Total posts: 4,222
And what about all the good he did or are you an obamacare single issue voter?
He did good things too. If he didn't I wouldn't say he was a mediocre president, he would be a bad president. But healthcare reform was one of the major issues he got elected on and he failed miserably to deliver and it was entirely his own fault. That will forever mar his record and ensure he is not one of the best presidents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 8th District I think. I just found about this the other day. He was impeached and convicted on accounts of bribery in getting a lesser sentence for someone in the mafia
I googled this. He was charged with those crimes an acquitted. There was no evidence he had actually done anything wrong.
Created:
How does this encourage him to not push more to the right unless he wanted to inspire deep hatred towards him?
Your question doesn't make sense. There is literally nothing he could have done that would make republicans happy. He was going to be hated no matter what. He picked a right wing plan that comes right out of a right wing think tank. Did the right cheer on his bi-partisanship? Hell no. They screamed about "death panels" and every other nonsense they could think of.
Going right is a completely useless exercise for a democrat. If you aren't willing to go full blown right wing crazy, then you have nothing to gain by doing so. Obama is a perfect example of that. He went right and democrats got absolutely killed across the entire country over his tenure.
So to answer your question, going right will do nothing to prevent you being hated, and simultaneously makes you hated (or at least disliked) by the rest of the country you are betraying by going right. Going left will make you loved as you help millions of people. You'll still be hated by the right, but that is a given for any democrat at this stage.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, Obama pushed Obamacare which flipped the Senate majority 2 years into his reign which allowed 3 Scotus picks to his enemies.
this is exactly my point. He picked a shitty right wing plan, people hated it, then lost control of the senate. He has only himself to blame. He should have picked an actual good plan and rammed it down the republicans throats, not dick around for 2 years trying to get them to agree to their own shitty plan.
Created:
So he should lose the larger number of voters to appease the far left ones?
this seems to be a silly question. Because failing to do what he said he would cost him control of congress. If he really was appealing to the larger number of voters by fighting for right wing policy, he wouldn't have lost the midterms.
He betrayed the people who believed in him and that had electoral consequences. It isn't progressives' fault that Obama failed them. If obama wanted their support he should have done things to appeal to them. He didn't. He picked a right wing plan and then dithered as he tried to get republicans to help him pass his right wing plan.
It is a weak politician who blames voters for their failures.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope, he never incited any insurrection
do you agree that the attack on the capitol was an insurrection? Keep in mind the stated goal of the people in the crowd was to force congress not to certify the results of a democratic election and they used violence to attempt to stop congress from doing it's constitutional duty.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Wrong, congress is not supposed to impeach a president on false premises
what false premise? Trump's supporters marched directly from his speech into a violent assault of the capitol for the express purpose of overturning the results of an election. No hostile force has entered the capitol in centuries, but trump's cultists did it because he told them they needed to use force to protect him.
I can't think of anything worse a president could do than to attempt to illegally and violently overturn his own election defeat and steal an election. Trump deserves to be impeached for that.
Created:
I think Obama was a mediocre president at best. He talked a big game, but when it came time to actually do what he said he would, he refused to do it. He had the opportunity to get real progress made. But he made the mistake of thinking that the republican's actually wanted to improve things and might behave like rational adults. He tried to negotiate with people whose only goals were protecting the rich and sabotaging virtually anything and everything he tried to do.
to make it worse, he has openly blamed progressives for his failures. He saw his electoral defeat in the midterms of his 1st term as progressives betraying him. He is incapable of understanding that the reason he did so badly was because he had betrayed progressives so they didn't turn out to vote for the people who were letting them down. But in his mind, it's their fault for not being super happy with his right wing policy.
If obama had actually tried to do progressive policy instead of half measures designed to appeal to republicans, he might have been a great president. But as it is, he is a mediocre one.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are happy with the rule of law saying the FBI won't be able to jail Citizen Trump? Is that your idea of the law working as intended?
i have no idea what you are talking about. trump is likely to be under multiple criminal investigations now that he is no longer president. An investigation has already started in Georgia for election fraud. He is an unnamed conspirator in the charges against Michael Cohen, so those could definitely be brought back up now.
So why would the FBI be unable to jail him?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You are assuming the rule of law still exists.
well, despite trumps efforts to steal an election using lies and violence, the process worked as intended. So yeah, we do still have the rule of law despite trump's best efforts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you agree this Theatrical Display is about securing power and has nothing to do with punishing Trump or justice or "protecting democracy" since the FBI is more than capable of doing all of this in a timely manner to any citizen.
what? no. I didn't say anything like that. The constitution makes it very clear that if a president commits an impeachable offense he can and should be impeached by congress. So the question of whether or not trump should be impeached has nothing to do with the FBI. Trump committed an impeachable offense while in office. He was impeached while in office. The senate now needs to vote on whether to convict, it is very straight forward.
You can't possibly think Republicans can "play games" with the FBI....do you?
why would the question of impeachment have anything to do with the FBI?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They could have been killed. And they are still too spineless to stand up to a man who attacked democracy and endangered their lives.Nothing is stopping Schumer from walking over to the FBI, except for common sense of course.
this is, in no way, a response to what I said. When the president commits an impeachable offense, you impeach him. That has nothing to do with the FBI.
The republicans are playing games trying to avoid the question even though trump endangered their lives and endangered democracy itself. They are cowards who are choosing not to do their jobs because they are too afraid of trump's fanatics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn't really matter. 45 Senators have already gone on record indicating this is all political theatre for retards. SCOTUS probably won't ever have to weigh in.
so 45 republicans that are terrified of trumps base just want this to go away so they don't have to cast a vote either way. That does not indicate it is theatre. That indicates they are cowards. Trump's attack on congress literally endangered their lives. They could have been killed. And they are still too spineless to stand up to a man who attacked democracy and endangered their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The surprise would be the SCOTUS allowing Congress to do it to a US Citizen who was not currently a government official.
why would it be a surprise? Trump was impeached when he was a government official. Government officials have had their trials take place after they left office in the past. There is nothing unprecedented in having the trial take place after the impeached individual leaves office.
If SCOTUS ruled against it they would be doing exactly what republicans claim they hate. They would be reinterpreting the constitution to suit their own political needs.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Also, the "LAW" says the the Chief Justice shall preside over the impeachment of any President. Not some jack ass yahoo they pull out of their ass.
if a chief justice had the power to prevent an impeachment just by refusing to preside over it, then congress no longer has the power to impeach a president. Only the supreme court has that power. That is obviously not the intention of impeachment. It's explicit purpose is to give congress the power to remove a president who has committed impeachable offenses. So it makes no sense that the chief justice could simply veto the process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Never thought of it this way. It would absolutely be true though. Preemptively banning a one term President from non-subsequent reelection
banning a president that has committed impeachable offenses is precisely why impeachment exists. Of course it is true that it could do exactly what it is designed to do. Why would that surprise anyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is so funny the Constitutional gymnastics involved removing a government official who is also not a government official.
no one is talking about removing him. The punishment should be to bar him from running again. which the constitution says they can do. Also, you are forgetting that trump was impeached while he was still in office. So even if that were a hurtle, which i don't agree it is, it is obviously cleared by the fact that he was impeached while in office. The senate just chose to delay hearing it until he had left.
Scotus most definitely will put Congress in its place if they decide to break character while playing out the political theatre for retards.
lol SCOTUS will "put congress in its place" for doing what the constitution says it has the power to do? What a joke.
This is so funny the Constitutional gymnastics involved removing a government official who is also not a government official.
the really funny part is that people can argue with a straight face that the founding fathers wanted presidents to be immune from punishment during their last month in office. Or that the Chief justice has the power to veto an impeachment by refusing to preside. Anyone who would argue that is either extremely stupid or so partisan they willfully ignore what the power of impeachment is for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No, I’m saying it’s not fine. If he was convicted I’d support him going to the Supreme Court. You probably didn’t see my subsequent post where I mentioned that the reason 50/75 senators didn’t convict was because they believed that the Senate lacked jurisdiction.
the senate voted and confirmed they did have that power.
That’s not my job, that’s the Senate’s job, and I’d support subpoenaing Roberts to show up for the trial if it came to that, but as of now the trial is unconstitutional. And actually if it came to be, Congress could impeach the Chief Justice as well, that’s how the Constitution was designed - Check and Balances.
your position is illogical. You think it is unconstitutional for an impeachment to happen without roberts. I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say your right. Then the senate and congress aren't doing anything wrong. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Roberts is the one violating the constitution.
No they don’t lol. Officers are defined in the Constitution as requiring appointment and approval by the Senate or specific laws passed by Congress allowing the President to appoint someone to an agency without Congressional Approval.
here is a link. Congress may impeach any federal official, including a senator.
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
true. And the senate did vote to remove blount. So what exactly is your issue?
They can’t because they themselves would be under the threat of impeachment for neglecting their constitutional duty. Checks and Balances.
so your argument is that the supreme court can block an impeachment and the only way to move forward with one impeachment is to have a different impeachment? That still gives the supreme court a veto on impeaching the president which is definitely not what the power of impeachment intended.
I do advocate for him to preside. But right now the trial is unconstitutional.
again, you make no sense. The trial is fine. If anyone has violated the constitution it is Roberts, not congress.
Courts can’t veto impeachment because they themselves are subject to it.
if they can prevent a veto by refusing to preside over it, then they have vetoed it. They do not have that power. If roberts refuses to preside, then someone else will need to do it. It is pretty straight forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You need to reread your history homie. The Senate never convicted William Belknap. He resigned minutes before the House vote on the Articles and the trial took place anyways. That’s fine.
so you are acknowledging that he was impeached after leaving office and that this is fine. So we are good to impeach trump too. It has been long established that impeachment can happen after someone leaves/is removed from office.
The problem with today’s impeachment is that the President of the United States was impeached, thus requiring the Chief Justice to preside. Until that happens the trial is inherently unconstitutional.
so your objection is that Roberts isn't doing what he is constitutionally required to? Then take that up with roberts. If an impeachment couldn't move forward because the chief justice didn't feel like presiding, then that would give the chief justice a veto on all impeachments. Which is obviously not what the founding fathers intended. It would allow the judicial branch to prevent legislative branch from doing one of it's most important duties.
What are you talking about? The House filed Articles of Impeachment against Senator Blount which is unconstitutional lol. Each body has their own powers to expulse members.
you are mistaken. The house has the power to impeach any federal official, including senators. The senate did vote to expel Blount. There was nothing unconstitutional about it.
A former President is not an Officer and therefore there the President Pro Tempore cannot preside. Roberts must preside for the trial to be Constitutional.
again, you are arguing that the courts can block an impeachment. But that is absolutely not what was intended for the power of impeachment.
Self-pardoning would have to be decided by the Supreme Court, not you. Not to mention treason, which pretty much encompasses everything is immune from the pardon power.
the point is that if you can't be impeached after leaving office, then there is no punishment for behavior done in the final days in office. The constitution intended for congress to have the absolute power of impeachment and gave them massive latitude in how to do it and when. What you are arguing is that there is a loophole where presidents are immune to the only punishment available for their actions.
It makes perfect sense. Either Trump is the President of the United States for the Senate Trial in which case the Chief Justice must preside or he’s not and therefore not an Officer of the United States meaning the Senate can’t try him..
i've already answered this. your point makes no sense. the courts cannot veto an impeachment. If you believe that the chief justice must oversee it, then you should be advocating for forcing him to preside, not for allowing him to veto an impeachment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Their opinion is meaningless. Only the Supreme Court can interpret what the Constitution means, and I don’t see anywhere where it talks about “former officers.”
Why would this be in question. People have already been impeached after leaving office, this isn't new. William Belknap was impeached after leaving office. William blount had his impeachment proceeding proceed even after he was expelled from the senate in order to bar him from holding office again. Being a former official did not stop an impeachment proceeding in either of these cases. In fact, thomas jefferson presided over blount's impeachment case.
So if your argument is that it is unconstitutional to impeach someone who has left office, or that it isn't what the founding fathers wanted, that is obviously not the case.
And if your argument is just that we shouldn't do it, that's dumb too. If you can't impeach a former official, then every president from this point on is literally immune to punishment for whatever he does during his last month in office. He can just pardon himself and id he can't be impeached then there is no punishment for any behavior. So he could do literally anything and there is nothing anyone could do about it. That is a really stupid thing to want.
So no matter what your objection is to impeaching a former official, I would argue it makes no sense and you are being extremely partisan.
Created:
So congress did exactly what the constitution says they are supposed to do and that means the US is a banana republic? But when the president of the united states tried to use every dirty trick he could think of to overturn the results of an election (including an armed assault on the capitol), that wasn't banana republic shit?
Republicans are weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Give us one documented instance of a homeless person starving to death in America.
oh please. We both know that stats on this stuff aren't collected and cases of homeless people dying are rarely, if ever, reported on.
A system can be socialist by degrees, it's not either or. Those states whose systems are more socialist, are doing worse than those states whose systems are less socialist.
no matter which state you are in. Every state's system is designed on a corrupt, profit gouging system. So is doesn't matter what social program you slap on top of it. The core of the system is corrupt and designed to gouge people.
Also, you have provided no evidence that states that are "less socialist" do better. Please provide evidence for that.
Blue states have all these disincentives to work so you attract bums who only want to live off the govt dole.
no. blue states are less likely to dehumanize and attack poor people. That attracts poor people, because who wants to be harassed in a red state for being poor or homeless.
Tell us the life expectancy of a Canadian and an American adjusted socio-economically.
average life expectancy in canada is 82. Average life expectancy in the US is 78.5. I'm not aware of stats being available to calculate it socio-economically. So if such a thing exists, please provide it.
Trump had 78 million Americans vote for him. Your TDS is not reality. The only dumpster fire is your hysteria.
and he lost by millions and millions of votes. his loss in the electoral college was what trump has called a landslide.
Taking care of America first. Out of the Paris agreement. In banking the WHO. America given priority to American money. Doing what the people wanted.
lowering environmental policies hurts americans because it causes more polution. I have no idea waht "banking the WHO" means, or how that helps anyone at all. I also have no idea what "america given priority to American money means".
Virtually none of that is specific policy. And none of that benefits americans as far as I can tell. Also, you didn't reference healthcare at all which is the topic of this thread.
What was trump's healthcare policy? He kept promising over and over that he had one and it would be coming out next week, next month etc.Lie. The Democrats and their MSM arm kept asking about healthcare as a diversion because they couldn't touch him on the economy.
what was a lie specifically? Do you believe trump never promised he had a plan? I will find you quotes if you want. Do you believe he actually published a plan? If so, please show it to me.
Bottom line, trump promised a healthcare plan and never came up with a single idea.
Healthcare was your priority, Trump had other higher concerns.
healthcare is the topic of this thread. Trump promised a plan on multiple occasions. He never delivered one. But if you are now accepting that he, nor the republican party, have any plans for healthcare, then this topic is done as you are conceding the assertion laid out in the topic. Namely that republicans have no ideas or plans for healthcare.
Republicans on healthcare? Democrats on the economy. Fix the economy and healthcare will sort itself out.
That makes literally no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I said homeless people move to big cities.From where?
anywhere that people live. how is this confusing you? Anywhere there are people there can be homeless people.
So a homeless person in Rock Falls ND moves to the big city knowing no one and having no money?
as opposed to starving in Rock Falls ND? When your choice is death or moving, it is a simple choice. There is a much higher chance of receiving help or finding a job in a city.
But thanks for the tacit admission that blue states have more poor.
I did not say that. And you have not provided a shred of evidence that this is true despite me asking you for it over and over.
Obama was left an economy in shambles by the republicans before him.Lol. The Democrats usual done and dance.
Are you now denying the 2008 financial crisis ever happened? That is some serious denial.
A growth rate under 2% is not "turning around" slick.
he was handed a financial disaster from the republicans. By the time he left office the economy was back on track. What would you call it if not "turning it around"?
Obama said Trump's claim that the economy would top 4% growth was insanity. Trump got 4.2. Trump got a stagnant economy from Obama.
please provide evidence for both of these claims.
One person is pretending it's better than the US system.
Who doesn't think it is better than the US system? Everyone gets care. No one goes bankrupt for basic medical care. And it costs a fraction as much. It is better in almost every measurable way.
nope, the level of care in both countries is pretty much the same.Untrue. This is just another talking point liberals float.
Here is a review done on multiple studies that looked at healthcare outcomes between canada and the US. The large majority showed either better health outcomes in canada or an equivalent health outcomes. It is a statistical fact that health outcomes in the Canadian system are equivalent, if not better, than the American system.
Do AMERICAN states with more socialized medicine have lower medical costs? No.
this is a faulty premise since the US doesn't have a socialized system. It has some Band-Aids slapped onto a deeply broken system. The system is designed to cater to people with money.
You spend less, you save more. But you GET less to.
I've already disproven this point. The Canadian system has equivalent, if not better, health outcomes than the American system.
It's hard to see how you believe this as I watch you wax rhapsodic about Biden and condemn Trump for everything but the kitchen sink.
lol, you have never heard me "wax rhapsodic" about biden. He is a sub par candidate that will be an average president at best. I'm guessing your confusion stems from the fact that even an average president looks fantastic following the complete dumpster fire that was the trump administration.
Trump had a policy of putting the American people first. I liked that.
what policy was that exactly? What was trump's healthcare policy? He kept promising over and over that he had one and it would be coming out next week, next month etc. But after 4 years of his presidency he didn't have one single suggestion for health care, let alone an actual policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
From where? Who's homeless in Cedar Falls Iowa?
homeless people. your question doesn't make sense.
Do these broke homeless people walk to another state?
it doesn't cost a large sum of money to get on a bus. Why does the idea that homeless people have more than $0 confuse you?
Blue states have all these disincentives to work so you attract bums who only want to live off the govt dole.
that is just a way of saying that blue states take care of their people while red states try to punish them for being poor.
To your TDS sure. But no straight line to economic success under Trump right?
what are you talking about? The government had lots of policy about covid. They had a task force about it. They failed really badly. Then people died. A toddler could connect those dots.
You are saying that trump's policies caused companies to hire women and minorities. Which policies specifically did that? I keep asking and you keep not answering.
Right. The best employment figures in decades, and economic growth above 4% ... all happened by accident.
Obama was left an economy in shambles by the republicans before him. He turned it around. Trump inherited a booming economy. Why would anyone be surprised that this trend continued into Trump's presidency?
They have fewer people Einstein
lol we are talking about per capita. The US spends 5 times what the Canada does, per capita, on admin costs alone. Here is an article about it. And this is just for admin costs.
Do you know Canadians come to the US for healthcare because wait times are too long in Canada?
there are certain procedures which do have long wait times, this is true. no one is pretending canada's system is perfect. It can also be improved.
They pay less and get less.
nope, the level of care in both countries is pretty much the same. Canadians just spend WAY less and everyone gets healthcare. Americans pay WAY more and millions and millions of people can't get basic health care.
And do you know who pays? Their middle class.
everyone pays. And in canada they pay much less than in America. I'm not sure how you're not getting this. Health care costs in Canada are much lower than in the US. Canadians save alot of money on their healthcare compared to the US.
Do states with socialized medicine have lower medical costs? No. The reality must match the jargon HB, otherwise it's just gibberish.
It is a categorical fact that healthcare costs are lower in Canada and the UK, both of which have socialized medicine. I don't know how this confuses you.
Untrue. The poor can't pay. The boatloads of immigrants from peasant cultures Biden wants to let in can't pay. The antifa morons burning down cities can't pay. The African American masses trapped in Democratic slum cities can't pay. The dolts wanting gender re-assignment can't pay. The truck stop skank going for her 4th abortion can't pay. That leaves just me.
jesus christ, that is just one long, racist, xenophobic diatribe of hate and ignorance.
It isn't better, and Americans have said so over and over by, through their representatives, rejecting socialized healthcare.
Socialized healthcare is popular. More than 50% of americans support it. The problem is that both political parties are heavily funded by medical companies so they have no intention of doing what is best for the american people. They do what is best for their donors.
Most Americans do not trust the Democrats with their money.
That's funny, because the democrats just won the presidency and the Senate, not to mention winning the house 2 years ago. So that statement is just obvious nonsense. Does reality occasionally reach you where you live?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
please provide evidence the poor do better in red states.There are fewer poor in Red States.
Please provide evidence of that. You are just throwing out random statements without supporting them.
No one leaves their village home to be homeless in the city.
that's not what I said. I said homeless people move to big cities. If you are homeless in a small town in a red state, there's a good chance you will starve to death or be relentless harassed by the police. So they move to a big city in a blue state where there are more resources to support them. It isn't that people are better off in red states. It is that they offload their problems onto blue states by being abusive.
People come to the city looking for jobs but liberal policies kill the economy so they either sell drugs, and you end up with a chicago, or they mooch off the govt and you end up with an LA.
lol. Democrats are much, much better for the economy that republicans. So this is just a straight out lie.
Our boy can see a straight line from Trump to dead covid victims, and to "insurgents"
the government passed policy (or lack thereof) that directly affected the pandemic. There is 100% a staight line between trump's covid policy failure and people dying. Trump called out insurgents with lies and egged them on until they committed treason. That is also a pretty straight line.
after Trump got rid of red tape for businesses, give corporations tax breaks to hire more workers, and reduced taxes on the middle class. Selective blindness anyone?
what policies specifically do you think did this? If you think this is true, show me exactly what policies trump passed that affected this. But i'm guessing you are going to stay super vague because you don't actually know what trump did.
How would we spend less when every liberal loon out there wants us to pay for all immigrants, legal AND illegal, all elective surgeries related to gender and homosexuality, and all abortions inside and outside the country?
use the example of Canada, the UK or lots of other countries. They all pay less that the US for healthcare by a significant amount.
RightNow, if healthcare is expensive, it's expensive to the consumer of that care. Your way would not only make it MORE expensive, but more expensive to people NOT consuming that care. How is that better?
lots of ways. one is group buying power. Hospitals and insurance companies work together to massively inflate prices because it is good for them. They charge WAY more than a procedure actually costs because the US health system both allows and encourages it. If there is a single payer system, they can't get away with that.
It also massively lowers administrative costs. Managing who has what insurance, what procedures they are and are not allowed to have, what doctor they can see and what doctor they can't etc. is a huge administrative task. It costs billions and billions of dollars to manage that. A single payer system removes all those costs. What doctor can they see? All of them. What is covered and what isn't? It is always the exact same. It would save huge sums of money.
another way is by mitigating health issues. Lots of people avoid going to the doctor for minor stuff because it is expensive and they can't afford it. So they wait until the situation gets worse and they have no choice but to go. So what starts as a minor, manageable health issue turns into a critical care issue. Which is much more difficult and much more expensive to treat. If everyone went to the doctor when the issue was still manageable, it would be much cheaper and easier for the health care system.
Don't answer that. Liberals always think other people paying is "better".
everyone would pay into the system. It isn't other people paying, we are all paying. The point is that it would save billions of dollars while increasing the level of care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
How come then the poor do so poorly in democratic states?
please provide evidence the poor do better in red states.
In LA today, almost all sidewalk space is taken up by the homeless.
homeless people move to big cities, and especially big cities in blue states because there are more resources and they get punished and harassed by the government less. Basically, red states harass and punish homeless people until they flee to a blue state.
yet under Trump and the Republican Senate, minority and female employment was the highest it had been in 60 years.
let me get this straight. Businesses are hiring more minorities and women, and you think we should say that is trump's doing? Why would trump have anything to do with that? What policies did he pass that would affect that?
Why does healthcare need to be socialized?
because non socialized healthcare has been tried for decades. And you know what the outcome is? Massively inflated costs. Hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies and alot of dead people who didn't need to die.
A socialist healthcare plan that bankrupts the country as it implodes is stupidity.
lol you are aware that the US has some of the highest healthcare costs in the world right? Much higher than most countries with socialized medicine. So the idea that spending less on healthcare would somehow bankrupt the country is stupid on the face of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So if I make a separate threat for political compass results you’d do it right?
I don't care about the stupid test no matter what you do. If you want to talk about it, make a thread for it. I wouldn't post in it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know a Marxist isn't libertarian. You seem to think it is.
Marxism means that the people, as a whole, own the means of production. It is entirely possible for that to also be libertarian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He is afraid of where he will score on the authoritarian scale. He might even hit the max score being a totalitarian, lol.
the test is irrelevant. You clearly don't want to actually talk about the topic because you don't know what a marxist actually is. So you distract and try to make the topic about me instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Cause we want to see where you lie on the political compass lol. I don’t know why that’s a bad thing. We’re simply curious.
I don't care about the test or the results of it. It is irrelevant to the topic he made. If you want to make a topic about taking that test and the results, go for it. If you want to have a discussion about "economic marxism" then that would be what this thread is for, supposedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Can you shut up for 5 minutes and take the goddamn test. It’s not rocket science.
why? I don't give a shit about the stupid test. My point is that greyparrot doesn't understand what he is talking about. He has no idea what marxism actually is, but then makes a thread about "economic marxists". some silly test has nothing to do with his profound misunderstanding of words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They’re propositions. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are moderate.
You are still invalidating the term. If every single person on the face of the planet is authoritarian, then the word is useless. If it defines everyone and all things, then it isn't a useful term. And that is how you are choosing to use it.
Your responses should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
we have a fundamental disagreement on the underlying terminology. You think everything and everyone is authoritarian. We should just be grading on how authoritarian they are. But that is a stupid and meaningless scale.
Created:
Posted in:
if you have no intention of actually taking the spectrum test, then there is no point continuing.I fully agree. Enjoy the bliss.
lol, I shoot down your argument, you change the subject. But somehow I'm the one in ignorance? It's pretty obvious that since you don't know what these words mean (ie you are ignorant) that would much better describe you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So how did you score? it takes literally 5 minutes to do the test.
if you have no intention of actually discussing this then there is no point continuing. So to summarize, you have no idea what the words authoritarian or marxist actually mean. when this is pointed out to you, you just change the subject. I will take your repeated attempts to change the subject as you giving in since you are unable to formulate a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So how did you score? it takes literally 5 minutes to do the test.
lol, yet again you completely ignore everything I say. So I will repeat it in the hopes that some day you will be able to stay on track and not change the subject constantly.
You think anything the government does is authoritarianism even if it is what the people want. If that is what you think the word means, then it is extremely stupid and pointless word because literally every government and virtually every person on the planet is authoritarian. And if everyone is authoritarian, then the word is meaningless. So we are just going to keep going in circles because your definition of the world is everything and everyone in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
if you are considered an authoritarian, then you advocate for more restrictions than allowances for personal freedoms.If you are considered a libertarian, then you advocate for more freedoms than restrictions on freedoms.
we're just going in circles because you are ignoring what I am saying. If the government is doing what the people want, that isn't authoritarianism. That is the free choice of the people.
You think anything the government does is authoritarianism even if it is what the people want. If that is what you think the word means, then it is extremely stupid and pointless word because literally every government and virtually every person on the planet is authoritarian. And if everyone is authoritarian, then the word is meaningless. So we are just going to keep going in circles because your definition of the world is everything and everyone in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If not then you advocate authoritarianism.
you keep repeating this, but you ignore my response. Governance does not equal authoritarianism. If the government is doing what the people what, that is democracy, not authoritarianism.
I know you want to create your own definition, but that dichotomy between libertarians and authoritarians has been around far longer than you have been on this site.
I don't know how else to respond to you other than to repeat that you are using that word wrong.
You think taxes are authoritarian?Of course. You don't have the freedom to not pay taxes, do you?
Technically I do. I could choose not to do that and there would be consequences. But that means that every politican on the planet, and virtually all of the people in the world are authoritarian, including you. I have seen you advocate for government spending, which means you support authoritarianism (by your ridiculous definition)
Of course, all laws enforced by the government are authoritarian. You don't have the freedom to walk wherever you want, do you?
thank you for pointing out the ridiculousness of your definition. If literally everything we do as a society is authoritarian, then that word is completely useless. Because authoritarian and society mean the same thing. So by your definition, the word authoritarian is meaningless. So why the hell would anyone use a definition of a word that means nothing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are an authoritarian. Embrace it.
no. I unlike you, believe in democracy and in the government serving it's purpose. It exists to serve the people. If the right got it's way, all it would do is get out of the way so the rich can do whatever they want.
So what? The Authority Maduro now wields is no different than the authority he would have wielded without elections.
ok. so in your world the police and violent gangsters are the same thing? They both enforce their will with violence. Having power does mean it is authoritarian. Using force does not make you a violent thug. what you are using it for and who it is sanctioned by determines whether it is right or wrong. Whether it is the free will of the people, or authoritarianism.
To you, a government doing what the people want them to do is authoritarianism. But that is not what that word means.
You are confusing an authoritative government that restricts freedom with a dictatorship.
how so? If the people want a specific thing done, then it isn't a restriction of free will. The people, using their free will, decided they wanted that. You are confusing the will of the people with, honestly i don't know what. Ridiculous fear mongering I suppose.
People can and often do vote for Authoritative policies that restrict their freedoms, be it with health care and high taxes, and censorship on the left, or the patriot act and stop and frisk laws on the right.
lol this is a joke. You think taxes are authoritarian? By your definition laws against jaywalking are authoritarian. Literally every law that has ever or will ever exist in authoritarian in your mind. You really don't understand that word at all.
You are absolutely no Left-libertarian, no matter how much you would like to pretend.
when have I ever pretended I am a libertarian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You seem to be under this mad delusion that Democracy and Authoritarianism are mutually exclusive.
they are. the definition of Authoritarianism is: "the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."
if the majority of people voted for it, then it isn't restricting personal freedom. Because people want that. Whatever the policy is is the personal choice of the people.
People elected Authoritarianism in Venezuela through Democracy easily. So can America.
no. as long as the election is fair and the majority support it, it isn't authoritarianism. It is the will of the people.
For Christ's sake man why do you think there is even an authoritarian metric on the 2-axis political spectrum?
because authoritarianism is not a "left" or "right" wing metric.
You cannot seriously believe you cannot elect an authoritative government through Democracy.
of course you can. But if the policies the government are pursuing is what the people want, then it isn't authoritarianism. If the people vote for a government who then does something other than what the people want, then that would be. But things like universal health care are quite popular. But to you, you would see it as authoritarianism even though it is the will of the people.
At least I cannot believe you are that stupid as you seem to have the capability of stringing along mostly coherent sentences.
coming from someone who has no idea what the terms authoritarianism or Marxism mean but insists on throwing the terms around like he does, your comment on my intelligence means literally nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And this is why Authoritarianism is mainstream and the default position of public schooling. Even you agree.
again, you are using words without understanding what they mean. The government doing something because the majority of people want them to do it isn't authoritarianism. It is democracy. You seem to think the government doing anything is somehow tyranny. Which proves you don't understand yet another word you like to throw around. You just use it as a buzz word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can count hundreds of posts you have made on this site with the word "oppression" in them, particularly used in the context of the rich class vs poor class. Don't pretend you created that theory.
you aren't making any sense. any person who feels the rich take advantage of the poor is a marxist? That covers most of people of the world I would imagine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Have you ever felt like you were in an oppressed class? Trust authority to fix that.
did you think that anything you just posted was relevant to this topic? No one has discusses implementing marxism. You would hard pressed to find many actual marxists. But you don't know that because to you anything that isn't hard right wing must be marxism. It's like looking at a dog that had four legs and say "that's a dog". Then looking at a cat, giraffe, hippo etc and go "look at all those dogs" since they also have 4 legs.
You don't seem to understand what Marxism even is. If you think anyone on here has advocated for Marxism, you definitely don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just so you are clear about what Marxism is, it replaces the stratification of social power to only 2 groups. The oligarchs in government and the rest of the idiots that allowed it to happen.
that is not what marxism is. You, like pretty well every republican, clearly have no idea what the words you use actually mean. They're just buzz words to scare people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Obamacare was and remains the latest Republican health care plan-written by Bob Dole as counter to Hillary's healthcare proposal in '94.
I totally agree that "Obamacare" was a republican plan. But once Obama pitched it they violently turned on it. Which brings us to the question posed in this thread. Which is what is their plan now. The answer is they don't have one. Their position on healthcare has been one of obstruction for over a decade.
They have no idea what to actually propose. And they are thoroughly stuck. The kind of solution they could actually agree to (ie one that funnels money to the rich and keeps the government from doing anything useful) is now taboo in the republican party. any suggestion they could possibly come up with would kick millions off of their healthcare, which they don't want to do. So they just rail against any solution the democrats suggest because they are incapable of suggesting anything without everyone realizing how much they hate poor people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
One of them being he didn't give them everything they wanted.
no, he gave them almost everything they wanted. What exactly did he do that the republicans didn't want? Specifically policy wise.
Kamala and Biden want to open our borders and fund abortions worldwide.they have never said they want to open our borders, so that is just straight up a lie.Like they never said they would end fracking? Both you and them are liars.
so instead of answering what I said, you made a new and completely unrelated accusation. Do you see why trying to talk to you is a joke? you throw out lies and then when called out on your lies you change the subject.
...importing cheap labor,"Importing cheap labor" is not the same as illegal immigration slick.
you are referring to illegal immigrants crossing from mexico? Corporations use them as cheap labor. Including trump.
I was right and you were lying. They were not paying what they themselves had agreed to pay.
I never claimed they weren't paying what was in the agreement. I said what was in the agreement was stupid. And what the US is spendding is completely insane. But there you go again lying about what I am saying.
The horrible thing is that you think standing so close to lies doesn't affect you.no, I don't watch fox news.Being voluntarily ignorant is not a bragging point.
watching fox doesn't prevent ignorance. It just causes people to believe insane conspiracy theories and bald faced lies.
I believe one doesn't need to lie to be cleaver.
true, but you lie constantly and I doubt very many people would accuse you of being clever.
Your cancel culture response of "conspiracy theory" will no longer work, and certainly not on a debate site. \
you throw out insane bullshit with no evidence. I point out it is an insane conspiracy theory. Your options are to provide evidence or look like a lunatic. I see you are doubling down on lunatic.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
When Trump said his economy would break the 4.0 barrier, you and Obama laughed. Reality challenged people don't laugh last.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Trump didn't do anything to help the economy. I suppose you could argue that handing out shit tons of money to the rich and corporations helped. But that is sort of the same as dumping gasoline on a fire. Yeah, you make the fire bigger for a short period. But there is no long term benefit to it. It is a flash and then it's gone. And that flash cost billions and billions of dollars in increased debt. Taxes have to go back up to plug the massive hole Trump punched in the US' finances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Strange then that they were pissed at him huh?
lots of reasons. But primarily because he is toxic. He has cost them the house, the senate and the presidency. And they knew he was going to do that. Hell, the people currently kissing his ass told you that when ran for the nomination. Take this one for example. Turns out he was right.
Kamala and Biden want to open our borders and fund abortions worldwide.
they have never said they want to open our borders, so that is just straight up a lie. Also, the republicans also support importing cheap labor, so that is not a "left" position. And how is funding health care initiatives "left"?
Yet you agree with every activist judgement from those activist courts! I smell fakery.
i'm assuming that you believe any ruling which doesn't benefit the rich or the republican party is somehow "activist". So there's no point engaging with this one.
Please don't be stupid. The amounts Europe were to pay was written down in our defense pact. Even Europe agreed Trump was right. Being knee-jerk against Trump to the detriment of simple truth is absurd.
and that pact is out dated. That level of military spending is counter productive. America's level of military funding is insane.
The horrible thing is that you think standing so close to lies doesn't affect you.
no, I don't watch fox news.
Fixed that for ya.
oooh, how clever. You can completely ignore my point and change the subject so as to avoid looking at how corrupt and insane right wing media is. But please, go right back to suckling at insane conspiracy theories. Don't worry, some day they'll find evidence for their insanity. you just have to keep believing (and giving them your money and vote of course).
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Lol. And Trump benefited from the Obama great economy.
of course he did. Obama inherited a mess from Bush. Under Obama the economy improved a great deal. Trump certainly profited from that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Basic regulation, but ultimately, too much hurts the economy.
I think we would disagree on where that line is. But fully agree with your point.
You can never have a truly free market, but the freer the better
true, but again, i'm guessing we would strongly disagree on how free is too free. For example, we need much stronger banking regulations to prevent things like the 2008 financial crisis. They hurt ALOT of people because they wanted to take extremely risky bets. If they were only going to hurt themselves with this shit, then fine do whatever you want. But these people are endangering the entire economy. And at that point, you need regulation to make sure they don't blow it up, like they did in 2008.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Good. Why hasn’t Biden told the SEC to do something. Why hasn’t he told the Justice Department to investigate it?
They've already said they are looking into it. What more are you looking for?
Created: