Raider5678

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you concede that the only reason it won't pass now it because Trump doesn't want it? 

I guess I concede it. I never held that position.

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is nothing about Trump's demand which requires the government to be shutdown. This whole thing can be negotiated with an open govt. The only reason Trump is doing it this way is to blackmail Congress. 

I think the only bill the House should pass is the one they pass and the Senate unanimously supported. Anything else rewards bad behavior and increases the likelihood of this sort of thing in the future. 

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.

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It passed with a unanimous vote in the Senate before Trump signaled he wanted to shutdown the govt down,

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.

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Every senator already supported the bill before all this start. It is Trump who wanted the shutdown. Republicans in the Senate are prepared to vote on any bill Trump is willing to sign. 

 

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.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Given that you could just as easily have switched the parties that you made those characterizations about, I'm afraid your bias is shining through.

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?

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

These votes are meaningless less the Senate passes something and Trump signs it.  

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?

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

People aren't being paid because of him.

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?

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Did you really think they were equivalent?

 

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.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

As 10 Oz has pointed out, that's nonsense ayay but,

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? 

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yesterday Democrats did pass a bill to fund the whole govt. It too would pay federal workers. 223 Democrats voted for it. So hundreds of Democrats did in fact vote to pay federal workers yesterday. 

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.

On 1/13/2019 at 5:16 AM, John Cuthber said:

It seems there's one thing the Republicans are better at.

Trying to screw over  the workforce.

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.

23 minutes ago, Richard R Richardson said:

Is it true that there is no variation between them? This actually seems like a statistical impossibility, and is contrary to any between group genetic findings in other species. Can it really be true? If so it would be utterly remarkable. How was this fact established?

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)

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

As for Booker I fail to see what he brings to the table not already present among the group already running. His policy positions are already fully represented.

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.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now that that's settled:

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

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There's far more ingredients in shampoo than bottled water.

Fair enough.

Just now, StringJunky said:

Think about what's in fizzy water and then think about what's in shampoo.

So the chemicals?

On 1/22/2019 at 3:12 PM, peterwlocke said:

So for my 8th-grade class, I have to write a paper on wave-particle duality and I am looking for some good material to improve it and my understanding. (now Physics aren't my fave but I am at a different place then the rest of my class on science(I prefer genetics tho)

 

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.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I'm sure you've put far worse things on your head; like shampoo.  

I'm intrigued. Please elaborate.

1 hour ago, harlock said:

A no-living-being environment as healthy as possible while people're exposed to radiation or have this risk: is it logical? 

1

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.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

*than

Thank you.

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

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

If I've misunderstood you, then do a better job of explaining yourself.

And how can I make communication between us better?

I said something. Then you literally claimed I said the opposite thing.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, your tone. There's no need to be so aggro all the time

 

So what's this tone?

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

The tone has far less to do with it then position.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

There is no documentation that this is actually what happened, and that those numbers are correct. So you don't actually know that there is no money missing, because you lack documentation. If you had documentation that the car expenditure was $50 (a receipt) and the initial estimate (e.g. the purchase request) then it wouldn't be an undocumented change.

1

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.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable. 

Nice straw man.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Seriously... You're going on about how we cannot afford healthcare, yet today already we pay something like 3x what most other civilized nations do, and we have generally worse outcomes, lower quality care, and we don't even manage to cover everyone. We don't need to invent this from scratch, we just need to look at what's working elsewhere, claim it for our own, and stand up to fight for it in good faith. This is not a problem of budgeting, it's a problem of priorities.

 

Again. Nice straw man. I mean, I literally said the exact opposite of this.

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm not saying it's impossible to fund Medicare. I'm not saying we can.

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In a conversation with a photographer (i.e. not a reporter)? That she may have considered to be off the record?

1

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The underlying point of my comments is that she is being held to a different standard. Attacking the style rather than the substance (I mean, has anyone brought up any policy in this thread?), but then, that's old hat. All of the 2016 election seemed to be about style, rather than substance. Even though policy was brought up, the focus was elsewhere.

1

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. 

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 It's almost as if people need to manufacture a reason not to like her.

She's a politician. Do we really need to manufacture a reason not to like her? 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Of Trump making up a number? The count of the hamberders he got for the Clemson visit. First it was 300. Later it was over 1000.

2

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?

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

When she does, her detractors usually run away.

From the people I'm interacting with, it's usually laughter. 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

That's all well and good, but that's not the claim you made, nor the one I was addressing. You said it couldn't be funded. I demonstrated that we can.

 

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.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

I never said anything about uncontrollable printing of money. I never said anything about doing it constantly

2 hours ago, iNow said:

We can fund anything we want. We can literally print money and insert trillions at any time into the market. There are sometimes consequences (like inflation or a drop in the value of the dollar, for example), but we can fund anything whatsoever and essentially all other nations on the planet are willing to lend us money to do so, when needed.

 

 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, please stop misrepresenting me. Who said anything whatsoever about ignoring the debt? If you'd slow down just a little bit and read posts again before replying, maybe some of this back and forth can be reduced and we can find lots of common ground and agreement.

 

You said this:

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There's a cool concept we came up with thousands of years ago to enable commerce and increased trading. It's known as debt. It has obvious benefits and downsides, but it's a pretty remarkable system. In short: We agree to pay you in the future for something we need today, generally with some interest. You should read up on it sometime. I'd not be a homeowner or car owner myself without it (and it feels REALLY great when you pay it off!!).  

 

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.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Have you accounted for changes in taxation like I asked, or how much much is being spent today in private healthcare coverage that would be offset? Likewise, have you accounted for the reduction in prices that would come from expanding the size of the risk pool, and the greater negotiating leverage the government would have relative to private insurers? Just curious.

 You keep digging your heels further and further in. I'd like to offer you a rope to pull you out of the hole... Will you please accept it?

You also mentioned borrowing money from other countries. Which is what I objected to.

Will you stop strawmanning me?

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

That would be most of them, actually, since the media has a pretty strong aversion to using that word. But there are plenty of times where Trump has obviously just made up a number, since there is no reference for it, and times where the number has changed over time. 

 

Give me an example then.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can't reconcile this statement with your claim.

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.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

And honest, good faith debate is important, too. Moving the goalposts/making straw men is not an example of that, though. I never said that math was unimportant, nor did I suggest that I was going to try and convince you otherwise (I said the opposite). No, I would rather hold you to that declaration.  

1

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?

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or maybe she agrees that there might be a legitimate legal question to ponder. Or maybe she was just trying to exit the conversation. (Is holding back from responding because you don't want to pursue the topic an unfamiliar tactic to you?) There are probably other options, as well.

 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.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

"how are you going to pay for this?" you are pointing out that there were a slew of GOP programs where apparently nobody cared how they were going to pay for it. 

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.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

So despite earlier objections that careful accounting exists with other programs when people ask

When did I say this?

I said we need careful accounting. Not that we have it.

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, but since you are attacking AOC you do. 

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.

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Relative to those you are arguing with it does. 

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?

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

We can fund anything we want. We can literally print money and insert trillions at any time into the market. There are sometimes consequences (like inflation or a drop in the value of the dollar, for example), but we can fund anything whatsoever and essentially all other nations on the planet are willing to lend us money to do so, when needed.

1

Except it's not a sustainable system.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

These are mutually exclusive. If you agree it's an investment, then it's not a pure cost (unless a negative return is later realized on that investment). 

Every investment has a pure cost.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's extremely important not to think that.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course you can, especially if you're a government who can literally create currency and raise taxes.

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.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

I know this SEEMS like a common sense position, and to be clear I'm not arguing that we do this, but we really don't have to pay for it.

1

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.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

 There's a cool concept we came up with thousands of years ago to enable commerce and increased trading. It's known as debt. It has obvious benefits and downsides, but it's a pretty remarkable system. In short: We agree to pay you in the future for something we need today, generally with some interest. You should read up on it sometime. I'd not be a homeowner or car owner myself without it (and it feels REALLY great when you pay it off!!).  

 

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.

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You for example. Relative to the posters you are going back and forth with in this thread do you not lean more Conservative? 

I do lean more conservative, but does that automatically make me a conservative?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But you could bring that up as a broader point of finding ways to fund the wall. Even though it's new taxes, so the GOP would be conflicted about it all.

 

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."

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's your prerogative. If math is more important than concepts for you, then that's that.

 

Math is more important to me then concepts. For good reason.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 Funny how that characterization has been missing from the discussion. She states at the outset that she's not serious, and that the later comment about the constitutional literalists — the question that they might be forced to interpret the Constitutional restrictions as applying to men. And she's talking to a photographer, not a reporter.

1

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Do they get lambasted like this?

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.

 

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

AOC is just one of 435 members of Congress. Her district is not a competitive one for Conservatives. AOC is a junior member without any meaningful influence over committees in Congress. The only reason Conservative waste time talking her is because she is popular and they (Conservatives), as opposition, just want to dull up some of her shine. AOC says nothing which is outside the normal margins of error for a political. AOC is simply popular and well like by her constituents and  Conservatives can't have that so they attack her at every chance they get. 

2

Define these conservatives. 

Media outlets? They're the ones who've mainly focused on it. And no, not just fox.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

When you consider these questions, I’m curious to understand if you see the legislation as pure costs / expenditures

I don't care about what the legislation is.

Either you can fund it or you can't.

That's how mathematics works.

Yes. It'd be great to build solar panels on every home in the country, distribute free electric cars, give a house to everyone, and have free food for all.

IT'd have clear benefits. Poverty would be eliminated.

NOw how are you going to fund it?

 

That's the simple question I'm asking. Stop skirting around the question, pretending that I'm just attacking AOC. It's mathematics. Not politics.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Similarly, when you’re doing all of this math, it’d help to know what you are doing / what numbers you are using to account for all of the great many fees we all pay today in health insurance premiums, high deductibles, and additional out of pocket costs for uncovered needs... outlays that would vanish under a Medicare for all system and which are likely higher than any increases in individual taxes we may need to collect if such plans proceed. 

1

I'm not doing the math.

You're free to do so. Hence the point of "doing the math."

Again. I've said repeatedly. Either we can fund it or we can't. It's that simple. 

This is a discussion on AOC. Do not attempt to turn it into a discussion about healthcare.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

 So... is it a pure cost or is it an investment, and are the tax increases needed to it for it larger or smaller than what we’re already paying today to cover our families across the nation in the private market and emergency room markups to cover the uncovered?

 

It's a pure cost and an investment.

 

Let's say I was planning on investing in Gold. (ignore any question about whether gold is actually a good investment or not. That's not the point.)

Gold goes up, doesn't go down.(Not true, but for the sake of the example.)

Therefore, the logic is to invest in as much gold as possible. Yes?

But I can't just say "Alright. It's a great investment. I'll buy 400 tons." unless I have the money.

 

The first thing you need to figure out is whether it's a good investment or not. I'm sure we can both agree that funding Medicare for all can be debatable. But let's just assume it's a perfect investment.

 

If we don't have the money for it, we don't have the money for it. It doesn't matter how good of an investment it is. We still need to pay for it. 

That's the question. And I'm not going to let you drag me off on a tangent.

7 hours ago, rangerx said:

She's her own person. Genuine in her manners, thoughtful in her responses without the rancor or hyperbole and sincere in her objectives. She doesn't accept PAC money and derides crass industrialism that pollutes or oppresses. Unlike most politicians, that girl practices what she preaches.  The more republicans are triggered by her, the stronger she gets. That's the only change I expect from her.

1

Clearly.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

 I have similar questions for massive green jobs programs given the income and sales tax revenues plus the peripheral supporting jobs those newly created green jobs would create, but let’s focus first on healthcare since that’s where the bulk of our dollars go. 

Let's not focus on healthcare, as you're missing my point.

Again, for the sake of example. Let's imagine installing solar panels on every home in America and distributing electric cars to all.

Either we can afford it or we can't. Correct?

That's the simple point I'm making.

The idea that AOC has some "broader concept" that we need to look at when it comes down to basic math, is ridiculous and absurd.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So why is it that the GOP is silent when it comes to funding an expansion of the military, or going to war? Why didn't this come up with the tax cut?

I don't know. This thread isn't about the GOP. End of this discussion.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can't be sure of that, though. There is no paperwork to show it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/politics/fact-check-pentagon-medicare-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html

Yes. There is. We know where the money was. And if AOC would actually read the article/study before making claims about it, she'd know that.

But she didn't. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You know this is what happened? Citation? 

Yes. See above.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Actually, I think people ignore the president when he makes stupid mistakes like this. They don't when he blatantly lies, which he does a lot. Mistakes at a much higher rate than AOC

Except they don't ignore the president. They accuse him of lying. Give me an example of a time Trump simply made a mistake and wasn't accused of lying.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You're just making up numbers, though, so this is not an apt comparison.

 

Theoretically, so was AOC.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There's a proposal to lock new computers from being able to access porn, and charge $20 to unlock them, and that would go toward the wall. Technical issues aside, this isn't going to pay for the wall. Even if you sold 100 million computers and all wanted to be unlocked, that's $2 billion. But if you quoted that proposal, you would not be the one to blame for the math error, or the assumptions that went into it.

Yes. I would be to blame for it.

Because I should do the damn math before making a claim about it. 

That's not somebody else's fault, that's mine for not fact-checking.