Raider5678

So I take it you won't be addressing my argument nor answer my questions. Instead, you'll just complain about Trump some more instead of talking to me. So that means we shouldn't vote to give hundreds of thousands of workers the money they've worked for until we're able to open the entire government why? This doesn't answer the question.

I guess I concede it. I never held that position. How is passing a bill to pay federal workers without opening up the government rewarding bad behavior? The workers get paid. Trump still didn't get his wall. Where's the reward? Additionally, by paying federal workers you'd actually be reducing what Trump can black main democrats with. Is that not a good thing? It reduces Trump's leverage, it puts food on the table for at least thousands of federal workers, and it still doesn't give him a wall. It seems like something the Democrats should support to me. Unless, of course, it's about political posturing.

We both know that it won't pass with a unanimous vote now. So this is a red herring to distract from what I said. And again, this is completely missing the point of what I said. Answer the question I asked. I'm sure we can find something we agree on. If neither of the two options I presented is one you would choose, then simply say so and tell me what you'd send instead.

I said the truth and it's perfectly fine if you think it sounds biased. It very well may be biased, but it's still an unconscious ad hominem on your part. Look at what you said. It focused on me but it didn't address my argument at all. I think it's important we focus on what's being said, rather than whether or not I might be biased. We should focus our efforts on finding the agreement that we can, rather than highlighting our differences. So, in good faith, I'll ask you the same question I asked TenOz. If you were given the option to send a bill to the Senate, would you send another bill that you know is going to fail, or would you send a bill that authorizes payment to federal workers but still doesn't open up the government?

I think progress is important here. The GOP in the house was willing to do something. Democrats could embrace that and push it towards the Senate as a bipartisan bill. Instead, they choose to push something they know will not pass once again. And I don't see a major reason as to why they'd do that, besides political posturing. Do you? If you were given the option to send a bill to the Senate, would you send another bill that you know is going to fail, or would you send a bill that authorizes payment to federal workers but still doesn't open up the government? I would vote for the latter. And I suspect you'd be right there voting for it with me. And I'd like for the Democrats to do the same. Because if they truly care more about the American people then they do about blocking Republicans, they'd vote in favor of paying them. They're not dumb. They know the measure they're submitting won't pass. So why do they keep sending it again and again? Why can't they send something that's less, but at least lets some workers put food on the table?

No. And I never said they were. But that being said, I do think they're similar. But regardless, are they both, not shitty things to do? Refusing to pay them at all. Shitty. Refusing to pay them later because it'd hurt your political position. Not as shitty. Do you want a half shit sandwich or a fully shit sandwich? Preferably, I'd rather neither. If the Democrats proposed a measure to pay government workers in spite of the shutdown, and Republicans refused to let it pass, would you consider it nonsense? I'm sure we both agree. Paying federal workers is a step in the right direction, correct? Then why give up the good in pursuit of the perfect?

And Democrats know for a fact that a bill to reopen the government, the same one they've passed how many times now, isn't going to work. It's political posturing. They care more about that then getting the federal workers paychecks. They didn't vote to pay federal workers yesterday. They voted on something to make themselves look good.

Funny. Because all but 10 Democrats voted against paying federal workers: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/10-dems-break-with-leaders-support-gop-bill-to-pay-workers-during-the-shutdown But it's the Republicans holding federal workers hostage.

Any variation between them is purely statistical. If you took half of the Caucasian population and compared it to the other half of the Caucasian population. Then the average makeup of the "brain genes" would be different between the two groups. Likewise, if you compared two different "races" like Asians and Caucasians. This is because of genetic differences between basically every human on earth. Yes, it really can be true. No, it's really not that remarkable. This fact was established by simply studying the brains of a multitude of different people and finding no significant difference between them other than individual ones(I.E. some are larger, some are denser, etc)

Booker has a semi-good record of being good at negotiating, as iNow pointed out. Being able to negotiate well is an attribute that I'd like to see in a president, especially following Trump. That being said, I'm not all that familiar with the other candidates' ability in negotiating.

Since your photo didn't include a fedora, I'll include one for you:

Fair enough.

So the chemicals?

Quite advanced for an 8th grader. Anyways, considering you're advanced, I'm sure you'll have relatively little trouble understanding this video by PBS Spacetime. It's a bit more complicated than the initial two videos, but it definitely explains it better and goes further into detail, which is absolutely crucial to writing any good essay(as I'm sure you know.) If you have any questions about it, just let me know. Glad to help, and I hope you have a nice long stay here at Science Forums.

I'm intrigued. Please elaborate.

The proposition here is that the radiation is harming people here. It's not. The nuclear waste is actually secured quite well and poses little risk. It'd be a much bigger risk transporting the nuclear waste to Antarctica then simply burying it as we do now.

Thank you. As this is off topic, I'll send you a PM.

And how can I make communication between us better? I said something. Then you literally claimed I said the opposite thing. So what's this tone? The tone has far less to do with it then position.

Except, we DO have the receipt. We also know how much was initially invested in that area. We also know where the money changed to. But again. We don't know why it changed. We don't know who changed it(or who authorized it). We don't know when it was changed. We just know that it was. And that's not enough for an audit. Nice straw man. Again. Nice straw man. I mean, I literally said the exact opposite of this. Now I suspect I'll get a negative rep and I'll be accused of gish galloping around for saying that now. I mean. Dare I defend myself? @iNow I'm tired of you taking what I say and twisting it around. This thread and others. Perhaps you view it as some kind of tactic to "win" or something. I could care less. I want to have a discussion, not win some debate. So it's alright to lie off the record? Again. I'm under the assumption she just made a mistake. Which is what she said later. But if you want to go down the road that she's lying, go ahead. I don't care. I don't hold her to a different standard. I hold her to the same standard I hold any other politician. And quite frankly that standard indicates to me most of them are lying crooks. In her case, she's simply bold and arrogant, and it's showing in the types of statements she makes. She's a politician. Do we really need to manufacture a reason not to like her? Give me an example of Trump making a mistake, where he was not accused of lying. Because at the moment it seems you hold AOC to a different standard then Trump. Should all politicians not be held to the standard of being factually correct and telling the truth? What's different about AOC that it's a different standard to hold her to what she says? From the people I'm interacting with, it's usually laughter.

That's ridiculous. You say we can fund it. THen the method you tell me isn't a reliable method. I tell you it's not a reliable method, and therefore I don't think it works as a way to fund it, and you're saying I'm moving the goal posts? I'm not up for the mental gymnastics required to understand your semantics. Saying we can always just go into debt to fund it isn't a good answer to "How are we going to pay for it?" Imagine if I said I was going to buy a 150 million dollar house every year from now on. And my response to "how are you going to pay for it?" was me saying "I'll just go into debt for it." Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't tell me that's not a good idea? It's not moving the goal posts to say that my funding plan is a terrible funding plan. You said this: And I pointed out we're not paying our debt now. Nor are we into a position to. ANd your logical response was to just take on more debt to pay for this. THat's essentially ignoring the debt. You also mentioned borrowing money from other countries. Which is what I objected to. Will you stop strawmanning me? Give me an example then. What the budget adjustments mean: The budget was adjusted in certain places, and we don't know why. We can't trace back to why. These things are important to know, because it allows for an efficient accounting system. That being said. We still know where the money went. Take for example this: Airplane: $150 Car: $150 Then later it changes to: Airplane: $250 Car: $50 But nobody bothered recording why we changed the budget. That's $200 that has an untraceable adjustment. But we still know where the money went. Great. Then why is there so much disagreement to me saying that it's important that if you're going to say you can fund it, you need to prove it? If you knowingly told something jokingly, and you know that they took you seriously, it's a terrible tactic to simply ignore it. Surely she would have realized she'd get called out on it. In which case, still a mistake. Also, still lying. So what? I think it's just as stupid that we're spending $660 billion on the military while we have a massive deficit. Again. I don't care what it is. We can't pay for it, we shouldn't do it. That's my position. Anyways, I'm done with this discussion. It's going nowhere, and overall, it doesn't seem like we disagree. AOC made a mistake. Nobody seems to disagree. AOC should make sure that math works out before making claims.

When did I say this? I said we need careful accounting. Not that we have it.

The brunt of my attack was that: A. She was wrong. B. She should do her math correctly. C. She's arrogant. The third one should be the only debatable one in my opinion. Not the first two.

So you're a conservative relative to someone. But does that mean you get looped into the conservatives who are attacking AOC? Which, as I pointed out before, are predominantly media outlets?

Except it's not a sustainable system. Every investment has a pure cost. They're not mutually exclusive, and it's extremely important not to think that. I've taken three different economics courses. You cannot simply print money uncontrollably and expect it to work. That's not how it does. They constantly print money now, however, contrary to popular belief, it's highly regulated and controlled in order to control inflation. A little bit of constant inflation is good. Out of control inflation is bad. SImply look at what happened to Germany during the great depression. But I will. By the time I'm a grandfather, these bills will be coming due. And my generation and my grandkids will be the ones paying for it. See what I bolded? That's the problem. If we were going to pay off our debt, I'd be fine with it. But at the rate we're going, we won't. Republicans screwed that up after Bill Clinton left us with a budget surplus. It's one thing to take out a loan, or borrow some money to invest in a bridge/infrastructure, etc. It's a totally different thing to take out money, every single year, in order to cover the costs of simply existing. I've read extensively into debt. And I guarantee you, debt is not something we can simply ignore and expect it to go away. Take the healthcare that AOC mentioned. Do you think it's a one-time investment? It's not. It's something we'll pay for, every single year until it's either changed, removed, or we're all dead. How do you justify taking out a loan every single year for something you can't afford? I know you didn't suggest that we didn't pay it off, but your understanding of how debt works is wrong. I do lean more conservative, but does that automatically make me a conservative?

No. I couldn't. There is no broader point to math. Either we know of a way to fund it, or we don't. We don't go with "The broader point is, we'll figure it out. THat's why we can fund it." Math is more important to me then concepts. For good reason. Except it wasn't a joke. Otherwise, when the photographer brought up about the point of constitutional literalists, she would have corrected herself. Unless she willingly knew that he took it the wrong way and believed her. In which case she wasn't just wrong, she lied. I'm lambast her all the more. Math is important, and you're not going to convince me otherwise. It's funny. We're on our second page and not a single person has told me what the "broader concept" that AOC was talking about was. Does anybody seem to know? Or are you guys willingly defending her without even knowing? Additionally, the brunt of my "attack" was that I said she was wrong, and she needs to get her math right. Please explain to me, precisely, how that is unfair to say. She was wrong. Agreed? She should get her math right. Agreed? Unless you disagree with one of the two statements above, don't bother going any further into the Pentagon spending mistake that she made. Define these conservatives. Media outlets? They're the ones who've mainly focused on it. And no, not just fox.