|
SlothfulCobra posted:I feel like most democrat pushback against impeachment comes from the misguided idea that they don't want to risk weakening government offices when they're in power, which ends up meaning that the most criminal politician this country has seen in a long while gets off scot-free. An attempt to balance national discourse from only one side. In that vein, Some More News has an interesting message for Joe Biden. Yeah the absolute worst possible thing to do is take impeachment off the table, because it sends the message to Trumpski that he's above the law and can do anything he wants without repercussions. They at least need to hang the threat of it over him, but ideally stretch it out at long as possible so it's a constant reminder to the electorate that this guy is a criminal who is under multiple investigations for misconduct. The most charitable explanation for all the slow-walking is that Pelosi wants to get the timing right, knowing that impeachment proceedings (especially the accompanying legal challenges) will take time but if they end too soon they'll then get overshadowed by Trumpler's other various scandals and controversies. Ideally they'd need to start in September after Congress reconvenes and then stretch as close to the 2020 election as possible. If they voted to impeach now, by contrast, and then sent it to the Senate where the trial would most likely not result in a conviction, it would be over with more than a year to go before the election. It's one thing for impeachment to not result in a conviction, but it's another to be able to use the timing to your advantage by making sure everyone is aware of the criminality and the enabling by Congressional Recucklicans.
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
I didn't even think about that but you're right; I've always been under the presumption that the Democrats have the seats in the House to impeach and would do so when it's time to vote, but with as poorly as this has been handled thus far (by Pelosi, largely, unless she really does have some master plan that will all work out in the end) I guess it could allow the caucus to become so demoralized that it fails. That's why, even though the timing is important as I wrote, Pelosi has been making the mistakes of not taking advantage of the situations when they are advantageous: in particular when the Muller report was released, and when Mueller himself gave his "CANNOT EXONERATE" press conference. Those events came and went with hardly a peep from Pelosi in particular (aside from "he's not worth it" which is apparently a huge burn to tell a criminal you're not going to punish him for his myriad, very public crimes.) Instead, Justin loving Amash is the loudest voice for impeachment and meanwhile Pelosi's apparently been trying to come up with excuses not to impeach.... 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:I believe that the Democrats do have the votes to impeach in the House, but it's the Senate that does the actual trial. You'd need 67 senators to vote to convict, and seeing as how the Democrats don't have even a simple majority in the Senate, and adding to that the fact that any Republican voting to convict would be committing career suicide, just how exactly does anyone think this could possibly succeed? This is correct: there are enough Democrats to impeach (i.e. indict for conduct rendering one unfit for office) in the House, but not enough to convict in the Senate where the actual trial would be held. Our point was that we have to impeach because it is warranted based on his conduct, even if Recucklicans are so spineless that they'll continue to enable him and not convict in the Senate despite his obvious criminality. If we don't even impeach, that lets him get away with everything, but if the morale is so low that support for impeachment in the House wanes then that makes it a complete and utter disaster despite it ultimately being justified. The trial won't result in a conviction, but it will further expose Trumpler's misdeeds for the large section of the public that is too illiterate to comprehend the Mueller report and will force the enablers to put their vote on record. All of that should be ammunition to use against them in 2020. Some Recucks are fully in Trumpski's camp (e.g. Meadows, Jordan, Nunes) and others reluctantly support him because they know their CHUD base will turn on them for the reasons you described like what happened to Flake & Corker. The thing is, if the majority of them had any principles and voted to remove him from office, then what would the base do? Vote for Democrats in the next election to replace them? Vote for new Trump sycophant primary challengers long after he's been ousted? What would that do? Look at the response to Amash, who's one of the most conservative representatives: he had a positive reception by his constituency even though the CHUDs turned on him. And on Amash, sure, maybe someone like Steyer is the "loudest voice," but the former is certainly notable at least because he went to great lengths to explain his reasoning to his Faux News-swilling base. Plenty of other impeachment supporters just accurately accept what we all know is obvious, that Trumpler is a career criminal and is unfit for office. Woden posted:I think the idea is to impeach because there's enough information to warrant it. There's also that whole upholding the constitution thing. This. We have to at least begin the process now, but must ultimately impeach because the conditions described in the loving Constitution have been met, and Trumpski is systematically destroying our nation. TheCenturion posted:On the other hand, politics are a reality, and the fallout of being able to actually say 'They tried to impeach the President, but did not succeed' would be real. On the first point, Trump will play the victim regardless of what happens. Right now, he claims "total exoneration" despite that being explicitly untrue as described in the Mueller report and then by Mueller himself. You can't decline to impeach since a conviction in the Senate is unlikely just because he'll use that as ammunition because he's already claiming "If I did any crimes they would've charged me or impeached me already." On the 2nd point, yes, that's what I described, the timing being important. But they could've started an impeachment inquiry (which has no timeline or requirements) to gain more leverage and take advantage of spontaneous events, like Mueller's appearances. Instead, Mueller is going to drop this turd on us and slink away into retirement without Pelosi asking him to help clean it up (e.g. by testifying.) 3rd, does Pelosi really think letting Trumpler get away with everything is going to motivate her base? Is that going to preserve the party, by telling people who voted in 2018 that they should just stay home in 2020 because Democrats aren't going to represent the American people? Finally, the President, and certainly an illegitimate one like Trumpski can be charged while in office; they are not above the law, but a bad legal opinion in the DoJ causes some people to think that. Presidents do not have immunity for actual crimes committed before or during their tenure (see: Nixon being pardoned by Ford.) He can (and likely will) be indicted for his various crimes at some point in the future, within the restrictions of the statutes of limitations of the various crimes. Said statutes, however, could be tolled, or suspended, if for example it was argued that the time in office should be subtracted because he was considered unchargeable. oldskool posted:I can't remember where I read it, but I saw an article saying that Pelosi was deliberately slow-playing impeachment in order to hold the vote sometime in mid- to late-2020 in order to a) lock down Trump during campaign season, keeping him in Washington for Congressional hearings instead of traveling around for his re-election campaign, and b) to minimize the amount of time Trump will be able to hang his red hat on You may have seen that in my post because that's basically what I said, but yeah that's the most benevolent explanation for Pelosi's reluctance. SlothfulCobra posted:Outside of the obvious advantages of not having him as president, setting a warning and precedent for future generations, beginning the long process of dismantling the kleptocracy, and whatnot, I also just don't want him running around as a free man after a long career of criminal action.  tarlibone posted:And if there would be no negative fallout after a failed attempt to remove Trump from the White House, then I'd agree. But failing to remove Trump would have negative consequences for those who tried to remove him. It would bolster his position and allow him to plausibly say that he was vindicated. It would embolden him to use his position to really screw with anyone who tried to impeach him. It would fire up his base and guarantee re-election. The momentum would swing to the right. These people already have a giant chip on their shoulder and a persecution complex the size of Montana. Throwing them this kind of bone would be insanely stupid. There are negative outcomes right now every moment he's in office: concentration camps, depriving rights from minority groups (immigrants, LGBT, etc.), climate-destroying policies, etc. That's why just "waiting him out" isn't a viable strategy if you care about America (and the rest of the loving planet.) As I wrote above, he's already claiming he's been vindicated, so doing nothing will only allow him to reinforce that lie. Those who do impeach and vote against him will be rewarded by their voters because they're almost exclusively Democrats, whose base want him removed. He's not "guaranteed re-election" because he didn't even win in the first place by a margin of almost THREE loving MILLION VOTES and he's not only never been at 50% approval by the general public, he's losing support in the states that enabled the Electoral College usurpation. The majority of the American electorate will not vote for Trumpski; he has literally never had that kind of support, ever. Not impeaching him just reinforces the CHUDs' opinion that their god-emperor is infallible. Impeaching him rallies support of the majority. Defeating the Recucks in 2020 simply requires motivating the majority to actually vote, and you're not going to motivate people by shirking your responsibility to stand up to lawlessness.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 17:34
|
|
Total Exoneration, Not Guilty by a party-line Senate vote.
|
Rarity posted:Seriously? Yes, I've been calling them cucks in opposition to the CHUDs being intellectually devoid and co-opting things including that and Pepe, for example. But that's all you got out of the discussion? Seriously?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Sorry for the threadnaught guys, but this is genuinely an interesting (and relevant) topic.  TheCenturion posted:Yes, because it reduces, in one single stroke, your entire argument from surprisingly well thought-out, cogent, and passionate, to partisan name-calling. It turns an impassioned plea for rule of law, morality, and consequence for bad behavior into 'no u!' If you're that easily distracted then that's your problem, not mine. I already explained my position and felt the need to give the enemy a little jab even though the only people who are going to see it are the handful reading this thread. If it makes me feel a little better then so what? They're not rational actors and I'm not going to treat them as such in any company. SlothfulCobra posted:And also after he's gone, regardless of how we get rid of him, there's going to need to be a massive effort to get rid of all the stooges, incompetents, and actual criminals that have gotten into important bureaucratic positions, and if the people who want to work with a light hand win out, we'll be feeling all these kleptocrats for the next 30 years. Exactly, the government will need to be purged of his stench, and fortunately it's relatively easy to fire most of the rank and file. Getting rid of judges is more complicated but impeachment is an option. tarlibone posted:Also, let's not delude ourselves too much here. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's a good idea to start the impeachment process even when the outcome will all but certainly be acquittal by the Senate. Then, let's say that, despite everything we've seen out of the Republicans in Congress over the last few years, that more than one of them will suddenly take their balls out of Trump's hands (feel free to insert jokes about his hand size and/or what genitals he normally grabs with those hands) and defy him, voting for removal from office. Then, let's say that irrefutable proof of high treason suddenly becomes public. Hell, while we're at it, let's also say that it suddenly changes every Trump supporter's mind about him, and all the MAGA crap is burned. I would take Trump being gone in a heartbeat. There's literally nothing good about him being in the position he is now. He's unintelligent, illiterate, senile, incompetent, and a loving Russian puppet. Pence is so lovely he couldn't get re-elected in his own state, but he doesn't appear to be senile, in fact he's functionally the opposite of Trump even if he's a religious zealot. Plus, he really wants to be President, so unless he'd be satisfied with doing so for about a year, he wouldn't try to pardon Trump if he wanted any chance at getting [re-?]elected. Ultimately as I mentioned, we have to go through the impeachment process not because it's likely to eject Trump, but because of what we'd get along the way, and that's ammunition to use against him and his party of sycophants. Also, the whole thing about not just letting him get away with everything. TheCenturion posted:That leads to another important question; is having Pence as President going to be better than having Trump? As above, he's not great, but he's not a mashed-potato-brained imbecile who tweets all day. I figure Pence is like a version of Dubya, that sort of religious simpleton who can do some damage but not in the way Trump's doing it now. Saucy_Rodent posted:No, the same evil is there in the hands of someone who doesn’t poo poo his pants every six seconds. I mean, I would argue if I had to choose between the same two evil people, but one of them poo poo his diapers all the time, I'd go with the one who could control his bowels. The Cheshire Cat posted:I don't think this is strictly true, because ultimately it's the thing where regardless of what the senate says, it's really going to come down to the court of public opinion, and a house impeachment hearing is not going to bring up a lot of information "vindicating" Trump. As mentioned in the segment, public opinion on Nixon was very much against impeachment at the start. The big problem with the Democrats strategy has been that they seem to believe that public opinion is just a weathervane that must be followed rather than something that can be influenced by new information and political events. I think it was Lawrence Tribe who suggested that the impeachment hearings in the House could take the form of a trial, creating a big spectacle but demonstrating the evidence to the public and making it appear that he was being "convicted" even though it'd be a little misleading; the only people who would "fall for it" would be those who only watch Fox News and only hear the "NO COLLUSION" bullshit (like those Amash constituents who didn't realize there was anything bad in Mueller's report even though it was entirely bad for Trump, as you mentioned.) Consequently it would give the impression of being a formal trial and would actually be closer to reality than what Trump spouts and what would likely be argued by Senate Republicans in the actual Senate trial. Also, getting back to what I had argued previously, the way for Democrats to influence public opinion would be to run with the factual events that are negative for Trump (e.g. the Muller report and press conference.) That's why Pelosi just ignoring them is so harmful. tarlibone posted:The only thing that would make me say yes is that Pence, for all his faults... and there are a lot of them... but for all of his faults, he's a politician. He might like to say he isn't, but he totally is. Broadly yes, but Trump is legitimately not mentally sound, especially in his advanced age, and he has no experience, no ideas, no plans. Just his malignant narcissism which motivates his every action. Trump's alignment is Chaotic Evil. Pence would be...I dunno, Lawful Evil? Dubya was somewhere around there too. We've argued about how bad Trump is/will be compared to Dubya: after all, the latter started two forever wars, killed hundreds of thousands of people (American, Iraqi, or otherwise) hosed up our economy, etc. But Trump is entirely incompetent, so he hasn't quite figured out how to kill more people (than he's doing in his concentration camps, for example) but if he thought it would increase his poll numbers or lower his golf score or get his loving wall built, you'd better believe he'd be willing to start shoving people into ovens. The Cheshire Cat posted:I think there is a point here, which is that while Pence would be a terrible president and bad for a lot of very vulnerable groups of people, he would be less of an existential threat than Trump is because he's not the kind of person where he would "joke" about serving more than two terms. Pence would likely not be promising pardons to people who are willing to commit crimes for him. Largely agreed, but Republicans are going to continue to erode our democracy and society for as long as they retain power, which will be for as long as it takes for actual Americans to loving show up and vote for other candidates. Fortunately Republicans are not supported by a majority of the electorate, so in the near future more educated young people, non-Caucasians, women, etc., will step the gently caress up and vote, because all of this is and was avoidable. We could've avoided Trump, who lost by ~3 million loving votes, if we didn't have an election-reversing mechanism. pwn posted:As it has been, so it shall be Agreed, but the Democrats are still the lesser of two evils there. They're insufferable (or at least the elder, non-progressives) but not obviously outright evil. SlothfulCobra posted:It's hard to really say how much Pence would be able to do, how loyal he'd be to the administration and vice versa, or even if he'll somehow be swapped out for a rando in some last minute intrigue. I think it is indeed largely about money. You need money to get elected, and you need to please the people with money, who are generally individuals and/or businesses that have interests against those of the general public. Democrats might genuinely be interested in things that benefit all Americans (see: Warren, Sanders, even Obama and Hillary trying to pass healthcare reform in their own ways) but have to submit to corporate interests (see: the ACA basically being the Republicans' own plans as a counter to Hillary's healthcare push in the early '90s, and it being a handout to health insurers along with some bare-minimum reforms.) Orange Devil posted:Is having consequences for being bad better than not having consequences for being bad? Bingo, and absolutely agree that Obama should've gone after the war criminals from the Dubya administration.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Cause it makes you look like a 9 year old arguing over the XBox and Playstation You think that matters? You think I care what some rando on the Internet thinks about my name-calling? How do you know I'm not some 9-year-old dropping n-bombs over Xbox Live?  Just loving ignore everything I write if that one part is so distracting to you!Look at it this way: I could call Trump or similar Republicans "assholes" and you guys could make the same arguments for ~decorum~. You'd still be "right" except I might genuinely believe he/they fit the colloquialism, with I'm sure plenty of people agreeing with me. I'd still be the angry 9-year-old except Trump very obviously behaves in such a manner to warrant the insult, and you'd still be free to feel however you want about it. TheCenturion posted:It's a drat interesting topic, and I'm really enjoying it. I agree with almost everything you're saying, but: Fine, some people are more rational than others. There are some positions that are entirely irrational, though. The biggest one I can think of is climate destruction. Obviously the entirety of actual climate scientists (in other words, excluding the paid shills lying about the topic) hold the position that we're destroying our environment which will have dramatic negative consequences in the near future. Plenty of rational people recognize this, but the general position of the Republican party is that "Climate Change/Global Warming" isn't "real" and/or "isn't man-made or is a natural process that is part of a cycle" or any other variant that lets them brush it off, and kick the can down the road. This is likely because all they're interested in is short-term profits, because petroleum operations are still profitable and dumping waste into rivers is convenient for them. Plus, many in their party are quite aged and won't be alive when the most serious consequences come due, so they genuinely don't care (and Trump said as much, specifically in reference to the mounting national debt.) The thing is, some of them will be alive and will directly suffer from their actions, and their offspring will certainly suffer. Their behavior is entirely irrational on this subject, but the facts are there to show them otherwise. Yet as an establishment they persist on this self-destructive ideology, so I find it hard to believe that they actually believe that hurting themselves is the "right" perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Fine, but I disagree with you guys about specific profanities. I don't think there's a meaningful difference between calling someone an assortment of obvious profanities (e.g. fucker, rear end in a top hat, shithead, cocksucker, oval office, cuck, Republican, etc.,) but everyone is entitled to their own opinion as this is all subjective. I've specifically used "cuck" though, because as I already stated, it's a thing that they co-opted that I'm trying to use against them (like Pepe.) Other than that "cuck" doesn't mean anything to me. I'm fine with dropping it though if it's that distracting and everyone else is otherwise interested in discussing the other subjects.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Saucy_Rodent posted:I think even the abused workers would vote any politician that suggested this out of office. Next day delivery exists because people want it. "Next-day" shipping has existed because there is a need for it in some circumstances, e.g. legal documents or perishable items (like meds.) It's now a thing on Amazon because it was the logical next step from free 2-day shipping and a thing Bezos could [temporarily] hold as an advantage over competitors, not because people need their Oreos tomorrow. Freaquency posted:I noticed that you can now choose an "Amazon Day" where they'll deliver all the stuff you order through the course of a week on like a Tuesday or whatever. I wonder if that could have any meaningful impact on how hard the warehouse workers are pushed if enough people use it and they have a better idea of how much stock is going to be pulled in advance. Or maybe it just makes everything worse because they hold out on picking everything until the day before so you have all that stuff on top of the need-it-next-day Oreos people are ordering. I think it's in part a way to do what you said, to alleviate stress on the supply chain, but it also allows people to receive their shipments all at once on a day they know they'll be home, as opposed to stuff showing up at any time and sitting around for someone to steal it. The latter isn't a problem in my neighborhood but I know it exists in plenty of other places, so a constant delivery day of the week is certainly useful to some people. Even though I have Prime I've been intentionally choosing the "no-rush" option and receiving the media credit (towards books.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Saucy_Rodent posted:It’s not about need, it’s about want. People would rather have their Oreos tomorrow than later, or their new shirt, or their retro gaming system or whatever. It’s probably a good policy, but it’s a policy that will be unpopular with the vast majority of people who aren’t warehouse staff. No politician is going to run on taking away your nice things. Oh I get the need vs. want thing, my point was that people will use the free fast shipping options because they're there, not because they care all that much about them. Before Prime, you had (and still have) the option to pay more for faster shipping of anything (especially, like I said, perishables and other time-sensitive things.) Then Prime gave us free 2-day shipping, with an option to upgrade that to 1-day for $2/item IIRC. Before Prime I was perfectly happy to put $25+ of items in my cart so I could checkout with free [slow] shipping. Even now, anecdotally, the "no-rush" option pretty much always delivers the stuff in less time than specified. And although it's getting way off topic, people not supporting climate legislation because it slightly inconveniences them are going to get a loving wakeup call when they get way more inconvenienced due to the continued lack of climate legislation. See: ongoing record heat waves in places like Europe, Alaska, etc. Saucy_Rodent posted:Yep! You don’t have to run your business at a profit if you have enough investors to keep you running forever. Youtube’s a black hole financially, but where else are you going to upload a video and expect anyone to actually watch it? I'm pretty sure, at least before the Adpocalypse, Youtube at least broke even due to ad revenue. Now, probably not so much. PT6A posted:I think another problem is that people don't know where to buy poo poo any more. For example: I lost my umbrella the other day, and I needed to get a new one. Where does one go to buy an umbrella? There's no such thing as an umbrella store. I think I've seen them in souvenir shops before, maybe. A department store, perhaps? gently caress it, I guess I'll just order one off Amazon, because I type "umbrella" in the search box and all of a sudden I have a range of different sizes, constructions, colours, etc. and I can stop thinking about my need to purchase a new umbrella. You're right, although you're basically just describing a general store. That's what Walmart and Target are the modern examples of, but department and convenience stores are along the same lines. You can actually Google products and get links to local, B&M stores if you don't immediately want to go to Amazon or whatever. Saucy_Rodent posted:Next-day delivery is an unnecessary convenience we’ve all gotten used to and wouldn’t want taken away, and the idea that outlawing it would get any public support at all is laughably naive. Orange Devil posted:3. I've never claimed eliminating next day shipping would make these jobs good. In fact I've explicitly stated it wouldn't. What I've argued this entire time is that it would make these jobs measurably less lovely and it would do so at a loss of minimal societal benefit. The solution isn't to "ban" next-day shipping, nor is it easily enforceable (particularly in the sense that a government prohibiting industry from giving something to you in less time is a pretty apparent overreach.*) As I've mentioned, giving customers the option to pay incrementally more for faster shipping has always been the norm, and it still is outside of Amazon and its direct competitors. If the status quo became, "just put stuff in your cart and check out, and it will get to you within a reasonable amount of time, but you can pay more for faster shipping if necessary," then people would do exactly that. Those that need their next-day Oreos can pay extra for them or get off their fat asses and walk (lol, who am I kidding, "drive"  ) to the store.***This reminds me of the now-defunct NYC ban on large containers of sugary soft drinks. It's not at all the case that it prohibited [dumb] people from drinking sugar-laden beverages or purchasing any specific quantity of them, it just prohibited the maximum container size, yet it was widely unpopular. It wasn't even a bad idea, but the mere thought of a government entity trying to nudge people towards doing something that was better for their health was seen as overreach. "Banning" next-day shipping would have a similar outcry, I'd predict. That's why keeping it as a paid option is the only logical course, and it you wanted to legislate anything along these lines it'd have to be something like taxing the seller/shipper/whatever for faster shipping options*** to the point where they had to charge for them. **Just a thought, the "order online, pick up in store" thing that places like Target, BB, etc., offer, even though it's pretty standard for the restaurant industry, may create working conditions like in the warehouses tasked with fulfilling the next-day orders. It's probably not on the scale of the warehouses, but the people in the grocery stores or Target or wherever still have to run around to pick items within the 1-2 hour windows. ***On this point, I also had the thought of waiving the aforementioned fine/tax/whatever for using USPS, which could be a way to increase volume and help the agency address its financial situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I'd like to point out that lots of you, as well as John Oliver, have used "next day oreos" to paint customer wants as a bad thing with a side of fat shaming. Well we're running with the Oreos example because Oliver mentioned it, but it has nothing to do with "fat shaming."  Oliver himself used it as an example of a trivial item that doesn't need next-day shipping but is nevertheless available for free next-day shipping for no good reason (and all of this is irrelevant to the fact that you can just go to a grocery store to buy them same-day.) As I've already mentioned multiple times, fast shipping isn't the problem, because it's a necessity for things like temperature-controlled drugs (i.e. refrigerated or frozen meds that need to arrive quickly to the pharmacy from a wholesaler and are shipped with ice packs or even dry ice.) The problem is offering free rush shipping on trivial poo poo and squeezing warehouse employees for no good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Oh wow, I didn't realize he actually is in the movie!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:This poo poo was a living nightmare for me back when I was in college. I have an illness that can cause debilitating and random pain flare-ups, and it's been documented for years, and I go for regular check-ups and treatments from a legitimate doctor from an award-winning hospital. This didn't stop the nearby emergency room from deciding that I was a drug-seeker, after I'd been to the ER a half dozen times in a couple months during a particularly bad period. After one or two visits where the only thing that stopped the pain was Dilaudid and Zofran, I made the mistake of telling the triage nurse "I was here with this a couple weeks ago and the only thing that stopped the pain was Dilaudid and Zofran." The doctor KNEW I was a drug seeker, refused to give me narcotics, and told me my disease doesn't cause pain like that (sure). I told him to give me a drug screen, the only thing they'd find was weed. Drug screen came back "inconclusive", according to him, because he couldn't admit the evidence didn't bear out his hypothesis. Left me writhing in agony for upwards of four hours before it went away on its own. What happened to you is an unfortunate reaction to the period of liberal opiate/opioid prescription that resulted in the mess we're in now; now all healthcare professionals are hyper-sensitive to potential drug-seekers. However, it would've been illegal for any ED to refuse service to you, and it sounds like you ran into some shockingly unprofessional providers. (It wouldn't have been out of the question, however, to make you wait if you were triaged and they had to attend to more serious cases - yours wasn't life-threatening, after all.) Also, note that the 2nd drug you described - Ondansetron - is an anti-emetic, not an analgesic. It wouldn't have been suspicious to request that in the first place, however if that provided some relief then that'd offer hints to the root cause of your symptoms, and ideally the goal would be to treat them, but I can't figure out what you have just from the limited information provided.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:It's illegal for healthcare providers to check your insurance but somehow I get much better care on my new corporate health plan than I ever did on medicare so Illegal in terms of not being able to discriminate based on who your coverage is. All the more reason to go single-payer, universal healthcare, but let's not go crazy here! Anyways, as a healthcare professional myself, I can tell you that most of the people providing service aren't going to care about your insurance because they're not the ones who have to pursue payment and aren't personally getting paid by your insurer, but that might be a little different in a medical office (as opposed to a hospital.) That might be little comfort to you or anyone else who has experienced discrimination in this area, but I just wanted to share that.  Phenotype posted:It's Crohn's Disease, not to be mysterious about it, and yeah, the Zofran wasn't the issue, but the fact that I came in and specifically asked for Dilaudid was solid conclusive proof that I was drug seeking, no matter my medical history, drug screen, or the fact that that was exactly how they treated my symptoms before. And this was a good ten years ago, before the opioid crisis was so visible. Ah ok, Crohn's is reasonably common, I just couldn't have guessed that based on the information provided! In that case, I can see why Ondansetron might provide some relief, and as there's no cure, managing the disease largely revolves around treating the symptoms (rather than there being some root cause that can be addressed like I mentioned in the last post.) It's just that there are drug seekers who come in asking for their narcotic of choice, and unfortunately you were lumped in with them.  I don't think there's more that you could've done beyond saying, "check my medical history, I have Crohn's, the meds used to treat me last time were the only ones that worked."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 08:30
|
|
illegal
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Young, hopeless men with few or even no prospects seems a pretty big loving deal to me? I doubt they'll go the incel route because it's totally stupid to anyone not braindead though The silver lining for China is that they don't have like 12 guns or whatever per person just floating around there, within easy reach of every braindead psychopath. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:I ordered a sweater from Jos A Banks and they've sent me multiple emails every single day since. I'm sorry, I can't help myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU9HV3Uk9a4 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:The senate doesn't get a say in huge swaths of possible executive actions Right, but all actual legislation (i.e. anything that can't get through both houses) grinds to a halt, and unless President Anyone-But-Trumpler packs the Supreme Court then even executive orders aren't untouchable. Also there's the problem of all the federal judges the chuds rammed through.... 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
webmeister posted:Pretty much. I know we live in the hell timeline, but the clip of him talking about hydroxychloroquine saying "just take it. take it! what've you got to lose? i'd take it, just take it, you need it" is some genuinely horrifying stuff. It's not often you see him in full snake-oil salesman mode, and doing it surrounded by all the presidential regalia is serious glitch-in-the-matrix stuff. I was a little behind on this thread due to being busy at work, and this was the first unread post; I found it amusing that it took less than a month before we went from "just take it" to learning that he is, indeed, "just taking it" (or, alternatively, lying about it, like everything else.)
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Trump is always and forever lying about what he's doing, but he's also constantly doing the dumbest possible thing. In this specific instance he's claimed that he's been doing a very very stupid thing which means he's either lying (but also acting sensibly) or he's acting stupidly (but also telling the truth). Yup, it's kind of breathtaking how he has to lie about everything, no matter how minor, (e.g. hand size, the dead veterans in the VA hydroxychloroquine study dying to spite him,) except he'll occasionally slip up and tell the truth about something (e.g. being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters.) That's why I'm not 100% sure if he's taking hydroxychloroquine or not, because it's totally something he'd do because he's profoundly stupid, yet it's also something so bizarre to lie about that he'd also do that. The only thing more fascinating than how much of a malignant narcissistic pathological liar he is is how so many CHUDs actually fall for his bullshit and remain in his cult. Milo and POTUS posted:It's possible his doctor is giving him sugar pills Snowglobe of Doom posted:Yep, note that the letter his doctor issued confirming that they'd discussed hydroxychloroquine very very carefully avoids saying that he actually prescribed it to Trump at all I would genuinely not be surprised if he wasn't actually taking the active drug, because any competent physician wouldn't prescribe it to him for COVID prophylaxis, and of course he's stupid enough not to know the difference between real drugs and a placebo, (nor would he know how to perform a drug ID, or have the initiative to do so.) This is especially considering the rather severe side effects and also the fact that, again, he's stupid enough to OD himself because "moar drug = moar cure." I actually considered tweeting at him something along the lines of, "Sir, you're so brilliant and have huge hands, sir, but have you considered taking 10 times the dose of hydroxychloroquine to get 10 times the effect? The math checks out, sir!" but realized that would quickly get me banned as it's pretty obviously encouraging self-harm. (Meanwhile he and other Nazis get to continue to spew hate on the platform, but I digress....) 
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:Pretty cool that Oliver & co. ignored the biggest vulnerability with vote by mail to focus on red herrings. I'm generally in support of vote by mail, but we shouldn't just paper over concerns, rather honestly consider various risks, solutions and mitigation methods, and how best to implement vote by mail. I think that's the highest-profile example of vote-by-mail fraud, and considering they already did an episode on it (last February) I don't blame John for not going over it again. The Harris/Dowless scheme was pretty well covered, and while it's certainly still a risk, I guess, people are at least far more aware of the tactic. Plus, as in the following post... tarlibone posted:Yeah, here in St. Louis, there was a case a few years back where absentee ballots were used to steal a local election. The Post-Dispatch covered it extensively, and the details were laughably disturbing. People were being told that they had filed absentee ballots who had never voted. One of the candidate's relatives was even dropping off ballots that didn't stand up to any scrutiny, and a new election had to be held. ...when these schemes are inevitably uncovered, they result in new elections (and of course in Mark Harris' case, he didn't even try to run again.) That's not to say there's no risk of mail-voting fraud, but these large-scale schemes are high-profile enough to get caught, and as mentioned in the episode, the overall effort required to commit each individual act of voter fraud (in-person or mail-in) is high. So the chance of voter fraud is far lower than Republicans claim (because they're simply trying to disenfranchise voters they know likely won't vote for them anyway, similar to their voter-ID efforts)... ...and that's what surprised me about the episode, that John didn't go into more exhaustive detail about how actual incidents of voter fraud tend to be in favor of Republicans. This is especially relevant considering Trump basically committed mail-in voter fraud himself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 07:22
|
|
|
And right on cue.... quote:Derek Chauvin, the 44-year-old Minnesota police officer charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter for his role in the May 25 death of George Floyd, voted illegally in Florida in 2016 and 2018, according to a Florida attorney.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
I'm not defending everything Obama did, but I would take 8 more years of him over 8 seconds of Trumpski. (Incidentally, "8 seconds of Trumpski" is what earned Stormy Daniels $130k!  )
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 01:27
|
|