Total posts: 1,499
-->
@Alec
that ten yer term stuff ain't a bad idea but ten years is a long time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you just choose to ignore that every other amendment has clear legislative purpose to it, but when it comes to the second amendment, you think we have to draw on english common law. that's where the break down is. you're not being consistent. if you can't find legislative purpose to have a gun for self defense or hunting or any other reason than being in a militia, just admit it. do you admit it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
why do you have to look 1. another countries common law 2. another right altogether, the right to self defense? every other amendment has a clear legislsative history to its purpose, why can't you or dont you look at that? oh, that's right. there's no evidence there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yes, i already acknowledged it's possible to have that skewed interpretation. all you've posted is how it's possible to have that interpretation.
i continue, yet again, to notice you have no evidence during the enactment that they meant to protect guns outside the militia or for self defense or hunting and such.
Created:
Posted in:
i'm just bored right now, so felt the need to debate a dead horse topic, by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation.
there is a right to self defense, but that's a ninth amendment thing. you could extend that right to the use of a gun, but it's still a ninth amendment thing, not second.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i'm just bored right now, so felt the need to debate a dead horse topic, by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation.
there is a right to self defense, but that's a ninth amendment thing. you could extend that right to the use of a gun, but it's still a ninth amendment thing, not second. i notice you didn't post any evidence that the founders meant to protect an individual right to a gun. you can't, because there isn't any
Created:
Posted in:
even in recent years the court hijacked the meaning of the second amendment. if you look at conservative judges back as recent as the reagan years, you'll see they interpreted it to protect militia, not an individual right to a gun. all you have to do is look at the lack of any evidence at all that the amendment protects an individual right, back when the amendment was passed. every other amendment has clear purpose in the legislative history, but there's no mention of self defense or hunting or any of that for the second amendment. other than a skewed interpretation, there's no evidence for individual rights to a gun outside a militia.
for more on gun control science and law and policy, a very informative website, see here....
guneducationalinformation.weebly.com
Created:
even in recent years the court hijacked the meaning of the second amendment. if you look at conservative judges back as recent as the reagan years, you'll see they interpreted it to protect militia, not an individual right to a gun. all you have to do is look at the lack of any evidence at all that the amendment protects an individual right, back when the amendment was passed. every other amendment has clear purpose in the legislative history, but there's no mention of self defense or hunting or any of that for the second amendment. other than a skewed interpretation, there's no evidence for individual rights to a gun outside a militia.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
you do realize the conservatives were the pro slavery folks back in the day, right?
and, the main reason the electoral college exists at all, is to preserve slavery?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you sound like a conspiracy theorist and a ransom taker.
conspiracy, because you think that mainstream liberals are somehow subverting the will of the people. people wanted biden, the polls should have settled it. if they supported the policies of bernie, they would have supported him.
bernie represents a whole lot more than single payer. even if you're right that that's what most people want, that doesn't mean they want everything bernie wants. here is a link that says a large majority want the deficit taken care of. i agree that most care about healthcare first, but it's not like the deficit is no longer an issue. and, many of the other things bernie wants, normal people understand that we just can't afford.
ransom taker, because you can't get your way, so you're trying to force it down the throat of america, even when the polls and basic logic isn't on your side.
only twenty percent of bernie supporters are considering not voting for biden. not enough to change anything in the end for them, but enough to give the election to trump and the republicans for many years on end.
what would you think if moderate dems decided not to vote for bernie if he was the nominee, and used your 'logic' that they are only trying to get what they want in the end?
Created:
as a minor point, there may be majority support for universal education. but the other two things i mentioned i dont see it. and even for many of those of us who might want education universal, it should be done in a cost effective way, not just an open checkbook and throwing money at the problem.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
biden had sixty percent of the vote in a match up against bernie, and bernie had thirty percent. twice as much. it wasn't a close race
consider single payer. a slight majority want medicare for all, until they hear the details. that's what ive seen in polls. when you say you are going to outlaw insurance, and it may or may not raise taxes, they aren't interested. (i understand it doesn't need to raise taxes, but that's the thinking here) effectively most want a public option, which biden wants.
consider universal housing, education, and child care. i haven't seen the polls but no one ever talks about these things except the hard left. most people care about the deficiit, which bernie and the like dont ever mention. even if they raised taxes to pay for these things, the deficit is still there, and the republicans would just repeal those taxes and the deficit would be that much worse off. normal people understand we can't afford these things.
your mistake is thinking the base is behind bernie but that somehow or another the establishment stole it from him. not true.
and this is all coming from me, a guy that was gonna vote for bernie in the primary. (for his healthcare ideas, and plug my nose to the rest. (i'm effectively a moderate with a liberal bias))
Created:
this thread looks like a bunch of incoherent people talking to each other.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
how do you see in concrete steps the left shifting to a bernie type of person?
here is why i think that approach is flawed. the left isn't as far left as you think. the reason biden and hillary won, is because most people are moderate, even if they are liberals. so what happens with your approach? the left keeps losing because it's split. and it's not even a close split, biden owned bernie once the other moderates dropped out and it was just mano y mano. i dont like our party system, but it's not like a huge swath of people didn't have a chance in the primaries. the only way to maneuver our system, is to build coalitions on the most popular person, and that happens to be biden.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
if you dont vote for biden, your prized policies wont get passed anyway. you just have to come to grips with the fact that you can't get everything you want.
if the far left has a problem getting its policies passed, it's because they are only a faction, a fraction of one party in the usa. the far left has enough sway to change the course of an election, though. if they choose to not vote for the democratic nominee who they didn't want, the worse candidate, trump, will win. and the republicans will continue to win with your mindset.
it's illogical to vote for anyone other than biden if you want trump to lose, and it's illogical to vote for anyone other than the democratic nominee if you want republicans to lose in the future.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i like the idea of the senate. i freely admit, that in this case some people have more power than others in enacting our laws. why can't you also freely admit that your system causes some people to have more power in voting for president than other people?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so would you be okay if most left wing persons took your stance and didn't vote for biden, thus causing trump to win?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ok, so for some reason you don't like me talking about the idea of "equal".
will you freely admit that you think someone in north dakota should have more influence over who becomes president than someone in california?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
why won't you admit that you don't think all votes are equal?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you did say that... here is your quote: "How would that make all votes equal?" you were trying to claim you were making votes equal.
but you dont want all votes to be equal. just own it.
state it with me "i, dredpriate, dont believe all votes should be equal".
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yep, a popular vote is the only way to make all votes equal. i understand your reasoning behind wanting the college, but dont sit here and pretend you are only trying to make votes equal. one person, one vote = equal voting = only possible with a popular vote. apparently, you think someone in north dakota should count much more than someone in california. they are both people, but yet you dont think they should have an equal vote.
just own up to it.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you don't believe every vote should be equal?
Created:
the reason? simple. one person, one vote. all votes should be equal. i get the reasoning behind the college, that like the senate, there could be a way to level the playing field with small states v highly populated ones. but so what? if you support the electoral college, you dont think all votes should be equal. you can't claim to think that at all. we should be democratic, if a state has more people, it should have more power.... one person, one vote.
as far as the politics of it, even Trump wanted to abolish it before he became president. like all things political, his beliefs have changed vastly when he became president, and are made only to benefit himself and be a stooge to the republican party. all the republicans who support the college probably didn't before trump, either. as for me, ive never supported the college, way back to when i was a kid, well before even Al gore lost to the college while winning a majority vote, well before it was clear that the college is the only way republicans can win.
if you support the college, will you here and now explicitly acknowledge that you dont think all votes should be equal?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i agree with you that the claims that trump did a poor job are weak. he did seem out of touch though. i found this as the meat in the troubled poster's main link. if this doesn't persuade you, i don't think there's much more to add. what do you think of this?:
That the pandemic occurred is not Trump’s fault. The utter unpreparedness of the United States for a pandemic is Trump’s fault. The loss of stockpiled respirators to breakage because the federal government let maintenance contracts lapse in 2018 is Trump’s fault. The failure to store sufficient protective medical gear in the national arsenal is Trump’s fault. That states are bidding against other states for equipment, paying many multiples of the precrisis price for ventilators, is Trump’s fault. Air travelers summoned home and forced to stand for hours in dense airport crowds alongside infected people? That was Trump’s fault too. Ten weeks of insisting that the coronavirus is a harmless flu that would miraculously go away on its own? Trump’s fault again. The refusal of red-state governors to act promptly, the failure to close Florida and Gulf Coast beaches until late March? That fault is more widely shared, but again, responsibility rests with Trump: He could have stopped it, and he did not.The lying about the coronavirus by hosts on Fox News and conservative talk radio is Trump’s fault: They did it to protect him. The false hope of instant cures and nonexistent vaccines is Trump’s fault, because he told those lies to cover up his failure to act in time. The severity of the economic crisis is Trump’s fault; things would have been less bad if he had acted faster instead of sending out his chief economic adviser and his son Eric to assure Americans that the first stock-market dips were buying opportunities. The firing of a Navy captain for speaking truthfully about the virus’s threat to his crew? Trump’s fault. The fact that so many key government jobs were either empty or filled by mediocrities? Trump’s fault. The insertion of Trump’s arrogant and incompetent son-in-law as commander in chief of the national medical supply chain? Trump’s fault.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so will u vote for biden? why or why not?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
did you sell your investments when the virus hit? cause it looks like u got typical stock gains without the stock losses.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaBought
aren't u the one always saying how prochoice you are? and you support universal healthcare? i would never vote for trump if i had those views.
Created:
i'm sick of these bernie brats thinking they are taking the high road by voting third party or not voting biden. if you dont vote biden, you're just letting trump win. that's a fact. these guys may have caused trump to win in 2016. bernie had his chance but didn't appeal to enough people, he wasn't mainstream enough. so i mean it is a two party system, but given we have primaries, it's more than just two people or visions, ultimately.
do you really want trump to win so you can pretend you're being principled?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
i never noticed his name could be pronounced 'debateable'. nice
Created:
there's the issue of respecting other religion's and beliefs. the usa isn't almost all christisn, and so we should at least if we have a theocracy, have one that allows for other beliefs. respect is a religious principle.
then there's the problem that even say we use the bible as the rule of law, who's interpretation are we doing to use? there's thousands of denominations. i guess we can find common ground, but it's still an issue
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
just because there's a way for people to make their own gun,doesn't mean they will.
some people who are denied a gun through gun laws, will choose not to get one illegally, and they are thus less likely to kill someone.
plus it's a burden to print your own gun, thus making some people less likely to do it, and thus less likely to get a gun and kill someone.
Created:
Posted in:
obviously. people are saying more people die from the flu (so far), but if you notice, it's usually trump supporters who are trying to defend the idea that trump promoted that we shouldn't be taking this so seriously. they say a hundred million could get the disease in the usa, leaving potentially millions dead. so of course we should be taking this seriously. they ignore the basic idea that the rate of death and rate of infection is higher with the virus, and thus make themselves look like jackasses.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
thanks for the salient political analysis
Created:
"there is absolutely no evidence for God"
that's my favorite fallacy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
did mopac cause you to convert to orthodoxy? did he have an influence? were you orthodox when you started at this website or before you knew mopac?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
even if many people work trade jobs and make more money, there will always be people who are forced to work minimum wage or in that territory. that means it's necessary to help them in the most basic ways possible, food and healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
@HistoryBuff
if a disease causes you to cough, and a pill makes the cough go away, it's still a good thing even if the disease is still present
Created:
Posted in:
food stamps give food to people who can't afford it and might starve. healthcare policy gives healthcare to people who can't afford it. section 8 gives shelter to people who would be homeless.
most people dont try to stay poor to get these things. the ones that do stay poor, feel that is their best option, so it's not such a bad thing. even if these programs keep some people poor, they still accomplish their ends of feeding and tending to their needs, so the war on poverty isn't a bad thing.
Created:
Posted in:
it would be beneficial for people to cut way back on meat, but there are some nutrients that only come from meat. look at human teeth and their digestive system.... humans are designed to have meat as part of their diet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
routine and less expensive care is subject to the free market and paid out of pocket by the users
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
everyone's catastrophic coverage kicks in when they've paid their deductible. so the government covers the extra 2k.
Created:
Posted in:
what if the usa implemented universal catastrophic coverage, while outlawing all other health insurance, and forcing americans to pay out of pocket up to a percent of their income per year. maybe ten or fifteen percent of their income. we would naturally encourage Health Savings Accounts that already exist. we would also require as trump pushed, for all prices for health costs to be advertised up front. i would also consider coercing people to save in their health savings accounts every year and making their whole account fair game before coverage kicks in.
the good thing about this system is that it would pressure people not to abuse their access to healthcare, to save on their deductible. the lack of so much insurance and government blank checks for routine care would drive down costs, with the free market.
would conservatives here back this plan, why or why not? what about liberals, what's so bad about this plan?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
why should the usa be different?
Created:
every other developed country spends half as much as we do and covers everyone, and they almost all have better wait times to see a doctor, and most have higher life expectancy and decent quality overall.
why should the usa be different?
Created:
Posted in:
most christians just have faith in a best guess scenario, they can be persuaded by facts and logic. that means they aren't delusional. also a delusion has to be against culturally accepted ideas, and theism is a majority opinion, so again it isn't a delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
i say give grants to STEM degrees, and non-dischargeable loans or no loans at all to people stupid enough to get arts degrees and such. of course we should use price controls to keep costs down, as i argued in the previous post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
how do you view the following?
"The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God."
your ultimate reality talk reminds me of the above kind of thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i think u r being too picky and critical of the idea. the vast majority of majors the income test would work for. even with new tech, generic degrees like engineering might be adequate, and if it's not, it's a sliver of a faction of the whole world out there that the income test would work for. as for psychology and such, i say let em not be funded, cause the vast majority of folks who get those degrees shouldn't be getting them. leave it to people with money, or folks capable enough to get scholarships. smart people are the only ones who should dare those degrees anyway. it gives rich people a leg up, but who cares? overall, you have to do a cost benefit analysis on this, and the benefits clearly outweigh the cost. .
Created: