-->
@SirAnonymous
America doesn't qualify as a civilized country, sorry.
Why is Warren's campaign tanking all of a sudden?
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@disgusted
Why not?
-->
@SirAnonymous
It lacks all the conditions necessary.
-->
@disgusted
What are the necessary conditions?
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'm not here to spoonfeed you an education but supporting the right of your citizens to slaughter school children is not civilized.
-->
@disgusted
The US does not support the right to slaughter school children. Murder is illegal.
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's funny.
-->
@disgusted
How so? Murder is illegal. Slaughtering school children is murder. Ergo, slaughtering school children is illegal, so it isn't supported by the US.
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's hilarious.
-->
@disgusted
I must be a funny guy. Now, are you going to respond to what I've said?
-->
@SirAnonymous
I have.
-->
@disgusted
You responded by saying that America isn't civilized, then explained that the reason it isn't civilized is because it supports the right of its citizens to slaughter school children. I replied that it doesn't support that right because it outlaws murder, which includes slaughtering school children. You only replied to that by saying that's funny and hilarious. You have not seriously replied to my point that the US doesn't support slaughtering school children because murder is illegal.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yep. It's not civilized to allow people to slaughter school children. Hail Muuurica.
-->
@disgusted
The US doesn't allow people to slaughter school children. Those that do are usually killed by police or sentenced to life in prison or death.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Dude add my as a receiver.
When you blur the terminology it just makes it impossible to discuss issues.
This and everything before this doesn't demonstrate how I am wrong. You just added more stuff. A middle man is facilitating a deal. Please demonstrate how that a production.
They add no value. All they do is take money in and then try not to pay it back out. That is their entire business model. That business model ends in hurting people when their claims are denied. That isn't emotional, it is factual.
Yes they do. Whether or not agree with a value doesn't mean it is one. Facilitating a deal is still a value.
The value of a middle man is that it is vital in having someone represent what a person wants. This is akin to representatives because in a representative democracy, the United States appoint people who would act as a middle man in enacting policies. They act as a middle man by voicing your opinions by voting on what you would like. Sometimes they advocate for policies to be enacted, it just so happens insures can very well be the same party to create the care that you will ask for.
Representatives are also put into place for future actions that are not immediate. If you are against insurers you are against representative democracy and would rather have a direct democracy.
They have no financial incentive to lower prices.
Under the assumption they are not profiting. If they are then there is no need for them to target lower classes. Another insurer can come in for them or something like the ACA or medicare for all can help them.
A community and a corporation are nothing alike.
Please explain.
There is no reason to put a for profit company between people and healthcare. It doesn't serve a purpose other than soak more money out of people.
This seems like an argument for making anything needed to live a government run operation. People need: food, water and shelter as well. I guess you are for it I am assuming? I am not going to engage with what you ought like to happen. Whenever you do bring in proof for that ought then decide to challenge me on it.
Is america a socialist country then?
It is less socialist than I think almost all European countries.
You seem to think that the government providing services for people is socialism.
You are misunderstanding. Socialist esc as in it more aligns with socialism than capitalism.
Right wing people try to paint providing universal healthcare as a divergence from american values. I am pointing out that the government providing services has been an american value for a long time, thus invalidating that argument.
Excuse for the appeal to tradition. Don't bother engaging if you want me to respond to it.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Dude add my as a receiver.
sorry about that. not sure how i missed that.
This and everything before this doesn't demonstrate how I am wrong. You just added more stuff. A middle man is facilitating a deal. Please demonstrate how that a production.
A means of production is something that produces a physical product. Insurance companies do not do that. They are a middle man. And I would argue they actually significantly complicate the deal, not make it easier. But either way, if they do not produce a physical product then they aren't a means of production.
Yes they do. Whether or not agree with a value doesn't mean it is one. Facilitating a deal is still a value.The value of a middle man is that it is vital in having someone represent what a person wants.
But they don't do that. They do not represent the person buying the insurance. They just add a road block between the person paying for a service and the person receiving the payment. This adds additional complications and increased costs to the system. A single payer system simplifies the system because the person paying the bill and the person talking to the medical provider are now the same person.
Representatives are also put into place for future actions that are not immediate. If you are against insurers you are against representative democracy and would rather have a direct democracy.
definitely not. Representative democracy is fine as long as the person actually represents you. But for profit companies do not represent people, they represent their shareholders. Essentially, the current system forces you to choose between corrupt companies, all of which want to screw you over because it increases their profits. You have no real choices. not any that matter anyway.
Under the assumption they are not profiting. If they are then there is no need for them to target lower classes. Another insurer can come in for them or something like the ACA or medicare for all can help them.
Companies only want to turn a profit. So they have a priority to sell insurance to people who are unlikely to need it and can pay and no priority to sell to people who are poor or sick. You create a 2 tier system between the rich and healthy and the poor and the sick. That is exactly what is happening. The ACA was a good step in the right direction, but it doesn't solve the problem. It is a bandaid on a gunshot wound.
A community and a corporation are nothing alike.Please explain.
A corporation is a group looking to turn a profit at all costs. They will step on anyone and anything they need to in order to do that. If that means letting poor people die, they will absolutely do that. A community is a collection of people. They do not have an inherent profit motive driving them to cause damage chasing profit. Communities are usually more focused on the health and well being of the community. A corporation is only interested in their profit margin.
You are misunderstanding. Socialist esc as in it more aligns with socialism than capitalism.
I am not misunderstanding. You are misusing terms. It is a common mistake. But it makes debates much harder because the lines get blurred. People paint those on the Left as "socialist" when they aren't. Sometimes this is ignorance, often it is out of malice. They don't want to reform the system so anyone attempting to do so must be a communist or a socialist. At this point, the term socialist has no meaning because people will use it on anyone. I mean republicans still think Obama was a socialist.
Excuse for the appeal to tradition. Don't bother engaging if you want me to respond to it.
again, i am not appealing to tradition. I am showing how ideas such as Sanders' are not any different from what america has been doing for decades. This is a direct counter to those saying that they are radically different. I do not know if you personally have made those attacks but many on here have. Don't attack me for pointing out that this argument is nonsense. Attack them for making the flawed argument.
I am not saying we should do things because they have been that way in the past. I am saying that trying to paint progressive ideas as radically different is a lie.
-->
@HistoryBuff
A means of production is something that produces a physical product
A production can be non-physical. This can be your status on this website. You can't touch it but you can see numbers indicating how many posts you have. Under capitalism something is worth whatever somebody else thinks it is. If people think your non-physical product as in your user on this website is worth 1k then you can choose to accept that offer for your product or decline it.
They do not represent the person buying the insurance.
Yes they do. The middle man needs business. The insurance buyer needs insurance. The insurance buyer relies on the insurer to deliver them care when they need it. People pay for Amazon Prime when they need to use it.
A corporation is a group looking to turn a profit at all costs. They will step on anyone and anything they need to in order to do that. If that means letting poor people die, they will absolutely do that. A community is a collection of people. They do not have an inherent profit motive driving them to cause damage chasing profit. Communities are usually more focused on the health and well being of the community. A corporation is only interested in their profit margin.
Corporation definitions:
A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Link
A corporation is an organization—usually a group of people or a company—authorized by the state to act as a single entity (a legal entity; a legal person in legal context) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes. Link
None of these definitions disagree with me. An example of something that would fit under both definition is Native American tribes. Link
I mean republicans still think Obama was a socialist.
I am putting this on a spectrum. On one end there is capitalism. On another there is socialism. Medicare for all leans more towards socialism.
If I didn't comment on what you said, it would be because I didn't think it was relevant. If you think it is relevant do ask me to rebut it while also telling me what I need to rebut.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A production can be non-physical. This can be your status on this website. You can't touch it but you can see numbers indicating how many posts you have. Under a capitalist something is worth whatever somebody else is thinks it is. If people think your non-physical product as in your user on this website is worth 1k then you can choose to accept that offer for your product or decline it.
Something that produces value is not necessarily a means of production. That term means producing a physical object. You are arguing that you should be allowed to use a word the wrong way.
Yes they do. The middle man needs business. The insurance buyer requires insurance. The insurance buyer relies on the insurer to deliver them care when they need it. People pay for Amazon Prime when they need to use it.
Amazon Prime is part of the seller (amazon). So it is still direct communication between the person paying for the item and the person selling the item. Health care insurance is not the same. It is standing in between the buyer and the seller. The insurance company, ultimately, answers to it's shareholders, not it's customers. Putting a for profit company between the buyer and the seller of the service is only complicating things and driving up prices. They serve no purpose.
I am putting this on a spectrum. On one end there is end capitalism. On another there is socialism. Medicare for all leans more towards socialism.
But you are automatically biasing the conversation in the way you are framing it. That's like saying between communism and Nazism, republicans lean toward Nazism. It would be an entirely inaccurate way to frame people's beliefs because neither are even close. Medicare for all isn't socialism. It isn't even very close to socialism.
How you frame your question has a large impact on the answer you get. Saying it "leans socialist" is a right wing tactic to paint it as extreme, when it is essentially no different than what america does today for schools, roads etc. But if you said a republican policy "leans fascist" you would immediately get push back about the question.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Something that produces value is not necessarily a means of production.
You are not arguing against me nor attempting too. I'll just bring out a definition:
Production is a process of combining various material inputs and immaterial inputs (plans, know-how) in order to make something for consumption (output). It is the act of creating an output, a good or service which has value and contributes to the utility of individuals. Link
I am going by the economic definition.
Forgot to add this:
I would be talking about the transaction phase given we already have the necessary to facilitate your user.
Amazon Prime is part of the seller (amazon). So it is still direct communication between the person paying for the item and the person selling the item.
The same person facilitating Amazon Prime and making sure you have it, is not the same person you are buying things from.
Didn't you know almost all of Amazon's products are from consumers? You know the names of people when you buy a product used. Amazon Prime products might also be from a third party so essentially Amazon is a middle man for you to buy what you want. I can't believe I missed this. I want to see if you actually argue against this point.
But you are automatically biasing the conversation in the way you are framing it.
We would have to frame it someway and I argue it this way. Do you have a better of framing it?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am going by the economic definition.
You are splitting the words to try to make them separate. It is the difference between saying something is a noun, and something is a proper noun. Those words together in that order means something specific. "means of production" is exclusively the production of a physical product. And insurance company is not a "means of production".
The definiton you are looking for is "In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods)[1] are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services."
The same person facilitating Amazon Prime and making sure you have it, is not the same person you are buying things from.
The comparison is not a good one. Amazon is selling a comodity that people can easily do without and have lots of choices for. Nothing you can order from amazon is really required to live. Everything you could order from amazon could easily be found in other places from other sellers.
Health care is not remotely similar. Every person needs healthcare to live. You have no option but to have it. Comparing healthcare to just any other commodity is a cop out argument that right wing people use.
We would have to frame it someway and I argue it this way. Do you have a better of framing it?
I can imagine few framings that would be worse. I mean you are basically framing it as "do you support the american dream or communist goulags?" since most americans think "communism" when they hear "socialism".
A more accurate, although equally biased, way of framing it would be "corporate greed free for all vs community supported healthcare"
-->
@HistoryBuff
The definiton you are looking for is "In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods)[1] are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services."
I am talking about the transnational period and anything to do with buying something online and it staying online. Lets go with V-bucks.
Every person needs healthcare to live.
No every person needs there basic needs met. This can be if they are injured they need treatment. Healthcare can help with that. I disagree with your structure. Healthcare inherently isn't necessary but it can be.
You have no option but to have it.
You can die. You can not have it. You can use private insurance depending on the person. Stop making concrete statements which are so clearly missing out relevant information. A better phrasing would be healthcare is the best option we have for x reasons. No option is a lie.
Your constant hate jerk of right wing people will never be entertained by me. If you have made a valid point and start talking about right wing people expect me to avoid it. I am not here to talk about other people who are not involved in the conversation.
A more accurate, although equally biased, way of framing it would be "corporate greed free for all vs community supported healthcare"
Mine talks about the likely economic positions that US can go towards but yours is just an emotional appeal aka the entirety of populism. I am waiting for a better framing.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"I am talking about the transnational period and anything to do with buying something online and it staying online. Lets go with V-bucks.
We are just debating terminology. One of the key points of socialism is the communal ownership of the means of production. I have established that insurance is not a means of production.
No every person needs there basic needs met. This can be if they are injured they need treatment. Healthcare can help with that. I disagree with your structure. Healthcare inherently isn't necessary but it can be.
Healthcare IS the treatment of injury or sickness. Since everyone gets injured or sick, it is necessary to live. Most people won't starve or go into bankruptcy in order to get a new iphone or shoes. But they absolutely will to pay for their healthcare because when the choice is debilitating debt or death, there is no choice. Which is why commodifying something that people desperately need makes for a broken system. Suppliers know they can charge whatever they want because they know the choice is that or death.
You can die. You can not have it. You can use private insurance depending on the person. Stop making concrete statements which are so clearly missing out relevant information. A better phrasing would be healthcare is the best option we have for x reasons. No option is a lie.
Give me your money or die sounds more like a mugging than a choice. Humans are hard wired to want to live. Even if we thought that it was acceptable for companies to be able to put people in that situation (which I would argue we should never allow) it would still be ridiculous to say that people should choose to die rather than spend what is needed to save their life. that is not a real choice. It is the illusion of choice that ties people into a broken system.
Mine talks about the likely economic positions that US can go towards but yours is just an emotional appeal aka the entirety of populism. I am waiting for a better framing.
Your framing is just as emotional. Americans have spent decades holding up capitalism as a great thing. Americans have spent decades describing capitalism and socialism as terrible things that destroy your freedom. So saying it is a spectrum between "the thing you have been told your whole life is great" and "the thing you have been told your whole life is evil" is inherently an emotional framing. Unless you are arguing that most Americans don't have an emotional reaction to communism?
I never claimed the framing I provided wasn't biased, it is. I am trying to make you see that your framing is just as, if not more, biased. And that everyone on the right or who claim to be in the center is guilty of this emotional framing.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I have established that insurance is not a means of production.
No you haven't.
Since everyone gets injured or sick
Gets doesn't mean in the present tense they require healthcare.
Give me your money or die sounds more like a mugging than a choice.
Still a choice. This is just feelings from you.
Humans are hard wired to want to live
You have no biological backing for this. For one scientists still have yet to make any decent strides in the brain and if it wasn't clear we need that to understand the very thing that makes everything else do stuff. Another problem is that you are pretty much discounting humans who commit suicide as humans.
More of your emotional speak with what I have found out is political populist talk.
Your framing is just as emotional.
I didn't describe things. I merely said what they are. It is isn't an appeal to emotion so please stop lying about what things are.
Everything else after this wasn't relevant to what I asked. You haven't given a better framing instead of doing what theists do, shift the burden of proof and don't even bother explaining your side.
I just realized how useless this talk was. You don't understand when you appeal to emotion. You don't understand clear comparisons. You don't answer simple questions.
I am not responding here instead will next time completely talk to you about one point at a time even if you are intentionally put in more than what was warranted from what I said. Do respond back if you want but don't expect me to respond about this topic.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No you haven't.
I gave you the definition of the term and explained the very simple reason it does not apply to insurance. Your refusal to acknowledge the definition of the term has nothing to do with me.
Gets doesn't mean in the present tense they require healthcare.
So because they don't need it every second of every day, you don't think it is necessary to live? by that definition then nothing is required to live.
Still a choice. This is just feelings from you.
If you think paying or death is an actual choice, then i'm not sure you understand what a choice is.
I didn't describe things. I merely said what they are. It is isn't an appeal to emotion so please stop lying about what things are.
I would like to believe you argue from an intellectually honest position but it doesn't appear that you are. You used a loaded and biased framing that is common on the right to try to paint any progressive idea as extreme. When i pointed that out to you, you attempt to place the blame on me for pointing it out.
Everything else after this wasn't relevant to what I asked. You haven't given a better framing instead of doing what theists do, shift the burden of proof and don't even bother explaining your side.
You used an extremely inaccurate and biased framing. I pointed out your framing was biased, you now complain. That isn't shifting the burden. You made the positive claim. I called you out on it and showed how it was biased. That isn't shifting the burden.
I just realized how useless this talk was. You don't understand when you appeal to emotion. You don't understand clear comparisons. You don't answer simple questions.
I haven't used emotional arguments. Your comparisons are extremely flawed. I do answer your questions. You simply ignore my answers and try to pretend my answer is emotional so you don't have to examine your own flawed logic.
Because the Illuminati can't have such a brilliant politician for the people win.
Oh the secret societies is with the left, LOL
-->
@Imabench
Pete B hired a bunch of Facebook people, who are coordinating him sucking away moderate lib support from warren to mayor butti.
I'm sorry if I had this incorrect but I think the pundits agreed, mostly, that this was a reaction to the medicare for all plan and her plan for payment. There was a large reaction that this made her no longer electable and resistance from wealthy donors.
-->
@ethang5
Of course. He's gay, so you know, he can have no human faults. And if he did, it would be homophobic to mention them.I'm homophobic right now for bringing it up.
It may be simple. He is charismatic and runs a large town . We would have a beer. He makes the decisions for so many as an executive. In many countries that he is gay is not a big consideration. It's the same in several states, I think, in your area?
-->
@Ruby
The same in Philly.
But he will not win the nomination. Watch and see.
-->
@Ruby
I'm sorry if I had this incorrect but I think the pundits agreed, mostly, that this was a reaction to the medicare for all plan and her plan for payment. There was a large reaction that this made her no longer electable and resistance from wealthy donors.
I think the pundits are right that her drop is about healthcare, but they took the complete wrong message from it. She was surging when she was saying she fully believed in Medicare for all. When she released her financing for it, which included weird gimmicks and a head tax, she lost some steam. When she announced she would split it into 2 different bills, which would essentially kill medicare for all, she started a freefall.
The problem isn't that she is too far left, as most pundits would have you believe, the problem is that she bailed on medicare for all and tanked her support.