Man for someone who tosses the word “strawman” out a lot, you certainly make quite a few of them yourself. You’ve misrepresented almost all my arguments. First, what I said was not an ad hominem, it’s simply fact. If you don’t believe you were childish…well, don’t even know what to say to that. Obviously authoritarianism is on a spectrum, all forms of government are. I never argued to the contrary. Strawman 1. But authoritarianism remains bad, it’s like poison; virtually harmless in low doses, deadly in large ones. Poisons are certainly not good, even in low doses (i.e. lead). The same goes for authoritarianism.
LOL I’m the defender of authoritarianism here? Have you even read what you’ve stated? I’m the one denouncing it, while you encourage it. It’s borderline delusional honestly to think the opposite. But whatever. Troll away.
No shit I think I’m right about Dodd-Frank, but it remains an opinion. How is that moving the goal posts? My point was an argument, simple as that, even if it was said in a “snarky” way. In any case it’s once again a strawman, and moreover it’s quite hypocritical (I’ve lost track of the hypocrisy at this point, numbers-wise).
Strawman 3, I never said you couldn’t criticize the bill, but in a debate, you should actually have ideas of your own. This is particularly true with respect to governing and politics. You can criticize literally everything the government does and be a “hero” in your mind, when really you’re just destroying what exists. You have to offer a replacement, or there is no governing. All ideas have flaws. It’s not enough to just criticize. The reserve requirements wouldn’t prevent banks from making risky loans, or separate commercial and public banking. Considering bad loans was one of the chief causes of the crash, that’s pretty important that you leave it out of the picture. Banks have virtually limitless incentive to make bad loans because Wall St buys them anyways and/or they are securitized. Without fixing that, you can’t fix Wall St.
We have regulations on Wall st. obviously, again, strawman. No one said to the contrary. Nobody is saying it’s regulation free, that would be idiotic. I’m saying it isn’t enough. Dodd-Frank was essentially the only major attempt to fix the problems that caused the recession, to repeal it would mean going back to an environment that can cause another great recession.
Sigh strawman #4, with an excellent red herring to boot; I never said communism and whatever bs doesn’t rely on intensive regulation. All I said was fascism does. Wtf does communism have to do with it? Such a red herring.
There are many debate champions who never attended college. Perhaps you can assume someone who went to college can argue better than someone who didn’t, but you can’t disqualify someone because they didn’t go. That’s absurd. I mean how many Presidents for that matter didn’t go to college? You would disqualify a debate with them as well?
And no, the ACA is a republican idea fundamentally. Even if we assumed for a moment they never said a word on it before, it is a free market health care system. Universal healthcare is the progressive’s system. That didn’t happen. We didn’t even get a public option for that matter. But allowing businesses to call the life-or-death shots using a profit motive? That’s free market. And that is what republicans subscribe to, or at least they did.
Right, I personally shoved the ACA down the people’s throat. Do you honestly read what you write at all? And I think even if your figures are correct, double to popular support to begin with is far more democratic than what the gop is trying to do now. Not only that, but near infinite hearings were held on the bill, while the gop had to craft it in secret. Sooooo democratic and free right?