of them. Do you think that setup is optimal for the greatest country on earth? Do you think it's time to change up the game plan? How many defeats do you need to suffer before you say enough is enough? How many times does your health care have to be in jeopardy before you decide to play by their rules?

 

[rvborgh]

Meanwhile we are almost 20 trillion in debt.

The national debt replaced gold as the backing for our money... so effectively that 20 trillion of public debt is the collateral for all the private money in the country... and its by design.

 

[Geekbabe]

And politics will be damned but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the political implications of such issues, does it?

I would think that someone with your life experiences would very much care about the politics as I'm sure you and pretty much everyone else here would rather not have another person suffer like you have. So my question to you is how? How do we change the politics of this? For years dems have been doing what's right and during that time dems have lost power not gained it. We are moving backwards not forwards and in my opinion it's partly because the right is free from the consequences of their actions because the left always takes care of them. Do you think that setup is optimal for the greatest country on earth? Do you think it's time to change up the game plan? How many defeats do you need to suffer before you say enough is enough? How many times does your health care have to be in jeopardy before you decide to play by their rules?

I am not sure how we change things, seriously. We need to talk about these things but dangling help above the people while taunting them about their political affiliations? I'm thinking that might win us more haters.

Calling out people like Cruz? Totally fine, withholding emergency help to those people carrying dogs & cats to safety in waist deep water? I'm not so fine with that.

Educating people about the facts in upcoming elections would be totally fine! Showing the differences in how each politician voted? also fine. Showing the amount of help that came from Blue states acting on their own, also fine. Heck even Mexico, has been helping & even offered the USA money!

 

[ivwshane]

I am not sure how we change things, seriously. We need to talk about these things but dangling help above the people while taunting them about their political affiliations? I'm thinking that might win us more haters.

Calling out people like Cruz? Totally fine, withholding emergency help to those people carrying dogs & cats to safety in waist deep water? I'm not so fine with that.

Just a point of fact, we (as in everyone who isn't a Republican) aren't dangling anything, the decision to grant aid to Texas is completely in the hands of Republicans. All the talk about not helping Texas is just bluster, that's surely to be used against anyone when the tables are turned. The far more important issue is how to stop the insanity that is the Republican party and its core base of supporters.

When will you be ready to talk about these things? Life is full of hard decisions and human suffering that eventually lead to better lives, are we at that point yet? I don't know but I have a feeling that the longer we wait the greater the human suffering the will be.

 

[Brainonska511]

Bullshit, why bother to now debate the fact that + or - 50% of the so called "Sandy Disaster Relief Bill" actually went to Sandy disaster relief? We all know that a large portion of it didn't and was never intended to be "Sandy Disaster Relief" it was just the political machinations to get money to supporters or cronies. Just make sure the same ole, same ole political swamp crap doesn't happen in upcoming "Harvey Disaster relief Bill"

Yes.... so much pork
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hing-to-do-with-sandy/?utm_term=.98bee57c5260

Looks like you've been duped.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Just a point of fact, we (as in everyone who isn't a Republican) aren't dangling anything, the decision to grant aid to Texas is completely in the hands of Republicans. All the talk about not helping Texas is just bluster, that's surely to be used against anyone when the tables are turned. The far more important issue is how to stop the insanity that is the Republican party and its core base of supporters.

When will you be ready to talk about these things? Life is full of hard decisions and human suffering that eventually lead to better lives, are we at that point yet? I don't know but I have a feeling that the longer we wait the greater the human suffering the will be.

The answer is simple. To stop the insanity of the Republican core, you need to attract moderates and conservative leaning independents. You can't do that by constantly accomodating and pampering the left fringe and running vulnerable establishment candidates.

It's the economy, stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

The answer is simple. To stop the insanity of the Republican core, you need to attract moderates and conservative leaning independents. You can't do that by constantly accomodating and pampering the left fringe and running vulnerable establishment candidates.

It's the economy, stupid.

I don't know what Democrat party you are looking at but pampering or capitulating the fringe has never been an issue. Hell, isn't that what Sanders and Warren have/are complaining about? The dems also nominated a left leaning centrist by most standards.

Clinton also won over more moderates than trump by 11 points. For independents she won more women than men but trump won independents overall by 6 points.

With regards to geekbabes post calling for more facts, the last election was won by a candidate who provided the least amount of facts in a presidential campaign than I have ever seen.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Looks like you've been duped.

Nah. He knows that he's pushing lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

The answer is simple. To stop the insanity of the Republican core, you need to attract moderates and conservative leaning independents. You can't do that by constantly accomodating and pampering the left fringe and running vulnerable establishment candidates.

It's the economy, stupid.

Pampering the left fringe & running establishment candidates is a contradiction in terms, but do go on, tearing down the Dirty Democrats to divert from the craziness that's engulfed the Repub Party..

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know what Democrat party you are looking at but pampering or capitulating the fringe has never been an issue. Hell, isn't that what Sanders and Warren have/are complaining about? The dems also nominated a left leaning centrist by most standards.

Clinton also won over more moderates than trump by 11 points. For independents she won more women than men but trump won independents overall by 6 points.

With regards to geekbabes post calling for more facts, the last election was won by a candidate who provided the least amount of facts in a presidential campaign than I have ever seen.

The election was all about buttery males & concern trolls for Bernie.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't know what Democrat party you are looking at but pampering or capitulating the fringe has never been an issue. Hell, isn't that what Sanders and Warren have/are complaining about? The dems also nominated a left leaning centrist by most standards.

Clinton also won over more moderates than trump by 11 points. For independents she won more women than men but trump won independents overall by 6 points.

With regards to geekbabes post calling for more facts, the last election was won by a candidate who provided the least amount of facts in a presidential campaign than I have ever seen.

There's been a false narrative that Trump somehow managed to win blue dog Democrats. I need to find the article on five thirty-eight, but they published a study indicating the reality that Obama actually pulled right leaning independents who abandoned Hillary for Trump. Think on that for a second. Hillary might be a left leaning centrist, but she was also an uninspired and highly vulnerable candidate.

I also see a distinction between the populist appeal of the Sanders/Warren socialist democratic movement and the identity politics of the fringe left, who are not necessarily far left.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's been a false narrative that Trump somehow managed to win blue dog Democrats. I need to find the article on five thirty-eight, but they published a study indicating the reality that Obama actually pulled right leaning independents who abandoned Hillary for Trump. Think on that for a second. Hillary might be a left leaning centrist, but she was also an uninspired and highly vulnerable candidate.

I also see a distinction between the populist appeal of the Sanders/Warren socialist democratic movement and the identity politics of the fringe left, who are not necessarily far left.

She got slimed with an obscene double standard.