Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

Has that experience softened your stance on universal healthcare? Not even talking about you agreeing with it, but can you see why a good amount of people would want that? The overwhelming majority of the population probably won't have your level of insurance, nor both partners bringing in good money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has not. I understand why people want it though. I just don't think Universal healthcare is the route to do it. There are so many other things that I would fix first, and even then I'm not sure I would go with a Universal Health Care system.

 

Whether it's right or not, for profit organizations, and strictly speaking, profits are the reason that Innovation happens. There's a reason you see all of these news stories of countries with universal healthcare systems, and in particular children of countries with universal healthcare, are always fighting to come to the United States. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but as far as Innovations in Pharmaceuticals, surgical practices, and new methods of treatments, America is at the Leading Edge. We have been, and we still are probably the country with the absolute best medicine in the world, and if we're not we're definitely in the top two. The problem is we do not distribute those in a way that other countries do, which pads the stats of mortality rates and makes their medical system look better than ours. And as a whole, there may be some truth to that. However, when it comes to the actual medicine there may not be a country in the world that is on par with us.

 

What I would like to see us do, is definitely bust the nuts of all these insurance companies that are profiting off of people dying, I actually like the individual choice of being able to decide what coverage I want, how much coverage I want, and in general the open market. If there is a twenty-six-year-old, I think you should have the option to pay less than a 50 year old who's more likely to use Medical Care than the 26 year-old. I also like the choice of having actual prescription drugs, and the choice between the name and the off Brands. Some are the same, however there are some that are not, and I would like the choice of my insurance company covering that or not. I also think we should crack down on a lot of these pharmaceutical companies like the Pharma bro, I think he should be drug into the middle of the street and shot in the forehead, just to set an example to all of these assholes. That being said, once we have reeled in pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies I think the medical field in general would settle itself. And if it did not then go after hospitals who did not have a corresponding price drop once their cost of doing wholesale business dropped. So I guess in a way it really comes down to what form of government do you want?

 

I would rather have government that is willing to set the market, and enforce Fair practice laws, then a government that has an absolute Monopoly on the Healthcare System. I can see why people would want that, but I also see whether strong opposition to it. I think people are too quick to say hey look, can it is doing this. They are the liberal Paragon of the world, let's do that. I have no interest in imitating Canada, if I did I would move there. That being said, I think that there are definitely reasons to look at our Healthcare System, and maybe some of Canada's policies can be adopted into an entirely new system of Medical Care. However just mimicking their system does not do anything for me, and I don't think it would do. So I completely understand why people want to see change, I just don't agree with the current method that they choose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the way government is setting the rules for the market with the banks is a pretty good indicator as to what that looks like.

 

I honestly don't know enough of the details on this but I think it should be single payer. The problem with that is it could get like it is with schools getting all this federal and state money with some of these pharma companies and all they would have to do is pay a few million to the right congressmen and they could keep charging outrageous rates for scripts despite the theoretic power of being the single payer and single negotiator.

 

I feel so disappointed with this whole DNC shit. My whole thing with health Care is people need it to live. I think it should be gauranteed and I believe the spirit of the Constitution (general welfare bit) would suggest that it should be a utility. The argument hopefully once everyone is covered would be how to cut costs which is fine be me.

 

People can at least in theory effect government by voting or running for office. It's fucking hard to do the way the system is set up. We need a legit 3rd party. We really need rank choice voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole thing with health Care is people need it to live. I think it should be gauranteed and I believe the spirit of the Constitution (general welfare bit) would suggest that it should be a utility. The argument hopefully once everyone is covered would be how to cut costs which is fine be me.

 

I agree with Single Payer System not only for the humanitarian service it'd be, but also because it would reduce the amount of money we spend in fraud and reign in dr costs. I am super skeptical of calling it a right. What other rights require that someone else give you something? We don't have a right to roads, but it is a service provided by the government via the tax system. I'd prefer to keep the relationship to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is doing so much to illuminate the corruption of the system, you can tell that the media is bought because they make it 100% about Trump instead of how Trump happened. He shed light on the unconstitutional powers that the executive branch has taken over the last 40 years and people talk about his dumb ass tweets. It's frustrating watching people waste time arguing about the wrong shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Ngata from the discourse thread

 

I think you bring up a lot of important points. We need a president that will trust bust companies like Walmart and Amazon and a bunch of the big banks, telecommunication companies etc.

 

Where this stuff becomes tricky is with small businesses that are trying to survive. Some of those guys who might be doing well now could get fucked by us trying to stick it to the bigger guys who are extracting wealth and consolidating power. It's a immensely complicated issue that I'm not smart enough to solve but one thing I know is that we can do better.

 

The Democratic party and neo-liberal peeps have combined policies of ultra left authoritarian SOCIAL policy with Reagan/Clinton policies everywhere else. It does two things. It makes the Republicans a boogey man to liberals who vote against them out of fear and it riles up conservatives to come out and vote and keep us trapped in the two party system. The illusion of choice.

 

Like, you and I disagree on a lot of shit but if it was up to us to sit down and hammer out a deal I think we could do a pretty fair job of representing both sides even if we were yelling at each other half the time. The problem is the massive amount of cash flow that has inundated our political process.

 

I know I harp on this but the way issues are framed and which view points are presented make us too quick call each other madmen when really we're not as far apart on a lot of shit as we originally think. I know I've jumped to the wrong conclusions on some shit people have said, yourself included.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Ngata from the discourse thread

 

I think you bring up a lot of important points. We need a president that will trust bust companies like Walmart and Amazon and a bunch of the big banks, telecommunication companies etc.

 

Where this stuff becomes tricky is with small businesses that are trying to survive. Some of those guys who might be doing well now could get fucked by us trying to stick it to the bigger guys who are extracting wealth and consolidating power. It's a immensely complicated issue that I'm not smart enough to solve but one thing I know is that we can do better.

 

The Democratic party and neo-liberal peeps have combined policies of ultra left authoritarian SOCIAL policy with Reagan/Clinton policies everywhere else. It does two things. It makes the Republicans a boogey man to liberals who vote against them out of fear and it riles up conservatives to come out and vote and keep us trapped in the two party system. The illusion of choice.

 

Like, you and I disagree on a lot of shit but if it was up to us to sit down and hammer out a deal I think we could do a pretty fair job of representing both sides even if we were yelling at each other half the time. The problem is the massive amount of cash flow that has inundated our political process.

 

I know I harp on this but the way issues are framed and which view points are presented make us too quick call each other madmen when really we're not as far apart on a lot of shit as we originally think. I know I've jumped to the wrong conclusions on some shit people have said, yourself included.

 

See I agree with that. I think my biggest problem in politics right now is the hypocrisy of the left, I mean it truly is confounding how one party can be so corrupt, and so just out of sync with reality that it truly is an amazing feat of stupidity. The only thing that has rivaled it in my lifetime was Bush going to war and using Halliburton and Northrup Grumman as primary contractors. So when I say something about the left it is automatically assumed that I am on the right. Now that is not a woe is me thing because as stated I dont much care what people think about me. It is to say that politics has become all or nothing. Either you believe me on this keystone issue of my party or you are the other party .

 

When it comes to the economy I really think that it is a simple solution. Unionize your labor force, take privatized loans out of the college realm, and as a trade off make the person who has the loan forfeit 20% of their wages to the loan holder until it is paid off. That way they have guaranteed payment of the loan if the person who has the loan is working. Tax businesses who outsource their labor to a degree where it makes it worth it to stay in the united states, as the tradeoff there make the corporate tax rate lower. Implement a flat tax on all goods and services purchased in the US. ( I still remember Blots dumb ass saying a flat tax is more expensive to poor people, lol good times.) Neuter big pharma, and take insurance companies to task. Enforce anti-trust laws and you have a new economy.

 

The two party ssytem is indeed a joke, and both major parties have roles to play in that system. The real problem is the average voter. You have the people on the far right who use fear to make their constiuents listen and it works because most are cowards, and people on the left who are a bunch of whiny bitches who vote because someone hurt their feelers, and they were never told that their opinion means as much as a steamy pile of dog shit. 5th grade feelings and arguments about dumb fucking shit like pronouns, and fear of reprisals from a government who could become tyrannical at any moment has no place. Use statistics, and the objectivity of numbers to give us a BASELINE for how to do things. After that we can start to tweak it so Tranjenner can feel better about her pronouns or whatever tabloid horseshit people care about.

 

I think something that is really killing us right now is the ILLEGAL immigrant workforce, and outsourcing are our problems along with what I said earlier. WE reign in those two things and implement those things I dont see why we could not resurrect our rapidly declining country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people on the left and/or right are just scared and uninformed/disinformed. It's the millions of people that understand shit and decide not to participate in the farce that is our current political process that we need to engage and provide with reasonable alternatives instead of the bullshit they've been presented for decades. Problem is I don't see how you get that from either party.

 

I mean, say what you will about Trump and the Republicans (whom I have no love for) but the GOP clearly did not want Trump and he got the nomination anyway because there are no super delegates and the GOP didn't tip the scales the way the DNC did in order to ensure that they can keep the cash flowing. I guess in all fairness to the Democratic party, Republicans will probably never face the same issues of raising corporate dollars but in my opinion it's causing them to lose elections. Problem is the leadership of the party doesn't care if they lose as long as they can still get richer and anyone that threatens to disrupt that cash flow from within the party is going to be met with the full weight and power of the DNC and be defrauded and discredited which is apparently actually legal in most senses. Lol

 

It definitely cost them the presidency because the Unions know Dems aren't doing shit for then and they went with Trump who also isn't really going to do shit for them but he at least paid them lip service which is more than Hillary was willing to do because she was entitled to that office lol. Anyone who believes that one our election was decided by data mining and Facebook meme's is a fucking fool. How many organizations put money into that? The fact that this whole Russiagate thing is being made into anything but a campaign finance issue is what's fake news lol. I wonder how much money and resources Russia put into this shit in comparison to Hill-dawg's multi-billion dollar campaign that also had every TV news station on their side but fox. Give me a fucking break. Lololololol. The US exerts so much global influence on the world that there were certainly many more countries than Russia that wanted to buy influence and had a preferred candidate and I guarantee you that they do the same thing in congressional races

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump quote a long Trey Gowdy comment on twitter about Jeff Sessions, then finished it by (Trump) saying he wished he picked somebody else for AG. LOL

 

You and the rest of the country, Donald.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing I have a dark sense of humor :yao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court rules in favor of the baker. Good decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk I haven't paid as much attention to the case as I should have but I'm glad businesses were forced to serve blacks during the civil Rights movement. I worry about the potential legal precedent a decision against that gay couple could create. I mean, I understand business rights should be protected and honestly all rights should be protected but I don't understand how anyone but the couple is being discriminated against in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's more like you shouldn't be able to legislate whether a business chooses to make poor decisions or not. It's a bakery, if that one isn't gonna fulfill your needs, go to the competitor and drive it out of business? I mean, that's the opposite of how capitalism works, but still.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be talking about a completely different case and make an ass of myself here, but IIRC, this particular gay couple chose this bakery simply because they knew they'd try to refuse to make the cake.

 

Which they should be able to do without legal repercussions. The courts got this right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need somebody to tell me how this different from denying blacks service based on the color or their skin. can you see how it was important then to protect the rights of the minority in that case. A lot of victories in racial civil rights came from picking good cases to bring in front of courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court wasn't even split directly by party. It was 7 - 2 , and even RBG who led the dissenting opinion said that there was a lot in the majority decision (favoring the baker) that she agreed with.

 

And to go along with what Razor said, was something I mentioned when this got brought up before... If a baker (or whoever) wants to be asshole pieces of shit or whatever... let them. I bet their business and bottom line will be impacted though, and negatively.

According to the bakers attorney (so take it with a grain of salt), the bakers business dropped 40%... That's how it should work. I wouldn't support this baker with my cash, but I will support him to stand up for his beliefs and do what he wants as a business owner. The consequences he faces for those beliefs will "balance the scales" so to speak, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you're a gay person living in rural Mississippi or something? What if there's only one bakery in town for miles? I guess you could move but it takes money to move and some places don't exactly have a whole lot of economic opportunity. What if you can't get a job in said rural town because you're openly gay? Can anyone else see how this could be pretty bad?

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's different than being black because the Bible does not say being black is forbidden. Now whether you believe in the Bible is irrelevant. The fact is he does, and as a business owner he has rights, and they should be protected. If people don't like it, don't support the business. It is pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as long as you can find a Bible passage as a reason to discriminate against somebody it should be legal? Oh boy we could be in for some trouble going down that road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF I am off-base and someone has more knowledge, feel free to correct me. But according to the WSJ and other articles I've read on the subject, the court really skirted around the issue. The Justice responsible for the majority decision (Kennedy) asserted both here and has for decades gay rights and the need to protect them from being outcasts, but that the court that ruled on this case in Colorado was unfair to him and that he shouldn't be penalized. It was seen by him that the lower court justices in some instances seemed to flat out attack religion and the bakers beliefs -- and they really didn't like that.

Same article I read says that this issue isn't going away though.. They will have a hearing about another case where under similar circumstances a florist refused service to a same-sex couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the alternative ? Tell businesses that they must serve people whom they have religious tenants that run contradictory ? There is a lot wrong there, without cutting the obvious that every business would become government run.

 

Just go to another bakery lol. This is not like the guy was beating them as they walked past. He even said he would bake a cake for them, just not one that he felt took part in what he feels is problematic to his beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I see the side of protecting religious and business freedoms, I do, but this is a sticky situation. I don't think it's cut and dry either way tbh. What I really should do is read the decision lol. I just enjoy playing devil's advocate.

 

It will be important to follow the kind of legislation that follows this in conservative states.

 

I don't really see how making a business serve gay people will lead to all businesses being owned by the gubberment. I'm all about conspiracy theories as you well know but I can't connect the dots on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government can tell you what to make and who to make it for, how is it not government run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need somebody to tell me how this different from denying blacks service based on the color or their skin. can you see how it was important then to protect the rights of the minority in that case. A lot of victories in racial civil rights came from picking good cases to bring in front of courts.

 

Are you aware of what actually happened in this case? This gay couple targeted this baker and asked him to make a custom cake (celebrating homosexuality, which his religious . He offered to sell them a normal wedding cake. He offered to help them in any way he possibly could. This guy is so religious he won't make Halloween cakes.

 

This baker was targeted by a gay couple and nearly sent into financial ruin because of their selfishness. There are cake makers all over the place. Leave the religious guy alone or buy a standard wedding cake, which he offered to sell you.

 

This is significantly different from refusing to serve blacks because there is a significant difference between race and what one chooses to do with their genitals. It's a false equivalence of the highest order. If Christian bakers have to make cakes for gay people, Jewish and Muslim butchers have to sell pork.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×