'Murica! (387 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
See, that's the thing.I get the doubts that some have over the report. To me, those irregularities are not even remotely enough to prove that government had anything to do with it. The difference between a conspiracy theorist and a regular person is how they treat their doubts. Conspiracy theorist brings down the whole thing with the smallest doubt, and builds a theory from ground up without treating this new theory like the official one. A regular person does not build a new theory if it's not sound just because he doesn't like the official one.
Conspiracy theorists always underestimate the gross incompetence of some of the government employees.
Conspiracy theorists always underestimate the gross incompetence of some of the government employees.
Is this post going to be warned?
- - - Updated - - -
I never said the government shouldn't play a role in medical research, especially in infectious disease. My father actually works in this field and I agree with him that it is a needed service, both from a humanitarian and national security perspective. Institutions such as the CDC are absolutely required to protect the nation, provided they aren't in the pockets of private industry. But that's where the issue of government intervention becomes very dubious and why any sensible person should question it. Although, I'm not saying the current CDC is that way -- I don't know.
But the point regarding technological advancement (in general, that is) is that much of this requires risk and reward in order for it to occur. It takes capital investment that most governments do not have -- rightfully so since governments are highly inefficient. So in summary, your belief that government can take the place of private industry in creating technology is simply delusional.
- - - Updated - - -
But throwing aside your arguments above, the problem is we have a dysfunctional government to begin with. They couldn't even have the Obamacare website working properly for weeks after it was sent to production. In knowing the inefficiency of governments, along with the overall laziness and apathy of the American government worker (on average), how can you have any confidence in that system?
All one needs to do is look at the put option volume on airline stocks before 9/11, along with the huge US treasury purchase by Saudis before the event as well.
- - - Updated - - -
I never said the government shouldn't play a role in medical research, especially in infectious disease. My father actually works in this field and I agree with him that it is a needed service, both from a humanitarian and national security perspective. Institutions such as the CDC are absolutely required to protect the nation, provided they aren't in the pockets of private industry. But that's where the issue of government intervention becomes very dubious and why any sensible person should question it. Although, I'm not saying the current CDC is that way -- I don't know.
But the point regarding technological advancement (in general, that is) is that much of this requires risk and reward in order for it to occur. It takes capital investment that most governments do not have -- rightfully so since governments are highly inefficient. So in summary, your belief that government can take the place of private industry in creating technology is simply delusional.
- - - Updated - - -
But throwing aside your arguments above, the problem is we have a dysfunctional government to begin with. They couldn't even have the Obamacare website working properly for weeks after it was sent to production. In knowing the inefficiency of governments, along with the overall laziness and apathy of the American government worker (on average), how can you have any confidence in that system?
All one needs to do is look at the put option volume on airline stocks before 9/11, along with the huge US treasury purchase by Saudis before the event as well.
Now this is just too much
https://www.facebook.com/KnowPolitical/videos/1110690185632339/
- - - Updated - - -
For anyone too lazy to watch, this is Cruz & Huckabee speaking at an event & getting interviewed by a guy demanding the death penalty for homosexuality...
Among other both crazy and fucked up things.
https://www.facebook.com/KnowPolitical/videos/1110690185632339/
- - - Updated - - -
For anyone too lazy to watch, this is Cruz & Huckabee speaking at an event & getting interviewed by a guy demanding the death penalty for homosexuality...
Among other both crazy and fucked up things.
The whole Obamacare website thing was an annoyance to me. Not because of some love for Obama or Obamacare, but because of how clueless people are about what goes in to building a highly scalable and secure Internet system that launches with the flick of a switch ... or a date on the calendar. It's worth diving into because it makes a real point.
People are willing to forgive Twitter and how they made the "Fail Whale" legendary, but the government launches a national Web service that needs to handle intensely secure and private information with social security numbers and health conditions and that's held to a wholly different standard. And the best part of it all is this: the government's biggest error on that was probably in vendor management. Because that web site was built with one-time contracted labor provided by ... get this, are you taking notes? ... private industry. It's not like the government has some crack team of dozens if not hundreds of coordinated software developers sitting on the bench waiting for the occasional major project like a national health insurance database at the snap of Obama's fingers.
But my point is not to defend the U.S. government here. But blame should squarely be placed on where it is primarily deserved, and most everyone got that incident totally wrong, as it was more lazy and incompetent American worker than clueless bureaucrat that was at fault for it.
The answer is that I don't have confidence in the government owning and operating a national health care system. But as with the web site example you brought up, it's not like we should have confidence in private industry and their corporations/agencies whom the work can be contracted out to either. You're only going to address these key issues with some centralization. And giving all that centralization to a single corporation is actually more terrifying and untrustworthy to me than giving that responsibility to the U.S. government -- because they are going to be far more opaque and incentivized by anything but the public good.
Enron be Enron. MCI Worldcom be MCI Worldcom. Lehman Brothers be Lehman Brothers. It's in their nature, as the scorpion said to the frog.
People are willing to forgive Twitter and how they made the "Fail Whale" legendary, but the government launches a national Web service that needs to handle intensely secure and private information with social security numbers and health conditions and that's held to a wholly different standard. And the best part of it all is this: the government's biggest error on that was probably in vendor management. Because that web site was built with one-time contracted labor provided by ... get this, are you taking notes? ... private industry. It's not like the government has some crack team of dozens if not hundreds of coordinated software developers sitting on the bench waiting for the occasional major project like a national health insurance database at the snap of Obama's fingers.
But my point is not to defend the U.S. government here. But blame should squarely be placed on where it is primarily deserved, and most everyone got that incident totally wrong, as it was more lazy and incompetent American worker than clueless bureaucrat that was at fault for it.
The answer is that I don't have confidence in the government owning and operating a national health care system. But as with the web site example you brought up, it's not like we should have confidence in private industry and their corporations/agencies whom the work can be contracted out to either. You're only going to address these key issues with some centralization. And giving all that centralization to a single corporation is actually more terrifying and untrustworthy to me than giving that responsibility to the U.S. government -- because they are going to be far more opaque and incentivized by anything but the public good.
Enron be Enron. MCI Worldcom be MCI Worldcom. Lehman Brothers be Lehman Brothers. It's in their nature, as the scorpion said to the frog.
We need separation between the two, sort of like the separation between church and state. When government and private industry become intertwined, that's when we have issues with rent seeking. It can be easily seen in banking and healthcare, among other industries. Government is necessary for protective measures, public health, defense, et cetera. But everything else the private sector handles more adequately and efficiently.
You see that a lot with government contracts. No bid contracts, "friend of a friend" contracts, and the like. That's just another reason for government to stay out of it apart from being a regulatory body. They don't have any incentive to cut costs or choose the best contract, so instead they socialize the cost and maximize their own potential to profit. This is the issue with government choosing winners and losers -- it's a lot of moral hazard with sprinkles of rent seeking everywhere.
I'm also no fan of monopolies. But many times, you have governments creating them through regulation. That's why we need more competition and less government interference with respect to regulation, moral hazard, et cetera. This is a rather broad statement, but can be applied to essentially all sectors.
- - - Updated - - -
But she acted like she won yet again.
You see that a lot with government contracts. No bid contracts, "friend of a friend" contracts, and the like. That's just another reason for government to stay out of it apart from being a regulatory body. They don't have any incentive to cut costs or choose the best contract, so instead they socialize the cost and maximize their own potential to profit. This is the issue with government choosing winners and losers -- it's a lot of moral hazard with sprinkles of rent seeking everywhere.
I'm also no fan of monopolies. But many times, you have governments creating them through regulation. That's why we need more competition and less government interference with respect to regulation, moral hazard, et cetera. This is a rather broad statement, but can be applied to essentially all sectors.
- - - Updated - - -
But she acted like she won yet again.
In all honesty she probably will, unfortunately. Get ready for President Hillary Clinton, everyone 
I read this earlier and thought of you immediately
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
I read this earlier and thought of you immediately
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
Clinton is getting absolutely crushed in NHright now.
Trump doing the same thing on the other side.
What is interesting to me, currenlty, is Bernie's 88,000 votes to Trumps 56,000 votes. Keep in mind on the democratic side the rest are shared with Hillary. On the republican side its split among Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Cruz, Christie, Fiorina and Carson. Now if you were to narrow the field down to only two top repubs say Trump and Kasic that are winning and take away the votes from everyone else on that side and split it between Trump & Kasich, Trump would almost have as many or more votes than Bernie in his own stomping ground.
- - - Updated - - -
according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney
Trump doing the same thing on the other side.
What is interesting to me, currenlty, is Bernie's 88,000 votes to Trumps 56,000 votes. Keep in mind on the democratic side the rest are shared with Hillary. On the republican side its split among Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Cruz, Christie, Fiorina and Carson. Now if you were to narrow the field down to only two top repubs say Trump and Kasic that are winning and take away the votes from everyone else on that side and split it between Trump & Kasich, Trump would almost have as many or more votes than Bernie in his own stomping ground.
- - - Updated - - -
In all honesty she probably will, unfortunately. Get ready for President Hillary Clinton, everyone
I read this earlier and thought of you immediately
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
I read this earlier and thought of you immediately
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
Clinton is getting absolutely crushed in NH right now.
Trump doing the same thing on the other side.
What is interesting to me, currenlty, is Bernie's 88,000 votes to Trumps 56,000 votes. Keep in mind on the democratic side the rest are shared with Hillary. On the republican side its split among Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Cruz, Christie, Fiorina and Carson. Now if you were to narrow the field down to only two top repubs say Trump and Kasic that are winning and take away the votes from everyone else on that side and split it between Trump & Kasich, Trump would almost have as many or more votes than Bernie in his own stomping ground.
- - - Updated - - -
according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney
Trump doing the same thing on the other side.
What is interesting to me, currenlty, is Bernie's 88,000 votes to Trumps 56,000 votes. Keep in mind on the democratic side the rest are shared with Hillary. On the republican side its split among Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Cruz, Christie, Fiorina and Carson. Now if you were to narrow the field down to only two top repubs say Trump and Kasic that are winning and take away the votes from everyone else on that side and split it between Trump & Kasich, Trump would almost have as many or more votes than Bernie in his own stomping ground.
- - - Updated - - -
according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney
. Sanders is expected to beat Trump though, Clinton as well but by a smaller margin.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Vermont, not New Hampshire . Sanders is expected to beat Trump though, Clinton as well but by a smaller margin.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
. Sanders is expected to beat Trump though, Clinton as well but by a smaller margin.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Of course Bernie was going to beat Trump, as I said, that's Bernie's neck of the woods BUT if you were to whip away all the repub candidates except Trump and Kasich, all those other people would have had to vote for someone, right? So you would see BOTH candidates numbers skyrocket if that was the case and Trump is actually quite close in that regard IMO.
- - - Updated - - -
We should see some more finally bow out. Time to narrow the field.