6 ms·

I am very interested to hear about this cabal that controls both Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell - how does that work? How did the ACA get passed in such an en

I am very interested to hear about this cabal that controls both Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell - how does that work? How did the ACA get passed in such an environment? How did the Trump Tax Cut get passed? NAFTA? The failure of the TPP? What about the provisions in the recent omnibus that contained all sorts of support for green energy? What are the mechanics of this system?

arolihas 6y ago
Unfortunately he already said he is not going to debate this probably because it falls apart under any informed scrutiny.
- jolincost 6y ago
  You can probably believe that if it makes it easier for you. I do not want things to be hard for you.
  - arolihas 6y ago
    It’s not a matter of belief. I’m reading the words you wrote, specifically your last paragraph. If your ideas hold up surely you’d be able to answer his fairly basic questions. But they don’t which is why you resort to asking for peoples email addresses and identities, as if that has any bearing on the merit of what you’re saying
    - jolincost 6y ago
      It's all belief. Nothing said contradicts my points. You're pretending it doesn't hold up, because that's easier than facing them. You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.
      - arolihas 6y ago
        You are the one stating there is a real cabal, why don't you provide proof of who is in it, what they do, and how it works. Until you have that I'm not going to pretend that what you propose is the case. That which can be easily asserted without proof can be just as easily dismissed.
        jolincost 6y ago
        You're trying so hard to disbelieve it when you obviously believe it to be true. It's not my job to participate in your pretense, to give you "proof" to validate your chant-like self deception, "i cannot believe it because there must be no proof"
        jolincost 6y ago
        You have the idea, it's not my job to give you proof, you can think for yourself and see it. Sounds like you blame someone else instead of owning your choice to believe or not. Trying to dismiss the idea as false without criticizing it, or giving evidence that counters it, is self-deception. You can simply choose to disbelieve without pretending it's unbelievable. That's what I suggest you do, because it seems like a hard idea for you to consider, and I don't want it to be hard for you. Have a good day!
ncmncm 6y ago
Both parties are beholden to mega-corporations. The public disagreements are over things that the corporations absolutely don't care about one way or the other, or that they are divided over. The one thing neither side will ever even hint at doing is make corporations and their officers responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices.
- JamisonM 6y ago
  Right, so how does that work? What is the mechanism of being beholden that allows the ACA to pass with an expansion of Medicaid? What is the mechanism that allows for the expansion in most states but not all? Who pulled these specific strings in these specific places in those specific instances? I just want and concrete example.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    ACA is a case where megacorporations were and are not in agreement. To pretend to be unaware of dependence of most US politicians on corporate campaign donations is not a way to participate in an honest discussion.
    - JamisonM 6y ago
      Right, so how did it work?
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        How did what work? ACA was a thing that various corporate backers did not all agree about. For the phenomenon I am talking about, both sides agree, and you never hear a peep about what they agreed on. For example, was any corporate officer of any large bank prosecuted for millions of counts of fraud, after 2008? For even one count? Did any single one go to prison? Tim Geithner got made SecTreas, instead. The DoD every year utterly fails to account for how most of the money they are handed was spent. Do you imagine that is because it can't be done? That they can't follow orders? The major corporations account for more than that amount, every year, every dime.
jolincost 6y ago
Oh, no submissions, what a surprise. No one knows who you are. I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.
- arolihas 6y ago
  This is ridiculous, people shouldn’t have to give up their anonymity to debate their ideas.
  - jolincost 6y ago
    I'm comfortable with those terms, and just as i said, I'm not going to debate it but I'm happy to hear different perspectives. None have been proposed, and just as i expected, the commenter is pretending, and does not have the courage of conviction. Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest. I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented. I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.
    - arolihas 6y ago
      He asked for specific evidence for your beliefs, that is absolutely a challenge. You couldn't rise to the occasion and give proof. You don't have to condescendingly tell me to not believe in your ideas, you already made it extremely easy to do so by providing no proof. There's nothing to dismantle if there isn't anything concrete in your hypothesis. You stand for and believe in nothing that matters, it is you who is playing pretend and lacks the courage or conviction. You are right about one thing, this is a waste of time. Reply with whatever nonsense you want or don't, I'm done here.

arolihas 6y ago

Unfortunately he already said he is not going to debate this probably because it falls apart under any informed scrutiny.

jolincost 6y ago
You can probably believe that if it makes it easier for you. I do not want things to be hard for you.
- arolihas 6y ago
  It’s not a matter of belief. I’m reading the words you wrote, specifically your last paragraph. If your ideas hold up surely you’d be able to answer his fairly basic questions. But they don’t which is why you resort to asking for peoples email addresses and identities, as if that has any bearing on the merit of what you’re saying
  - jolincost 6y ago
    It's all belief. Nothing said contradicts my points. You're pretending it doesn't hold up, because that's easier than facing them. You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.
    - arolihas 6y ago
      You are the one stating there is a real cabal, why don't you provide proof of who is in it, what they do, and how it works. Until you have that I'm not going to pretend that what you propose is the case. That which can be easily asserted without proof can be just as easily dismissed.
      - jolincost 6y ago
        You're trying so hard to disbelieve it when you obviously believe it to be true. It's not my job to participate in your pretense, to give you "proof" to validate your chant-like self deception, "i cannot believe it because there must be no proof"
      - jolincost 6y ago
        You have the idea, it's not my job to give you proof, you can think for yourself and see it. Sounds like you blame someone else instead of owning your choice to believe or not. Trying to dismiss the idea as false without criticizing it, or giving evidence that counters it, is self-deception. You can simply choose to disbelieve without pretending it's unbelievable. That's what I suggest you do, because it seems like a hard idea for you to consider, and I don't want it to be hard for you. Have a good day!

ncmncm 6y ago

Both parties are beholden to mega-corporations. The public disagreements are over things that the corporations absolutely don't care about one way or the other, or that they are divided over. The one thing neither side will ever even hint at doing is make corporations and their officers responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices.

JamisonM 6y ago
Right, so how does that work? What is the mechanism of being beholden that allows the ACA to pass with an expansion of Medicaid? What is the mechanism that allows for the expansion in most states but not all? Who pulled these specific strings in these specific places in those specific instances? I just want and concrete example.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  ACA is a case where megacorporations were and are not in agreement. To pretend to be unaware of dependence of most US politicians on corporate campaign donations is not a way to participate in an honest discussion.
  - JamisonM 6y ago
    Right, so how did it work?
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      How did what work? ACA was a thing that various corporate backers did not all agree about. For the phenomenon I am talking about, both sides agree, and you never hear a peep about what they agreed on. For example, was any corporate officer of any large bank prosecuted for millions of counts of fraud, after 2008? For even one count? Did any single one go to prison? Tim Geithner got made SecTreas, instead. The DoD every year utterly fails to account for how most of the money they are handed was spent. Do you imagine that is because it can't be done? That they can't follow orders? The major corporations account for more than that amount, every year, every dime.

jolincost 6y ago

Oh, no submissions, what a surprise. No one knows who you are. I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.

arolihas 6y ago
This is ridiculous, people shouldn’t have to give up their anonymity to debate their ideas.
- jolincost 6y ago
  I'm comfortable with those terms, and just as i said, I'm not going to debate it but I'm happy to hear different perspectives. None have been proposed, and just as i expected, the commenter is pretending, and does not have the courage of conviction. Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest. I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented. I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.
  - arolihas 6y ago
    He asked for specific evidence for your beliefs, that is absolutely a challenge. You couldn't rise to the occasion and give proof. You don't have to condescendingly tell me to not believe in your ideas, you already made it extremely easy to do so by providing no proof. There's nothing to dismantle if there isn't anything concrete in your hypothesis. You stand for and believe in nothing that matters, it is you who is playing pretend and lacks the courage or conviction. You are right about one thing, this is a waste of time. Reply with whatever nonsense you want or don't, I'm done here.