Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Do you think the judges appointed by trump have the same level professionalism? I mean one of them is an accused sex offender who used to love "boofing". I don't think Trump picked them based on their suitability for the job. I think they were picked based on how partisan they were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, literally WTF.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I gave an example of what gossip would look like and explained why what trump did was in no way gossip, it was a crime. You responded with nothing.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, it most certainly is not. Go brush up.
"Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others; the act is also known as dishing or tattling."
That is the definition of gossip. Trump was not gossiping. The President of Ukraine didn't know anything about Biden. Trump was asking him to start an investigation and to publicly announce it so that trump could use it to smear his political opponent. That is not, in any way, gossiping.
If trump had said something like "do you know anything about biden" and the ukranians said "I heard he did (insert thing here", that would be gossip. Asking them to publicly investigate biden is most certainly not gossiping.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gossip about your political rival is 100% not a crime. All elections would be declared null and void.
What trump did wasn't gossip though. Gossip is 2 people chatting about things they know. Trump called a foreign leader and directly asked him to investigate (and publicly announce that he was investigating) a political rival. The ukranians didn't know that biden had done anything criminal (because he didn't). Trump wanted them to go digging for it so he could slander biden with it. That is not gossip. That is a crime.
So to reiterate: 1) asking them to investigate was a crime
2) exchanging aid and a white house visit in exchange for it was a crime
3) threatening witnesses was a crime
4) ordering people not to co-operate with an impeachment inquiry is a crime.
Trump is going to be impeached for these reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gossip isn't a crime. All of DC would be in jail.
Of course gossip isn't a crime. if the president of ukraine had told trump out of the blue something about biden that wouldn't be a crime.
But an elected official asking for a foreign leader to announce an investigation of his political rival is 100% a crime. Dangling aid money and a white house visit in order to get it is a 2nd crime. Threatening witnesses and ordering people not to co-operate are 2 more crimes.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes but where is your evidence that they are being bombed in the name of the Christ and Christianity?
I touched on this in my argument to TheRealNihilist. Basically, muslims are under attack from "christian" countries so they act to try to defend themselves. They frame that defense as fighting for their religion rather than for their state (many of those states were created by christians anyway). So Christians murder muslims for money and oil. Some of the muslims murder christians and claim it is for their religion. Neither religion is inherently violent. But people from both religions certainly are.
But you are then ignoring facts issued by the well respected and accepted research organisation Pew Research regardless of who is quoting Pew Research facts.
I'm not ignoring facts by Pew Research. I am ignoring ben shapiro. Pew didn't make that video. A right wing bigot did. I'm sure he can cherry pick a few stats out of research to try to support his horrible, intolerant views. But that doesn't make him right. And it certainly doesn't mean I am going to listen to him. Nor should anyone else.
Wrong again or deliberately lying. The Quoran preaches intolerance towards any other religion. How this for "tolerance"
One of the thing that Christians usually don't understand about the Koran is that it is much more based in the real world than the bible is. The bible is all morality stories with little to no connection to the real world mostly written decades or even a centuries after the supposed events happened by people who weren't there. The Koran was written about the real world. When this verse was written the Muslims were fighting wars on multiple fronts. They had no allies who were not Muslims. This verse does not reflect intolerance of their religion. It reflects the political and military situation of Muslims when it was written. Context is important. Right wing christians like to leave out the context though.
You see the evidence for Muslims killing ANYONE for not believing in Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet is abundant. the Muslims who carry out these vile attacks in the name of Islam make it quite clear that they are doing it "for Allah"
This is just bigotry. That vast, vast majority of muslims do not kill "anyone" for not being muslim. Terrorists do claim that their killings are for god, but that is how they frame their defense against attacks by christian countries, such as america.
YOU, like all apologist desperately try to contextualise 21st Christianity by comparing it to 7th century Islam that hasn't and cannot change, alter, reform or update its beliefs and its teachings
This is just dumb. i mean, there are at least 1.8 billion muslims in the world. The vast majority of them are not violent and don't believe their religion is violent either. You are taking the teachings of a small minority and blaming almost 2 billion people for them.
Yes I think the threat of death by the sword is pretty coercive.
As I said, this was not the norm in muslim countries. It was the norm in Christian countries though.
It also actually explains to their martyrs ( those that die killing infidels for Allah) that they will have seventy billion virgin women to abuse.
Your ignorance is showing. The koran doesn't say that. It is from a Hadith, which is not a part of the koran. It would be like quoting something a bishop said and claiming it is in the bible. The koran does say a muslim will get virgins in the afterlife. It says nothing about needing to be a martyr to get them.
Created:
Posted in:
It's also worth noting that the large majority of the country supports a women's right to an abortion. If you seriously threaten that, it would be a great way to wipe out the republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Christianity has, historically, been the more violent religion.Which one now do you consider more violent?
It's kind of a loaded question without a clear answer.
Christians are just a violent as muslims, they just found other things they like killing for more than religion (money, oil, power). Muslim countries are, in general, being attacked or suppressed by christian countries (for their oil, money etc). Those muslims then need to try to find ways to defend themselves. Many of them frame that defense in religious terms. Thus a war that is actually about colonialism and greed turns into a holy war.
So you will find muslims that justify their actions with religion, while christians (who are doing similar shitty stuff) don't frame it as religiously based.
So if you want to take a super simplistic way of looking at it, you could say Islam is more violent since some muslims claim to be fighting for their religion and Christianity is less violent because Christians just kill for money. But Christians are still killing more muslims than muslims are christians. Trying to frame it as which religion is more violent is just an inherently useless question. Both sides are fighting for power and wealth, one side just uses religion to frame their actions and the other doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Secular Talk, Jimmy Dore Show, Krystal Ball. Anyone with two braincells to rub together can see that it's an obvious case of corruption. I live in an area that's pretty non-partisan and everyone I know who isn't a neoliberal rolls their eyes at the frantic 'NOTHING TO SEE HERE' from the corporate media.
I will re-phrase. What the hunter biden did is corrupt. But it was in no way illegal or even out of the norm of standard behavior. It is the same thing the clintons or the trumps have and continue to do. And while that is obviously bad, the people who will actually care about that are the same people who wouldn't vote for biden anyway. I don't think it has any meaningful impact.
- A Ukrainian Gas Company putting a man who was just dishonorably discharged from the US Navy for doing coke...
what hunter did was corruption. It was in no way illegal. There is no evidence Joe Biden was in any way involved in that. And even if he was, it also isn't illegal. I agree this stuff should be illegal but it isn't. pretending like it is a scandal is a stretch. Pretending like most people care is also a stretch.
- The request for investigation into this is therefore COMPLETELY unjustified, and could ONLY be motivated by political machinations against the boy's innocent father.
There is literally no evidence that either joe or hunter did anything illegal. Asking a foreign leader to investigate them, by name, is obvious corruption.
- The fact that THIS is being investigated and prosecuted. as opposed to illegal wars, illegal spying, illegal torture, the assassination of sovereign presidents, of archbishops, of activists, journalists, and organizers, is completely sane and unremarkable.
Those things are entirely unrelated. Trump asking was a crime. full stop. all those other things can also be investigated, but it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
- Lastly, that the WALLS ARE CLOSING IT. That's it. We got him folks. The WRITING IS ON THE WALL. He's CORNERED. This is the end of the Trump presidency.
I think everyone understands that the senate wont convict. but that isn't because trump is innocent. The evidence pretty conclusively proves he is guilty. It is because the republicans in the senate are too afraid of trump's cultish base to actually uphold the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Completely untrue. This is the politically correct lie that Muslim history revisionists have be pushing.
No, this is completely true. I don't claim that all muslims have always been tolerant. But muslim countries usually used methods of inconveniencing religious minorities to motivate them to convert. Christians were much more likely to resort to violence to convert people. Not to mention that European Christians often looked at other groups as sub humans and then enslaved or exterminated them.
Christianity has, historically, been the more violent religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The impeachment hearings aren't heavily impacting Trump in the polls, are rallying his base, and are tanking Biden, who was one of his most threatening foes electorally.
Trump was going to rally his base no matter what so I don't think that helps him there. It isn't tanking Biden either. Outside of right wing nuts who weren't likely to vote democrat anyway, no one thinks biden has done anything wrong, because he hasn't. I haven't seen any evidence impeachment has had a significant effect on Biden.
The timing is suspicious: right before an election year. It also lines up with some of Trump's earlier moves, like releasing the John Miller tape or picking a fight with the Pope, meant to strategically suck the oxygen out of the news cycle to weaken his adversary's media reach at critical moments.
I agree that trump does this alot. But usually it is saying something rude or picking a fight. He has actually committed crimes here. It is unlikely he will pay for them while in office but there is the very real risk he could go to prison when he leaves office. He has also put other people in jeopardy as well. Giuliani might go to prison over this. Not to mention that he pretty much guaranteed that he is going to be impeached which trump himself has said in the past would be a bad thing that no one would want.
And what has he done? He's fed the media lines about how there was a clear quid pro quo, going on and on about it, but once pressed on the issue he instantly folded and his argument collapsed to the open admission that his only source was 'his own presumption'.
Sondland tied trump and multiple other people in the administration to crimes. People who only watch fox news might believe the spin that sondland's testimony meant nothing. But in a court of law that would be extremely damaging. And this may very well end up in a court room for people. If trump had wanted to cause the issue then discredit it, he would never have wanted sondland to say that. He would have wanted the whole thing to stall out and have little to no evidence of wrong doing. But we now have transcripts showing a crime as well as multiple witnesses backing it up.
I think it is highly unlikely trump wanted this to happen. Trump likes controversy so he can steal the spotlight from other people. But all he has done is hand the spotlight to other people. Basically, no one has really been paying all that much attention to what trump says and does the last few weeks. They have been focusing on the impeachment inquiry, not on him personally. That is the opposite of what trump wants. He wants the spotlight on him personally.
Given that this scheme was very, very close to succeeding as planned, I think it is much more likely to be exactly what it looks like. Trump wanted to get the ukranians to smear biden by saying they were investigating him. So he extorted them into doing it. He would then have been able to campaign against him by saying he is just as corrupt as "crooked hilary". That was his plan to win re-election. But it all went wrong and he got caught. He didn't get the smear he wanted and now is spending weeks having his crimes examined publicly instead of people paying attention to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That's a laugh all on it's own. Islam has caused more deaths in the world since its vile inception than any other religious ideology, EVER!!!. It IS ISLAM that has caused these death and is the driving force behind it's extremist adherents. Their book tells them that they must convert the world to Islam or die trying.
I'm guessing you don't know very much history. Islam has usually been much more tolerant of religious minorities than Christianity. They used less coercive measures to encourage conversion. Usually a moderate tax to allow them to continue their religion and barring minorities from high offices. Christians would usually forcibly convert, mass murder, or expel religious minorities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not in the name of the Christ they aren't. And you cannot show anyone otherwise.You need to change your monica - History Buff.
Muslim people are regularly being bombed by the US. Mostly civilians. From their perspective, they are muslims being bombed by christians. It is no more justified for them to blame all christians than americans are in blaming all muslims for the tiny percentage of muslims that are terrorists.
In this 6 minute video that myth is finally put to rest. Interesting is the fact that this person quotes the well respected Pew Research Centre as his source.
lol anyone who uses ben shapiro as a source is unlikely to be reasoned with. I am not going to watch his videos. He is a far right wing nut job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't think that the US government's bombings could be considered Christian bombings.
The people being bombed would likely disagree. From their point of view, the christian americans are murdering their families.
Nobody. Probably because Jesus wasn't a pedophile and a warlord, but I could be wrong.
We have no way of knowing. There is nothing written about him until decades after his death and nothing was ever written by someone who had met him. He very well could have been a pedophile but that information didn't survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yah who is going around screaming JESUS SAVES while pushing a bomb button?
probably not those exact words, but attacks on religious minorities and abortion clinic staff by christian religious extremists is actually fairly common in america. FAR more common that Muslim terror attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What Christian killings are you referring to?
Well there are the pretty regular bombings carried out by the US government. There are christian terrorists such as the Christ church terror attack, Peter James Knight who tried to blow up an abortion clinic with the staff inside, Eric Robert Rudolph who carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing as well as an attack on a abortion clinic and a gay night club.
There are many, many, many examples of Christians killing people to choose from.
To be clear, this type of killing is never excusable. But trying to paint an entire religion as evil when it is a tiny fraction of them that engage in these attacks is extremely counter productive.
Created:
Insurance isn't a means of production.Yes it is. A middle man is doing a job facilitating a deal. That is still a production whether you feel like it is or isn't.
A means of production is "means of production (also called capital goods) 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." Insurance is not a means of production because they don't produce anything. You can disagree with my assertions if you like, but please try to use the terminology correctly. When you blur the terminology it just makes it impossible to discuss issues.
This is the difference between me and you. You have to inject your feelings even though the other person is trying not to be emotional.
There is nothing emotional about it. 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.
Fully able 18-24 year olds?
Lots of 18-24 year olds get hurt and need medical attention. And in the rest of their life they will absolutely need it. That is like someone saying that they shouldn't have to pay for public schools because they are 40 and don't need to go to school anymore. it is ridiculously short sighted.
Under capitalism if there was such a barrier to entry that was impacting enough customers they would have to reduce their prices. If they don't they lose out on potential profit which can lead to eventually shutting down for not meeting profit margins.
Why? If the people who can't gain access don't have much money then there is no motivation to include them. They can make more money by heavily milking the upper middle class and rich people. They have no financial incentive to lower prices.
Emotional yet again. Community and corporation are the same thing.
That statement literally makes no sense. A community and a corporation are nothing alike.
Health insurance companies add no value to anything.They do deals when other people cannot.
What does that even mean? Obviously the government can provide that service the same way they provide roads and schools. 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.
It is more socialist than it is capitalist. It doesn't have to be a socialist state in order to have socialist esc ideas.
Is america a socialist country then? America has provided things like roads and schools for people for decades or centuries. You seem to think that the government providing services for people is socialism. So either america has always been a socialist country, and then there is no issue with providing universal healthcare, or that isn't socialism, which would also mean there is no issue with providing universal healthcare.
It is no different than what america has been doing for a very long time.Appeal to tradition.
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.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Michael Brooks does. Bernie Sanders heavily implies he or people should want to abolish private insurance and you still haven't answered who you follow on the left.
Insurance isn't a means of production. They aren't producing anything. All they do is soak up money and hurt people.
This is socialist rhetoric. Do we want to avoid parasites? Yes so we should remove private insurance. That is what you are heavily implying. Insurance is inherently taking something now and promising something later. You can't change that unless you want to remove all insurance and you know only have public healthcare.
Insurance for things that aren't critical is fine. Car insurance etc. But medical care is something that every single person needs to live. Hiding that behind a massive paywall and greedy corporations should not be permitted. Health insurance companies add no value to anything. But again, that isn't socialism in the same way it isn't socialism for the government to provide roads or schools. It is a critical service that people need to live. It is no different than what america has been doing for a very long time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you have any idea how many people Christians have and continue to kill? You point at 1 guy killing a few people and say islam is evil, but when Christians bomb a city i'm guessing you don't bat an eye.
You are using an extremely biased and simplistic view to take the actions of a tiny minority to vilify 1/4 of the world's total population.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They do not add any value. they only absorb money from people and help to drive people into bankruptcy. There is no reason for them to exist.That's the job of the government.
The government exists to protect and provide services to it's people. Ensuring that every single person has access to healthcare is doing both of those things.
They produce peace of mind and security.
Not for most people. For most people they create insecurity and fear. Fear that they will get sick and not have the money to cover the deductible. Fear they will lose their job and lose their coverage. And since the primary way an insurance company makes money is to avoid paying out whenever possible, they undermine both security and peace of mind. Medicare for all would have no deductible and it can never be taken away, lost or have your claim denied. It is vastly superior at providing security and peace of mind.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's probably true. Even Democrats don't want to see private insurance gutted.
Insurance is, by definition, not a means of production. They do not produce anything. They are a parasite. They take money from people with a promise to pay for things later. Then later, they do everything they can to prevent having to pay it back.
They do not add any value. they only absorb money from people and help to drive people into bankruptcy. There is no reason for them to exist.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you a lefty as in a socialist?
The definition of socialism is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So no. I do not believe the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by the community. But neither does pretty much anyone on the left. That term describes very few people.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't care if he is gay. that is neither a selling point nor an issue. I do care that he is a corporatist sellout of a candidate who has little to nothing to offer the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not the biggest fan of michael brooks. I think he does tend to generalize and read too much into things. I don't think he makes the best arguments in this clip. But in the broader sense, I agree that Butigieg is terrible.
Created:
In large part it is that she tanked her healthcare plans. Her plan for how to pay for it was obvious political pandering to avoid saying the words "taxes on people will go up". So instead she hid it in a head tax and even on immigration reform. To alot of people, her answers just looked fake.
Additionally, her plan on implementing healthcare reform was really stupid. It was essentially to do Butigieg's plan, then 3 years later to try to do sander's plan. It just made no sense to split healthcare reform into 2 separate votes, 1 of which would be after the midterms. There are different opinions on why she would do this, but none of them are good.
It also doesn't help that the media has been non stop fawning over pete while not even mentioning his massive flaws/outright lies.
So she is losing upper middle class white supporters to Butigieg and progressives so sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Trump's impeachment is also not going through the traditional judiciary committee.I'm sure you understand that non-traditional does not equal un-lawful.
And also that with only 2 impeachments in modern history, there is no such thing as a traditional impeachment process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If this is actually the case, every politician that ever gossiped with a foreign national should be burned at the stake.
If they were chatting over drinks, no one cares. If they went to them and said I want you to do me a favor and smear a political rival of mine, absolutely they should be arrested. Trump didn't just want dirt on Biden, he wanted the president of Ukraine to go on television and publicly announce that he was investigating Biden. That is WAY over the line of gossiping and well into criminality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
based on what I read, the crimes are not defined and is up to Congress to do that, which hasn't happened yet, they set those conditions, vote on it then goes to the Senate which is where it will most likely die and or chief justice.
Here is an article showing that is a crime to ask for dirt on a political rival from a foreign national
If a public official solicits something of value and uses their public office to get it, that is breach of public trust and is legally prosecutable as bribery.
Witness tampering and obstruction of justice are also very clearly defined crimes.
These are all crimes there is considerable evidence for. The next steps will be laying out the articles of impeachment in congress. impeaching trump in congress. Then the trial in the senate. If trumpists continue to single mindedly ignore reality and blindly follow trump, then the senate will likely acquit him to protect their own asses. But that doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime, and that doesn't prevent law enforcement from charging him once he stops being protected by the office of the presidency.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I still have little hope for him. But one of the biggest things people in Nevada are looking for is a candidate who can win, so winning a big primary like Iowa could give him a necessary boost.\
I sort of agree. He might do well in Iowa. He is average is up by 5.7 points in Iowa. But he is averaging 7.3 in nevada, well behind the top tier candidates. these polls are a bit outdated though.
But even if he managed to win in the 1st 3 states, which isn't all that likely, he would still get slaughtered in south carolina and on super tuesday. He would need to win big in the 1st three to have a chance. And that isn't in the cards at the moment.
I don't know. It is a pretty good cause to try to prevent people from doing drugs and ruining their lives. I don't think it should be a felony, though, as that also kind of ruins their life. Selling drugs on the other hand should be harshly punished.
I think we kind of agree on this. Putting people in jail for using drugs doesn't help. When they get out, their lives are in tatters and they go right back to drugs to escape the shit of their shattered life. Often putting people in jail for minor offense just makes them more likely to use drugs, not less. The war on drugs is a complete failure.
I don't know about institutionalized racism. Even in majority black precincts, you get roughly the same results.
Here is an article I found. The issue is that the people who make the drug policies, the DA's who decide who to charge and much of the police who enforce it are white. Enforcement usually focuses on poor areas, especially those with black communities while almost entirely ignoring middle class areas. Joe Biden was very much involved in setting up the war on drugs. And to this day he still thinks he did a great job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't know that that is a crime. Either way, I want to know when politicians are corrupt rather than being blissfully unaware.
Not sending something to be investigated isn't a crime. Extorting a foreign country to get dirt on a political rival most certainly is a crime. The fact that they used unofficial communication channels (via giulliani), hid the transcript, refused to tell anyone why the aid was blocked, etc all show that they were hiding what they were doing. That is evidence of mens rea. They knew they were committing crimes. And even if trump didn't initially, the white house council and bolton certainly did. There is no excuse for continuing to commit the crime for several months. The aid was blocked in early july. the aid was only released after the investigation began in september. If they were ignorant they would have stopped when the complaints began. They continued because they thought they would get away with it, which they almost did.
While I would like to think that the FBI would be capable of such an investigation, I have seen nothing but anti-Trump blatant partisanship going on with them. Look at Hillary destroying thousands of emails! She didn't get in trouble for THAT? So, I highly doubt that they would actually investigate a Democrat that they think can beat orange man.
Even if I accepted your premise, it is still a ridiculous argument. You are essentially saying that he didn't think the FBI would do their job, so he decided to commit several crimes to investigate a potential crime. It doesn't really make sense and it wouldn't absolve him of any guilt for the multiple crimes he committed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
show me where they were obligated legally to tell anyone they were delaying it.
You are really not getting it. I am laying out the mens rea argument. IE, the evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong. The actus reus is a different point. Them hiding what they were doing wasn't, in and of itself, a crime. The hiding of the evidence shows that they were cognizant that they had, and were continuing to commit, a crime. And they therefore took steps to prevent people from finding out.
so couldn't the devil's advocate say that once they were informed it was wrong they corrected it, thus it wasn't an intentional crime but rather a mistake?
But they didn't. The aid was blocked for months while multiple people lodged objections. The funding was blocked on July 3rd. The call with Zelenksy was July 25th. Multiple people reported they had issues with the call and the aid being blocked. The formal whistle blower complaint was august 12th. It hit the news august 28th. The official investigation began on September 9th. The aid was released on september 11th.
So they blocked the aid for 2 months while receiving multiple complaints. They only released it after a news article came out and an official investigation began. If it was a mistake, it would never have gotten to a whistle blower complaint. The reason it did was because they were continuing to block it after being told repeatedly it was wrong.
the same reason there as hundreds of videos which instruct you to plead the 5th and never talk to police w/o a lawyer, nothing good can come of it
that is when you are talking to police. They lied and hid info from their own staff. Their own diplomats and members of government had no idea the aid money was being blocked. And when they found out, the white house wouldn't tell them the reason. The only reason that this situation is similar is that example is that trump was blocking the aid to commit a crime. If it was normal diplomatic procedure, the state department would have known why it was being blocked.
irrelevant, in the U.S. you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, thinking, inferring, assuming etc is not proof.
We already have the proof. This is just to establish that they knew they were committing the crime.
1) asking a foreign national for a thing of value to help you in a campaign is a crime. so when trump asked for dirt on biden, by name, on that call he committed a crime. We have known this since the transcript was released.
2) using the power of your public office for personal gain. Trump used the power of the presidency, by withholding aid and dangling a state visit, in order to personally profit himself by getting dirt on a political rival. We already know he blocked the aid and dangled the state visit. We know the ukranians planned to give him the dirt he wanted. We already know he committed this crime as well.
3) trump has committed obstruction of justice and witness tampering during the impeachment. By ordering witnesses not to testify, refusing to provide documents and threatening witnesses he has committed some new crimes during his attempted cover up. so we already know he has committed these too.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but you mentioned how Iowa is incredibly white, and I said that those who win Iowa typically win the primary.
True, but you also need to win super tuesday. If black people have 0% support for you, it is pretty much impossible to do. So if he got like 80% support in the 1st three states that might create enough momentum to carry him. But winning by a few points doesn't seem likely to overcome the disdain that people of color seem to have for him.
Ok, so your issue is with enforcement and not necessarily the war on drugs?
The 2 are heavily intertwined and can't really be separated. The war on drugs, on it's own, is stupid and counter productive. It does literally none of things it is supposed to do. The enforcement of the war on drugs is also super problematic and is a pretty good example of institutionalized racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it is illegal to delay the aid? Was there a set delivery date? How long was it delayed? Has aid ever been delayed before by a previous administration? What law does a delay break?
i didn't say delaying the aid was illegal all on it's own. The why is extremely important. If you kill someone who was trying to kill you, that's fine. If you kill someone because you want his wallet, that is very wrong.
But the fact that they didn't tell anyone they were delaying it, and the people who found out weren't told why it was being delayed shows evidence of a guilty mind. They knew that delaying the aid for the reasons they had was wrong, so they didn't tell people they were doing it or why.
if it's not illegal then it's just partisan crying.
Again this is evidence of a guilty mind. If you think that what you are doing is above board and legal, you don't try to hide the transcript of the call. The fact that they did this is evidence that they understood it was illegal.
um no, what it says is he didn't think he needed or was required to tell anyone these things, thus he never intended to commit a crime
hiding information from people, lying about what you are doing, putting documentation in top secret places to keep people from seeing it is not what innocent people do. If they thought what he was doing was fine they wouldn't have hidden that information. This is evidence of a guilty mind, (mens rea)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
could he use the Hillary Clinton defense? He didn't intend to commit a crime? I mean if it worked for her it should work for him.
You would have to be clearer on what exactly that means. I'm not aware of Hilary committing any crimes and therefore needing to use that defense.
But the facts that
1) they refused to tell anyone why the aid was blocked and didn't tell anyone in congress about it at all
2) trump channeled as much as possible through Giuliani, his personal attorney who had no official connection to the government, and not a member of the state department
3) the white house attorney, after receiving complaints about the call, put the transcript in a highly restricted computer (which is not a normal practice)
These all show aspects of a guilty mind. Not telling anyone what they were doing, funneling the conversation away from official channels and into an unofficial one and hiding the transcript after the fact are all evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong and didn't want anyone to find out about it.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They both want a wealth tax, higher taxes on the rich, higher corporate taxes, and ultimately, universal healthcare, loan forgiveness of some sort(Bernie wants all forgiven), and free college. I don't think Warren was ever a Republican. I personally hate both, but I like Bernie a little better. He seems genuine, and I think that he would actually do some good attacking special interests. It is just that I hate about 9/10 of his other policies and therefore couldn't see myself ever supporting him.
They have some overlap in policies. But they are radically different in their approaches. Warren wants to cozy up to the democratic establishment. Bernie wants their corrupt asses to actually do what the people want. Warren will bend when the establishment refuses to play along. Sanders wont.
I mean, if Pete wins the primary, he gets de facto support because of voting demographics. African Americans vote over 90% Democrat since the 1960s. Maybe turnout would be lower, but they wouldn't vote for Trump.
That's a bit of a catch 22. he needs to win the primary to get any kind of support from black people. but he needs support from black people to win the primary. He can't win unless black people decide to support a small town white mayor whose short political history does not show him doing well for black people.
Yeah, he has a really good record on women's rights, I have heard and choppy on supposedly "racist" policies. Why does making drugs illegal necessarily have to be anti-black? Do black people use drugs more often?
Making drugs illegal isn't necessarily anti-black. But setting harsh punishments is. White people, and especially white people with money are much less likely to have the harshest penalties enforces on them. Black people, and especially poor black people, are much more likely to have the book thrown at them for drug crimes. So the war on drugs fell disproportionately hard on people of color. It has destroyed alot of lives in those communities. Highlighting Biden's role in pushing for the harshest war on drugs he could get would be really bad for him if he managed to win the primary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
He strongly suggests that people do something, and they go do it.100% agree with your statement, however that is not a crime generally speaking.
The courts and the FBI would strongly disagree. If a mob boss tells someone "it would be great if paullie had an accident" and then paullie gets murdered, the law treats that as ordering a hit. If trump orders aid money to be withheld and then tells ukraine they need to do him a favor when they ask about getting the next batch of weapons, that is also a crime. Trying not to say the crime out loud, directly, does not mean you didn't commit the crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All you need to know is that Facebook confirmed the whistleblower's name by censoring his name.
Or it is wildly inappropriate to publish any kind of suggestion of who the whistle blower is so they censored it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden. If they find out that Biden has done very corrupt things(which he has), isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption? Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals? I
If that was what Trump actually cared about, there are mechanism to to do that. He could have referred it to the FBI or to congress. That would be the lawful way to investigate such claims. Shaking down a foreign country to get them to announce they are investigating is not the lawful way of getting an investigation. That is how you smear a political opponent. Trump never cared if Biden was corrupt or not. He just cared about spreading doubt that he might be corrupt so he could use that in an election.
Which is, of course, a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Zelensky is hardly a battered wife lol. What kind of delusion is this?
The battered wife would be american democracy I suppose. Trump very much wants to use the power of his office to attack his political rivals, just like Putin. He wants to undermine democracy to protect himself. He was extremely close to getting his way too. The only reason he didn't get away with it is because a patriot blew the whistle. The republican party is now trying to get that patriot killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
he actually said he "inferred" it which is the same as assumed, no one should be convicted on an assumption like that based on hearsay. sounds rather nazi-esk to do so.are you familiar with the Salem witch trials?
Are you familiar with mob trials? Mob bosses never say the words "I want you to go commit murder." they say things like "take care of him". Everyone understands what this means and then people "take care" of him. That is how trump operates. He strongly suggests that people do something, and they go do it. And when things blow back he tries to pretend like he didn't order them to do it.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, that is interesting that Bernie supporters would go for Biden instead of Warren. Biden's policies are much different than Bernie's, while Warren is just a slightly more moderate version of Bernie. Doesn't make much sense to me, but if that is what the polls are saying, I guess that is how it is.
That isn't really true. Warren and Sanders are quite different. She has also been fairly inconsistent on issues. She was also a republican for most of her life. Many progressives don't trust her.
I felt Pete might have a chance if he wins Iowa because historically, that is how it has gone with Democrat primaries. The only anomalies have been Bill Clinton and Howard Dean. I don't feel like the demographics are a big player because this is the trend and the demographics of those states haven't radically changed as they have in Texas, Arizona, and California.
Recent polls have put butigieg at less than 1% support among black people. He recently put out a plan for how he would help black people, then sent out a letter showing all the black people who supported the plan. The problem was that half the people on the list were white. And of the 4 headline people they were touting, literally none of them endorsed Pete, 1 had already endorsed Sanders. Only 1 even supported his plan. He outright lied about having black support, to make it look like he had black support. With numbers like that, he has no chance at all.
Yeah, Obama was the "Change" man. Biden doesn't really act like he wants to deviate from the status quo, so I doubt that he will get Obama's turnout.
It's also a little weird that so many black people like him. Obama picked him because he was as white as they come. He is also pretty right wing in the democratic party. I mean he pushed Reagan further right in the war on drugs, which was catastrophic for black people. But the media basically wont say a bad word about him. Biden pushed policies for decades that cracked down on black people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well anyway if everything depends on his testimony it's all over by the crying.
And that is a very sad state of affairs. Sondland confirmed that trump committed multiple crimes. But to trump cultists they simply don't care.
I mean you are sitting there telling me that sondland confirming trump committed crimes is somehow exonerating to trump. I can't tell if it is incredible ignorance, gullibility or delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I believe that is true. However the argument is that the Ukraine government never knew it was held/delayed, right?
That is a talking point fox wants people to believe. It is a lie though. Multiple people have confirmed that the Ukrainians knew. Giuliani and Sondland told them. They were just smart enough to not have trump tell them himself.
They have proven that the ukranians were told that in order to get the money and the whitehouse meeting they needed to announce an investigation of Biden.please provide a citation for that and not some b.s. like vox :)
Sondland testified “Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed view email on July 19, days before the Presidential call," he said. "As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to 'run a fully transparent investigation' and 'turn over every stone' were necessary in his call with President Trump."
Sondland told the Ukrainians that they needed to run an investigation before trump had a call with them. On trump's call with them, the Ukrainians raised that they were ready for more weapons and trump told them he needed a "a favor though" before telling them to investigate Biden (by name). The Ukrainians then agreed to announce the investigation and scheduled the interview they were going to announce it in. The only reason trump didn't get what he was extorting them for, was because the whistle blower report came out. He was super close to succeeding in extorting them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The thing that matters is that witnesses have confirmed most of what was in the whistle blower report.Not to my knowledge they haven't. They haven't proven a damn thing .
They have proven trump ordered the money withheld. They have proven that the ukranians were told that in order to get the money and the whitehouse meeting they needed to announce an investigation of Biden. The public announcement of the investigation by the Ukranians had been scheduled. It was only cancelled because the whistle blower report became public.
What haven't they proven?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I meant that Warren and Sanders have similar platforms. Whoever drops out, the other will likely inherit that base. It may currently be divided socioeconomically and racially right now, but if they care about policy, the base will run to the other.
If you look at the 2nd choices of candidates in polls you will see this is not the case. The top 2nd choice for Biden supporters is Bernie. The top 2nd choice for Bernie supporters is Biden, not warren. The top 2nd choice for warren was Bernie though. If warren dropped out, that would probably help Sanders. If sanders dropped out, that wouldn't really help warren.
Buttigieg really has no chance. I have heard he is doing well in primary states and the first two are crucial.
Pete is dumping huge amounts of money into the early states. They are kind of his wheelhouse, IE overwhelmingly white. He might be able to do well in the 1st few states. He will get destroyed on super tuesday though. And with Duval Patrick and Bloomberg jumping in, that might undermine pete and drop him back.
I heard Warren is falling behind because of her grossly unpopular tax plans to pay for healthcare and other programs.
I would agree with that assessment. Her plan to pay for it was a cop out. It relied on savings from immigration reform and a head tax on companies that will obviously fall on workers. But it lets her say the magic words that she won't raise taxes on workers, at least directly. Her implementation plan is also really dumb.
Biden has been falling in the polls, but people still like Obama and most centrist Democrats like him.
Biden's support is tricky. He is kind of the candidate for old people. If you look at his support, it is almost exclusively from people over 50. Basically, people who have already built up their life in the current system and are afraid of change. But there are very few people who are excited about him. If you go to a Sanders or Warren or even a Butigieg rally, you will see lots of people who are excited by their candidate. You see almost none of that from biden supporters. It will be interesting to see what kind of turnout he supporters will have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
hat the cops show up and they can't tell if there has been domestic violence or not, the wife says there was not, just like Ukraine saying there was no wrong doings with regards to the democrat's charges,
Except that there is indisputable evidence he is guilty. Trump's call transcript shows 1 crime clearly (asking for the dirt) and is strong evidence for a 2nd. And there are now multiple witnesses that all confirm the 2nd crime happened too. He also then engaged in witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
So to put it in context of my example it would be: the police show up, find the wife beaten and on the floor, and 5 or 6 people who saw it happen all say he did it. He then threatens those 5 or 6 people to not talk as well as a bunch of other people.
Created: