Jump to content

Obamacare doing in the Republicans?


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

And with that its done away with. I'll try to provide my thoughts on it below and will add it into the OP.

 

Trump/Ryancare was quite simply a disaster. Forget the Democrats against it, forget the standard Republican voters, even the most zealous of Trump supporters were against it. It passing would have pretty much doomed Trump to a crushing mid term loss. There is talk that this was Trump destroying enemies "with light", like for example his takedown of Romney by appearing to support him, getting the needed words said, and then pulling the rug out from under him. Many would say this is mental gymnastics on their end but... this was clearly not Trump, instead being the Corporate Republicans in the party. Trump put his name to it, supported it somewhat but nowhere to the degree he has for things such as the Wall, travel ban, and such.

 

By failing in the passing of this Trump avoids a landmine and cripples that wing of the party. Intended or not that is quite the positive for him. Trump as has been reported recently (though I'd seen it months back) seemed to support Universal Health Care and his talk on the trail sort of (not quite) seemed to be in that sort of direction. According to rumours there are people close to him urging him to go in that direction now. Will he? Would he wait for Obamacare to combust first? I'm not so sure on that. Trump seems overwhelmed with healthcare, it is one hell of an issue for American presidents after all. As such the most likely result is he will palm it off to Rand Paul/Ted Cruz to sort out. Some might see that as a positive... some might not. My personal view is the path with the most points at the end of it is in fact a form of Universal Health Care, the universal coverage he campaigned on. His success thus far has been to go against the establishment and common ideological orthodoxy of the Republican Party, stick to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not simply win or lose. Its you losing big time and most people thinking you're a lunatic. To a normal person they might reflect on why they are seen as crazy for their view... not you I see however. You can claim this as long as you like. Currently one person is claiming this: you.

 

 

I'm sure Rosetta Stone teaches English grammar. Then you'd understand why. Or, you could read the reason in my previous post.  My grammar is perfectly fine, thanks.

 

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-english/

 

 

Well, you don't. At the end of the revolution, the definition of 'militia' was "any white man between the ages of 18-45". So, the right to bear arms only applies to these people lol. The reason behind this is because the revolutionary army was no more than a large militia, and as such, the revolutionary force that guarantees Americas constitution is the 'organised militia' - white men between 18-45. Simple really. So we seize the guns at age 45. Okay.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" You can claim this as long as you like. Currently one person is claiming this: you."

 

Errrm,you should probably take a look at the forums and a good amount of discord channels

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why they all couldn't agree on 100% repealing it. It needs to go.

 

Gov't needs to get out of the healthcare business completely. 100% privatized is the only way to go. Capitalism works. If you let it.

Socialism does not. There are several poignant, bloody and cruel examples to prove that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" You can claim this as long as you like. Currently one person is claiming this: you."

 

Errrm,you should probably take a look at the forums and a good amount of discord channels I am. But more importantly I'm keeping track of the flood of DMs.

 

 

I don't know why they all couldn't agree on 100% repealing it. It needs to go. To single-payer, yes.

 

Gov't needs to get out of the healthcare business completely. 100% privatized is the only way to go. Capitalism works. If you let it. Government healthcare already beats private insurance performance. Government needs to gain all of the insurance sector.

 

Socialism does not. There are several poignant, bloody and cruel examples to prove that. Socialism works very well. It even worked when we did it. We made a profit and saved an entire industry.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you agree to exclude all weapons not available when the amendment was written and removal/seizure at age 45, I think we have solved all conflict over the Second Amendment.

Does that apply to the 1st Amendment too? Do you still write with a quill pen? I guess you are against smart gun technology then, right? Because logically you'd then have to be against any technology that wasn't available in Colonial times, and of course biometrics etc. were still centuries ahead in the future. No? You still think smart guns are a good idea? Well then you're just looking for any old reason to justify your sketchy argument, it has nothing to do with principle or consistency.

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why after the amendment was written? I may have worded it poorly, it's meant to mean firearms available at that time. Do you not understand the bearing of arms is meant to overthrow a tyrannical government that would violate the rights written within the constitution? You think an AR is going to stop an armored column or something? I realize that was the original idea, but it's ridiculous at this time; at least that area. Rifles made in 1776 could do nothing against modern military. Besides, the 2nd amendment says 'the right to bear arms' not 'the right to bear arms made before the year 1776' They couldn't have possibly predicted what weapons would be developed over the next 200 years and can't be assumed to have been an intended inclusion in the amendment.. It's just idiotic. For someone who claims to be a bulwark against people who would desecrate the constitution, you're doing a lot of misinterpreting yourself. Differing in opinion about what an amendment is meant or not meant to do doesn't make either of us is attempting or succeeding in desecrating the Constitution or can be said to authoritatively interpreting absent a time machine to get more Federal Papers written.

 

 

Does that apply to the 1st Amendment too? It doesn't appear to, no. There's no stipulation so even the Supreme Court's interpretation of the specific things not protected explicitly in the amendment or the others that's meant to be there or not; for the time being it appears to be a good idea, even if not as specific as the second. Do you still write with a quill pen? Not normally, but yes. I guess you are against smart gun technology then, right? Extremely since it appears only a few years before it starts undoing the National Firearms Act. Because logically you'd then have to be against any technology that wasn't available in Colonial times, and of course biometrics etc. were still centuries ahead in the future. No? You still think smart guns are a good idea? Well then you're just looking for any old reason to justify your sketchy argument, it has nothing to do with principle or consistency. It's based on references given by others to me in this thread; I'm not sure that really makes it my fault and if it makes the argument sketchy we'll have to reset and start this discussion again.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't appear to, no. There's no stipulation so even the Supreme Court's interpretation of the specific things not protected explicitly in the amendment or the others that's meant to be there or not; for the time being it appears to be a good idea, even if not as specific as the second. Not normally, but yes.

 

Extremely since it appears only a few years before it starts undoing the National Firearms Act.

 

It's based on references given by others to me in this thread; I'm not sure that really makes it my fault and if it makes the argument sketchy we'll have to reset and start this discussion again.

Then why the double standard? 

 

That's an interesting position. 

 

Feel free to make another Second Amendment thread in debate if you want to restart. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could discuss why you think it is and stuff. This is a discussion forum afterall.

You are applying a standard to one amendment, but not another. That is a double standard. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are applying a standard to one amendment, but not another. That is a double standard. 

What capacity magazine should we give freedom of speech. Should freedom from an established religion be shoved into a three day waitingrea period on handguns? I treat them differently because there's no real way to discuss them otherwise.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What capacity magazine should we give freedom of speech. Should freedom from an established religion be shoved into a three day waiting period on handguns? I treat them differently because there's no real way to discuss them otherwise.

The Founders also could never envision a time in which existed the internet, the web, social media, tweets on cell phones, huge printing presses and print distribution centers, electronic billboards, bumper stickers, radio, TV, Netflix, cable TV, satellite communications, so on and so forth. And yet, we don’t make the argument that these modern examples of our 1st Amendment rights somehow must be stopped. There are plenty of other ways to limit speech. Limit the size of articles (which could be in magazines :rolleyes:) published. Mandate anyone who wants to exercise their free speech right must go through a background check. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Founders also could never envision a time in which existed the internet, the web, social media, tweets on cell phones, huge printing presses and print distribution centers, electronic billboards, bumper stickers, radio, TV, Netflix, cable TV, satellite communications, so on and so forth. And yet, we don’t make the argument that these modern examples of our 1st Amendment rights somehow must be stopped. There are plenty of other ways to limit speech. Limit the size of articles (which could be in magazines :rolleyes:) published. Mandate anyone who wants to exercise their free speech right must go through a background check. That wasn't the issue. You asked how I could treat the two differently and this is the answer.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Founders also could never envision a time in which existed the internet, the web, social media, tweets on cell phones, huge printing presses and print distribution centers, electronic billboards, bumper stickers, radio, TV, Netflix, cable TV, satellite communications, so on and so forth. And yet, we don’t make the argument that these modern examples of our 1st Amendment rights somehow must be stopped. There are plenty of other ways to limit speech. Limit the size of articles (which could be in magazines :rolleyes:) published. Mandate anyone who wants to exercise their free speech right must go through a background check. Unlike the Second Amendment, the First Amendment is very thoroughly protected and kept restriction free.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unlike the Second Amendment, the First Amendment is very thoroughly protected and kept restriction free.

So the Second Amendment should have more restrictions than the First because the First was better protected by judges and Congress? Alright, then we should get rid of 4473s because they aren't enforced as well as other crimes.  :rolleyes:

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Second Amendment should have more restrictions than the First because the First was better protected by judges and Congress? Alright, then we should get rid of 4473s because they aren't enforced as well as other crimes.  :rolleyes: We're actually fixing it a different way.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.