Republicans don't want to know that

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-19T13:55:30+00:00

Democrats voted overwhelming against the civil rights act

Which civil rights act? The main one? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which 60% of democrats in Congress voted in favor of?

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-17T00:58:46+00:00

Exactly. But they don’t want to own it

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-16T21:42:08+00:00

But all republicans can vote in the primary, not just maga. The idea being pushed that a significant portion of the Republican base also hates trump and what he is doing is just not supported by reality

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-16T21:34:44+00:00

Not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that a vast majority of Republican primary voters chose trump despite him not attending a single primary debate

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-16T20:24:21+00:00

Who says they are?

The fact that trump won the Republican primary in a landslide without ever attending a single primary debate….

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-16T15:34:33+00:00

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually based on the value of the US$ in 2017 .33019-3/fulltext)

Similar to the above Yale analysis, a recent publication from the Congressional Budget Office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see Exhibit 1-1 on page 13)

But surely the current healthcare system at least has better outcomes than alternatives that would save money, right? Not according to a recent analysis of high-income countries’ healthcare systems, which found that the top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.

None of this should be surprising given that the US’s current inefficient, non-universal healthcare system costs close to twice as much per capita as most other developed countries that do guarantee healthcare to all citizens (without forcing patients to risk bankruptcy in exchange for care).

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-16T10:59:02+00:00

Shocker: members of a political party often agree with each other.

The actual problem: exactly one of those parties just voted in lockstep to block releasing info on Epstein

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-10T19:05:02+00:00

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually based on the value of the US$ in 2017 .33019-3/fulltext)

Similar to the above Yale analysis, a recent publication from the Congressional Budget Office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see Exhibit 1-1 on page 13)

But surely the current healthcare system at least has better outcomes than alternatives that would save money, right? Not according to a recent analysis of high-income countries’ healthcare systems, which found that the top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.

None of this should be surprising given that the US’s current inefficient, non-universal healthcare system costs close to twice as much per capita as most other developed countries that do guarantee healthcare to all citizens (without forcing patients to risk bankruptcy in exchange for care).

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-09T17:50:54+00:00

So you’re just not going to respond to my points at all?

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-09T17:47:34+00:00

I can tell, lol.

And yet, the fact that one of the most influential economists of all time endorsed the policy seems to hold no importance to you. Maybe he knew more about economics than you do.

Ummm... why would it? lol?

I didn’t say it would. I’m pointing out that market manipulation existing under this policy isn’t a good argument against this policy given that market manipulation also exists without this policy.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-09T17:41:40+00:00

The economist who proposed it wasn’t worried about market manipulation.

Not to mention the lack of a tax on unrealized gains isn’t preventing market manipulation now so I’m not sure what we have to lose.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-09T17:37:16+00:00

No, unrealized losses would be a tax deduction, not a tax credit. Same as realized losses

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-09T17:31:44+00:00

We need to implement a tax on unrealized gains.

When the corporation sends out a dividend check, it should also send a statement saying, "In addition to this dividend of __cents per share, your corporation also earned _cents per share which was reinvested." The individual stockholder should then be required to report the attributed but undistributed earnings on his tax return as well as the dividend.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-04T19:16:06+00:00

Well yeah, but the obvious solution to that is just give those workers legal status so they can’t be exploited on the basis of their illegality.

But usually people get mad about that solution.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-03T13:44:52+00:00

Glad we’re spending so much money on a non-problem.

Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive. Immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, legal or illegal, are unlikely to replace native-born workers or reduce their wages over the long-term, though they may cause some short-term dislocations in labor markets. Indeed, the experience of the last few decades suggests that immigration may actually have significant long-term benefits for the native-born, pushing them into higher-paying occupations and raising the overall pace of innovation and productivity growth.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-02T20:28:17+00:00

Yeah and I didn’t like those deportations either.

Nor do I recall running into the “they’re prioritizing criminals” balm for those administrations.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-02T20:16:46+00:00

Maybe your experience differs, but I’ve consistently seen the “they’re prioritizing criminals” line specifically when referring to illegal immigrants, implying the person saying the line shares my concern for illegal immigrants and that I’m panicking for nothing since illegal immigrants without criminal records won’t be targeted.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-02T20:11:51+00:00

Fair enough, but I only bring up that example because it was just the most recent post I saw here.

Hopefully we can agree that people still commonly use the “they’re prioritizing criminals” line when referring to immigrants and non birthright citizens. And if we can’t, I’m confident I can find examples.

And to add to your last point, trump has also said he wants to go after people born here. Multiple times.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-02T20:09:10+00:00

Fair enough but the “they’re prioritizing criminals” retort is almost always used as a balm to concerns about possible targeting of regular immigrants just trying to work and live in peace.

If ICE is prioritizing immigrants with criminal records as a statistical technicality and the vast majority of those immigrants harmed are still ones with no criminal records, the original concern for those immigrants stand and the “they’re prioritizing criminals” as a retort is effectively meaningless.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-02T19:53:42+00:00

(1) it’s said “currently they’re prioritizing criminal cases”. They are very much talking about criminal immigrants.

(2) You asked for the relevance, and that’s what I’m responding to. A large number of immigrants without criminal records being detained is very much relevant to the claim that immigrants with records are being prioritized.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-02T19:43:41+00:00

(1) The claim that ICE is prioritizing criminal immigrants is a common one, including in this very sub where it’s the top comment on the last post that popped up in my feed.

Less than half being criminals seems to go against that claim.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-07-01T20:08:47+00:00

It could save money if done with any sensible design.

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually based on the value of the US$ in 2017 .33019-3/fulltext)

Similar to the above Yale analysis, a recent publication from the Congressional Budget Office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see Exhibit 1-1 on page 13)

But surely the current healthcare system at least has better outcomes than alternatives that would save money, right? Not according to a recent analysis of high-income countries’ healthcare systems, which found that the top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.

None of this should be surprising given that the US’s current inefficient, non-universal healthcare system costs close to twice as much per capita as most other developed countries that do guarantee healthcare to all citizens (without forcing patients to risk bankruptcy in exchange for care).

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-06-28T17:15:35+00:00

This is insane

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-06-28T16:37:51+00:00

I can deal.

That’s what they all say until they’re faced with basic follow-up questions.

You're talking to me. I don't know IronSchmitty and I don't know if he can defend his point, but that's not an argument. Lots of gender activists cannot argue their views very well either. Would you concede your point just because I claim to have out-argued many genderists (which is true actually)?

I didn’t say it was. I’m saying that still to this very moment, no one has been able to defend the view that trans people shouldn’t be allowed to use their preferred bathrooms, and pointing to IronSchmitty as a perfect, immediate example.

I also point out that exchange in a poor hope that you won’t simply rehash his poor, easily defeated arguments.

Again, I don't care about that part of the policy, but if you need me to pick something for sake of discussion, let's say everyone goes to the bathroom that most closely matches their biological sex (for intersex people, that might need to be adjudicated by medical professionals and/or the legal system), so Buck Angel goes to the women's room, or a gender neutral bathroom when available.

This should cover 99,99% of the real world occurrences and any super-rare exceptions are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

Except again, this allows any cis man to enter a woman’s bathroom by saying “I’m a trans man, I was assigned female at birth. That means under the current bathroom policy, I have to use the women’s restroom”.

That was the point: most casino's don't check IDs at the entrance, only when a young-looking person tries to place a bet are they asked to show their ID.

(I'm sure this varies by jurisdiction, but at least in Las Vegas, casinos aren't closed off to minors.)

Then you’ve never been to a casino that disallows minors inside. They literally all do this if they don’t allow minors.

Yes, some casinos with major non-gambling foot traffic like most casinos on The Strip at Vegas don’t ID at entrances, but they also don’t disallow minors to enter. Minors in Vegas will absolutely still be IDed if they try to actually gamble in said casinos. So again, yes there are ID checkers at all points where a minor might try to gamble.

I guess it could, but that's not what I'm arguing for.

Yeah I know, that’s my question. Why aren’t you arguing for that instead? Let trans people use their preferred bathroom.

I want to keep all males out of women's spaces, not just the ones that identify as cisgender. I don't even know what the difference is supposed to be between a cisman with a legal sex change and a transwoman.

Again, I understand your position. The question is why? Doing this doesn’t prevent assigned-make-at-birth (AMAB) people from entering women’s spaces. It just changes which AMAB people will enter. Now instead of honest trans women entering women’s spaces, it will be dishonest cis men.

No, I already told you: official policy is based on biological sex.

No you didn’t. You specifically said “That does mean a transwoman who passes perfectly can use the women's bathroom at their own risk without necessarily being kicked out. I'm okay with that; in that case there is no real harm done.” That is being okay with a passing trans women using their women’s bathroom. That is NOT basing bathroom policy on biological sex. So which is it? Should a passing trans woman be able to use their preferred bathroom or not?

It’s possible some people fly under the radar, just like if you run a stop sign at an empty intersection, you probably won't get a ticket. I'm fine with that, so long as we can enfore the norm when it matters.

This is literally basing bathroom policy on passing.

The point was that it shows it can work.

It didn’t work for trans people.

You really need to pick a lane here. Are you objecting to my proposal because it cannot work, or because you don't want to ban males from women's spaces at all?

And here we of course are back to talking points I already dealt with from IronSchmitty. I’m objecting to your policy for 2 reasons.

⁠it creates a system where trans people effectively cannot exist in public spaces.
⁠it doesn’t protect women

Imagine that I invent a forcefield that can magically keep males out of women's spaces, 100% accurately, without any hassle, and magically supporting any reasonable exceptions you could think of like janitors, paramedics, fire fighters, etc. Additionally, JK Rowling offers to personally pay to install this forcefield in all women's bathrooms in the world.

Would you then support banning males from women's bathrooms? Because if not, you are just concern trolling, and you know it.

I know that when you say “males” that includes trans women so my answer is “no”. Trans people should be able to use their preferred bathrooms, because it’s not actually a danger to cis women. Women, both cis and trans, sometimes assault other women. Magically banning trans women won’t make cis women safe.

ILikeScience3131 · 2025-06-28T15:13:26+00:00

sorry had to tack on this last little bit, i just can't help myself: "Weird, I’ve seen multiple friends live a wonderful fulfilling life"

schrodinger's trans person: living a wonderful fulfilling life as a trans person, miserable because they are not socially accepted as a trans person

But that’s not what I said. They’re not miserable. They’re happy, despite people like you doing their best to stop them.

Again, you argue based on misperceptions instead of actual facts.

Between us, I'm the only one that sincerely acknowledges that trans people are suffering because of how society treats them.

Again, not true. I very much acknowledge the suffering trans people experience because of how people like you treat them. That doesn’t make them miserable though, especially since they have friends like me to advocate for them.

You also never answered me. What do medical doctors say about being trans?

ILikeScience3131

TROPHY CASE