Jump to content

Healthcare: Why Bernie Sanders is MARGINALLY better than Trump


Caecus
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Gabranth said:

boomer genocide when

No, I'm talking about the mangy old !@#$ in the Senate who voted for the tax plan because they would directly benefit from it. What happened to Corker being a fiscal hawk? What happened to Rand Paul saying that we can't afford shit anymore because of the debt? What happened to die-hard opposition to increasing the debit ceiling, to the point they were willing to shut down the government for a week in 2010? 

Also, real estate benefits? That sounds great for an old !@#$ who still hasn't liquidated his real estate empire and put it into a blind trust. Do you know how much Trump is going to benefit personally from this tax plan? For someone who claims that he doesn't want to let China rape our country anymore, it seems kind of ironic that he's going to have to go to them to borrow more money. 

They are all a bunch of short-sighted old !@#$ who don't give a shit about you or me 50 years down the line, assuming we make it that far before our country goes bankrupt. Do you have any idea how much this tax plan is going to add to the deficit? Also, assuming you work, you are right now putting in money into a social security fund that you will never benefit from. You are literally paying extra taxes, so that America's top 1% of corporate executives can get another custom-made yacht. It's a !@#$ing ponzi scheme. 

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, speaking of a baby boomer genocide, 

 

You do realize that the ACA (you know, the great evil that is Obamacare that Trump proclaimed to have killed with removing the mandate from the tax code) helps offset Medicare costs for baby boomers, right? Elderly individuals pay as much as 6 times more than people in their 20s for insurance premiums. If you want to talk about a baby boomer genocide, perhaps making healthcare unaffordable is probably the fastest way to do it, outside of gas chambers and crazed Fox News anchors giving people heart attacks about violent gang rapists from Mexico coming to kill them in their homes. 

Get informed. Don't drink the coolaid and pretend like everything is going to be alright because your favorite narcissistic !@#$ is president. If you live in this country, you are going to have to live with this shitstorm in the future. 

 

Unless your Roz. Must be nice to live in a country protected by the greatest military in human history (no, not France), benefit from a strong social welfare state, and laugh as the hegemoney of your protector ally is voluntarily given away to a country that hates your guts because you tried to sell them a shit ton of opiods in the 1800s. !@#$ you and your robust social welfare state, Roz. I hope your economy gets !@#$ed because a bunch of racist tea kettles elected to leave the EU. 

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

Unless your Roz. Must be nice to live in a country protected by the greatest military in human history (no, not France), benefit from a strong social welfare state, and laugh as the hegemoney of your protector ally is voluntarily given away to a country that hates your guts because you tried to sell them a shit ton of opiods in the 1800s. !@#$ you and your robust social welfare state, Roz. I hope your economy gets !@#$ed because a bunch of racist tea kettles elected to leave the EU. 

Randomly shooting attacks my way in your death throes? Nice. 

The "You're all racists" didn't work during Brexit here nor during Trump over there so why still do this? Every time you call me a racist I only grow stronger mate, please stop, the Roz is plenty strong already.

The people for decades have had disdain for the EU and finally given a voice they democratically voted out. Like I then said would happen with Trump, if people are given the chance to reject crap like the EU and Globalism then they will. Your type can't win people over, you can only smear and try to deny people a voice to stop you losing any vote that would occur.

You should also know that the right wing that under Cameron were shunted to the side don't have control currently. Some influence sure, but nowhere near what you might believe. May is not a Brexiter and has not done the policies that the right of her party have been braying for. Second. The left wing that was shunted to the side under Blair look to be what will be winning the next election meaning we will then be lead by Comrade Corbyn. The Tories will then elect... Rees-Mogg as their leader and we'll have Comrade Corbyn as PM and a Tory with a 1800s Tory gimmick as the head of opposition. 

So keep barking if you want. Events around the last election where Cameron was forced to promise the Brexit vote have finally given our country what it has wanted for so long. Leaving the EU, be it a gain or loss, it does not matter. It gave us a Labour leader who is an actual left-winger and not some Neo-Liberal slime and when May falls it will likely give us a classic ultra right wing Tory like Rees-Mogg. To me... that is excellent. To see the Uniparty destroyed and some actual real options. All this could not be done without the massive shockwaves that Brexit wrought for years... it should be a holiday! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Randomly shooting attacks my way in your death throes? Nice. 

The "You're all racists" didn't work during Brexit here nor during Trump over there so why still do this? Every time you call me a racist I only grow stronger mate, please stop, the Roz is plenty strong already.

The people for decades have had disdain for the EU and finally given a voice they democratically voted out. Like I then said would happen with Trump, if people are given the chance to reject crap like the EU and Globalism then they will. Your type can't win people over, you can only smear and try to deny people a voice to stop you losing any vote that would occur.

You should also know that the right wing that under Cameron were shunted to the side don't have control currently. Some influence sure, but nowhere near what you might believe. May is not a Brexiter and has not done the policies that the right of her party have been braying for. Second. The left wing that was shunted to the side under Blair look to be what will be winning the next election meaning we will then be lead by Comrade Corbyn. The Tories will then elect... Rees-Mogg as their leader and we'll have Comrade Corbyn as PM and a Tory with a 1800s Tory gimmick as the head of opposition. 

So keep barking if you want. Events around the last election where Cameron was forced to promise the Brexit vote have finally given our country what it has wanted for so long. Leaving the EU, be it a gain or loss, it does not matter. It gave us a Labour leader who is an actual left-winger and not some Neo-Liberal slime and when May falls it will likely give us a classic ultra right wing Tory like Rees-Mogg. To me... that is excellent. To see the Uniparty destroyed and some actual real options. All this could not be done without the massive shockwaves that Brexit wrought for years... it should be a holiday! 

4 paragraphs talking about Brexit and British politics, not a single word in refuting that you have a strong welfare state that doesn't !@#$ over the elderly. 

By omission, my point is proven. Y'all are a bunch of whiny kids, spoiled by a century of a strong welfare state, who can't even shoot themselves in the foot properly. Oh wait, you guys don't have guns. And you guys legalized abortion. And you guys have free healthcare. You think your country has a "right-wing." That's cute. 

 

Also, "You're all racists" may not shame people into doing the right thing, but it doesn't make it false by virtue of no effect. It's like you think that my purpose of calling people racist is to have them vote a certain way, when in actuality, I'm just simply pointing out the lack of basic humanity in people's prejudices. It's rather simple: I'm just calling certain people asholes, not because I want them to do something, but because they are asholes. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Caecus said:

4 paragraphs talking about Brexit and British politics, not a single word in refuting that you have a strong welfare state that doesn't !@#$ over the elderly. 

By omission, my point is proven. Y'all are a bunch of whiny kids, spoiled by a century of a strong welfare state, who can't even shoot themselves in the foot properly. Oh wait, you guys don't have guns. And you guys legalized abortion. And you guys have free healthcare. You think your country has a "right-wing." That's cute. 

 

Also, "You're all racists" may not shame people into doing the right thing, but it doesn't make it false by virtue of no effect. It's like you think that my purpose of calling people racist is to have them vote a certain way, when in actuality, I'm just simply pointing out the lack of basic humanity in people's prejudices. It's rather simple: I'm just calling certain people asholes, not because I want them to do something, but because they are asholes. 

You talk as if we have some near perfect situation here. We don't. Things have happened here even Americans would get shocked at.

We do have a right wing, as does the rest of the world. It's America that has two right wings thank you. Oh, but one of them race hustles minorities so that makes them left wing apparently. 

You say that as you have been rendered a loser again and again. The aim in throwing out these racist smears is to make people do as you want, and it ain't working anymore. As I told Rahl who rubbished it, you may scare some people into nodding along with you due to them seeing how you smear anyone who doesn't as a racist... but when the time comes they will oppose and defeat you. The shy voters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

You talk as if we have some near perfect situation here. We don't. Things have happened here even Americans would get shocked at.

We do have a right wing, as does the rest of the world. It's America that has two right wings thank you. Oh, but one of them race hustles minorities so that makes them left wing apparently. 

You say that as you have been rendered a loser again and again. The aim in throwing out these racist smears is to make people do as you want, and it ain't working anymore. As I told Rahl who rubbished it, you may scare some people into nodding along with you due to them seeing how you smear anyone who doesn't as a racist... but when the time comes they will oppose and defeat you. The shy voters. 

Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about your tremendously stupid policy flaws. I'm just saying that you don't really have a stake in having your country !@#$ed over by a narcissistic, sexually abusive idiot. Don't take my word for it, take the word of literally every single person who ever worked with Trump. 

!@#$, please. Your country doesn't have a right wing. Someone show this boy what a God-ordained right-to-bear-arms life-begins-at-conception government-needs-to-!@#$-off American man looks like. Wisdomtree?

I seem to recall the "shy voters" in Alabama roundly rejecting Trump's pedophile for senator. I seem to recall the "shy voters" of Virginia retaking a gerrymandered house. Trump may have received support because people wanted a huge change in Washington, but that's obviously not the case anymore. It turns out that most Americans have a sense of decency, and Trump is a piece of shit. What does that say about you, someone who continues to blindly support someone who even people in his own administration describe as "dumb as shit" or "a !@#$ing moron?" 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about your tremendously stupid policy flaws. I'm just saying that you don't really have a stake in having your country !@#$ed over by a narcissistic, sexually abusive idiot. Don't take my word for it, take the word of literally every single person who ever worked with Trump. 

!@#$, please. Your country doesn't have a right wing. Someone show this boy what a God-ordained right-to-bear-arms life-begins-at-conception government-needs-to-!@#$-off American man looks like. Wisdomtree?

I seem to recall the "shy voters" in Alabama roundly rejecting Trump's pedophile for senator. I seem to recall the "shy voters" of Virginia retaking a gerrymandered house. Trump may have received support because people wanted a huge change in Washington, but that's obviously not the case anymore. It turns out that most Americans have a sense of decency, and Trump is a piece of shit. What does that say about you, someone who continues to blindly support someone who even people in his own administration describe as "dumb as shit" or "a !@#$ing moron?" 

Uh... Tony Blair and his New Labour did a tremendous amount of damage be it economically or socially. Ask the generation before mine and they'll you the same about Margaret Thatcher. Heck, you want to talk getting attacked by the media over some scandal/blunder/mess up everyday we have our very own Gordon Brown.

Don't have a right wing? You mean when the government was found taking away people's benefits if they didn't work for big company's like Tesco for free and that their claim of their being a job at the end of it was a lie was them being nice soft centrists? They retreated on it sure, but because they got caught. David Cameron who I assume you know of when he took over the Tory party "modernised" it into "Compassionate Conservationism", hence why he passed gay marriage even though a lot of his party was against it. It was always a smokescreen of course for their economic policies, but whatever their case the time of Cameron and his acolytes appears to be at an end soon enough. As for guns... well, there is hunting related stuff like Fox Hunting which was banned and the Tories want to unban even though it is an issue that it seems only Tory MPs care about. 

Trump supported Strange. Bannon supported Moore and put Trump in a bad spot. No winning there unless Moore actually pulled off a victory (and the media was running that even that would be a loss too). However none of that matters. Well done, you finally won something, had to at some point... if you say you'll win so Trump is finished you may strike out the first dozen times, but then you'll get a few and that's that, Trump is finished.

Seriously? Someone who insults the intelligence of others as much as you do are believing that book of all things. Where the author admits are just what he believes to be true... yeah yeah. Trump was shattered that he won the Presidency. Not like he isn't characterised as a very proud man who wants to be known as the best or anything. Nah, a man like that wants to lose, clearly. He didn't care for being president and yet campaigned far harder then Clinton and went all across the country to do it. Him disappearing like that near the end was a clear sign of him not caring yeah. It's always this Fake News nonsense with you, get a clue already. You can't have both messages out there mate. Take the enrichment one for example. Narrative A: He became President to become richer. Narrative B: Trump hasn't been enriched and has lost money. He is a loser hehehe. Those conflict against each other and there is no winning. Similar one is the "He'd be richer if he just invested his money instead of building stuff and making jobs", just utter hypocritical nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Uh... Tony Blair and his New Labour did a tremendous amount of damage be it economically or socially. Ask the generation before mine and they'll you the same about Margaret Thatcher. Heck, you want to talk getting attacked by the media over some scandal/blunder/mess up everyday we have our very own Gordon Brown.

Don't have a right wing? You mean when the government was found taking away people's benefits if they didn't work for big company's like Tesco for free and that their claim of their being a job at the end of it was a lie was them being nice soft centrists? They retreated on it sure, but because they got caught. David Cameron who I assume you know of when he took over the Tory party "modernised" it into "Compassionate Conservationism", hence why he passed gay marriage even though a lot of his party was against it. It was always a smokescreen of course for their economic policies, but whatever their case the time of Cameron and his acolytes appears to be at an end soon enough. As for guns... well, there is hunting related stuff like Fox Hunting which was banned and the Tories want to unban even though it is an issue that it seems only Tory MPs care about. 

Trump supported Strange. Bannon supported Moore and put Trump in a bad spot. No winning there unless Moore actually pulled off a victory (and the media was running that even that would be a loss too). However none of that matters. Well done, you finally won something, had to at some point... if you say you'll win so Trump is finished you may strike out the first dozen times, but then you'll get a few and that's that, Trump is finished.

Seriously? Someone who insults the intelligence of others as much as you do are believing that book of all things. Where the author admits are just what he believes to be true... yeah yeah. Trump was shattered that he won the Presidency. Not like he isn't characterised as a very proud man who wants to be known as the best or anything. Nah, a man like that wants to lose, clearly. He didn't care for being president and yet campaigned far harder then Clinton and went all across the country to do it. Him disappearing like that near the end was a clear sign of him not caring yeah. It's always this Fake News nonsense with you, get a clue already. You can't have both messages out there mate. Take the enrichment one for example. Narrative A: He became President to become richer. Narrative B: Trump hasn't been enriched and has lost money. He is a loser hehehe. Those conflict against each other and there is no winning. Similar one is the "He'd be richer if he just invested his money instead of building stuff and making jobs", just utter hypocritical nonsense. 

Yeah, you don't have a right wing. 

Trump supported Moore. He may have supported Strange in the primaries, but when it came into the general election, Trump threw his entire support behind Moore in the last few weeks and lost. Do you want me to find a video of Trump's full-throated support of a pedophile for senator? You lie, and it's so easy to prove it that it's sad. 

Here's the thing: when pretty much everyone from the Trump administration (HIS OWN !@#$ing ADMINISTRATION!) whispers that Trump is a !@#$ing idiot and it keeps finding its way to our ears, it's common knowledge. Combine that with the fact that Trump had just issued a nuclear dick measuring contest on twitter yesterday, I'm pretty damn sure he's a !@#$ing idiot. Narrative A: Trump is a !@#$ing idiot, 60% of the American population thinks he is, everyone in his administration thinks he is, and everyone in the world thinks he is. Narrative B: The whole world is wrong, his administration is filled with Deep State officials (officials he himself appointed), and some British guy in Lancaster (whose own government doesn't want their queen photographed next to that dumpster fire of a president) has this giant media/liberal/global conspiracy all figured out. 

 

I'm going to go with Narrative A. Even your own dumbass government thinks Trump is a !@#$ing idiot, and it would be beneath the dignity of the queen to be seen next to the most powerful man in human history. 

 

 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Caecus said:

Yeah, you don't have a right wing. 

Trump supported Moore. He may have supported Strange in the primaries, but when it came into the general election, Trump threw his entire support behind Moore in the last few weeks and lost. Do you want me to find a video of Trump's full-throated support of a pedophile for senator? You lie, and it's so easy to prove it that it's sad. 

Here's the thing: when pretty much everyone from the Trump administration (HIS OWN !@#$ing ADMINISTRATION!) whispers that Trump is a !@#$ing idiot and it keeps finding its way to our ears, it's common knowledge. Combine that with the fact that Trump had just issued a nuclear dick measuring contest on twitter yesterday, I'm pretty damn sure he's a !@#$ing idiot. Narrative A: Trump is a !@#$ing idiot, 60% of the American population thinks he is, everyone in his administration thinks he is, and everyone in the world thinks he is. Narrative B: The whole world is wrong, his administration is filled with Deep State officials (officials he himself appointed), and some British guy in Lancaster (whose own government doesn't want their queen photographed next to that dumpster fire of a president) has this giant media/liberal/global conspiracy all figured out. 

 

I'm going to go with Narrative A. Even your own dumbass government thinks Trump is a !@#$ing idiot, and it would be beneath the dignity of the queen to be seen next to the most powerful man in human history. 

 

 

You expect Trump to go against a Republican just like that? What would that have gained him exactly? If we're talking you then you'd be here mocking him all the same, just with a different form of attack.

All those claims the guy makes have no evidence behind them and are rumour/gossip at best, simply made up at worst. Even Trump's worst media opponents have been pointing out that several claims, such as ones to show Trump's ignorance/stupidity make no sense as he would have recently not only talked about the mentioned people... several times... but he also personally met them. 

If getting defeated by a complete idiot makes you feel better then go for it. Let me ask you, do you think when Trump turns on the twitter and says something that he doesn't know exactly what the responses are going to be? For his supporters and opponents both? How many times has he used tweets to defeat the MSM either via largely covering up something that actually matters, or bringing attention to something he wants attention on? Believing Trump to be an idiot is not a positive for you and the rest of you, because if he is all these things you say... then you lost and will lose again to that. What does that make you? I've told you before, in Pro-Wrestling it is best to show some level of respect of your opponent's abilities because then when you win it'll be all the grander, and if lose, then you lost against someone who was real good. Trump himself did this with Clinton, after all she was a real tough opponent what with the MSM behind her, big money, so on. Thereby his win for his supporters came off as a magically fairy tale upset and his brand only shot up higher among them.

You may not understand it yourself but Trump clearly can speak, not with perhaps as he says, the best words, but he can speak to the people that matter. He can promote himself and he can promote issues. He has expert usage of social media to both get attention where he wants it, and to take attention away from where he doesn't want it. He lies often and yet a large portion of the country see him as the most honest politician out there for "saying it how it is". In addition to all that we can't forget how simply nothing it seems can take him down. He could as he says shoot someone and lose no votes. He can be caught on tape saying things that'd sink other men and then go on to win heavily (yeah yeah 3 million, it's a massive victory in the system and situation things were in). He can be outspent 2 to 1 and yet have his money more effectively, which you either credit to him or to people he put in charge. 

You should be showing respect and treating Trump like a serious deal. If I had to compare it to something... I'd say JBL back when he became World Champion. A tag wrestler midcarder who became world champion? What a joke. How can you take him seriously? Oh look, he needs a whole group of people to help him during matches to win most of the time... but wait, when he gets forced into a position where he can't get help... he survives. JBL is a survivor and so you can't sleep on him. In addition while he may well not be the most elite wrestler, his finisher, the Clothesline from Hell can put down any man if JBL lands it. In the end after all the elite wrestlers at the time failed, guys who had underestimated JBL... it was the rising star John Cena who JBL himself underestimated that beat him for the title at last. JBL was not a strong champion by any means, but in the end you have to respect the fact that he knew how to survive and come out on top. It was only once he chewed through all the top competitors, the guys who'd beat him easily, did he finally lose and it was to a guy who had never been world champion and went in as the underdog against a man who had by that point been world champion for nearly a year.

Just talking nonsense as you like to do. The Queen makes no statement on such things and if some random Labour or whatever MP said such a thing... oh well, who cares. I remember when they had a debate on this matter previously. They all got up, they flashed their virtue, and then agreed that he should visit hehehe. The Queen has met with people who were in the process of killing their own people/other countries openly... if meeting with a "bad man" lowers her dignity then she certainly has none left by this point anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

You expect Trump to go against a PEDOPHILE (FIFY) just like that? What would that have gained him exactly? If we're talking you then you'd be here mocking him all the same, just with a different form of attack.

Some basic !@#$ing decency, for starters. I know that's a rather ethereal and complicated concept for you, but most people have this thing called a conscience that prevents them from voting for a pedophile into office. 

Don't believe me? Alabama, the reddest state in the union, elected an abortion-loving, gun-banning democrat to the senate; not because it would have gained them something, but because decency demands it. For someone claiming to have courage in doing the "right thing," you seem to struggle in knowing what is right, draining your self-proclaimed bravery in a pool of your own amorality. 

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

If getting defeated by a complete idiot makes you feel better then go for it. Let me ask you, do you think when Trump turns on the twitter and says something that he doesn't know exactly what the responses are going to be?

Yeah, pretty much. How the !@#$ you came up with the idea Trump knows what consequences are is beyond me. 

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

You may not understand it yourself but Trump clearly can speak, not with perhaps as he says, the best words, but he can speak to the people that matter. 

Why do 33% of Americans matter more than the rest of the 66? 

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Just talking nonsense as you like to do. The Queen makes no statement on such things and if some random Labour or whatever MP said such a thing... oh well, who cares. I remember when they had a debate on this matter previously. They all got up, they flashed their virtue, and then agreed that he should visit hehehe. The Queen has met with people who were in the process of killing their own people/other countries openly... if meeting with a "bad man" lowers her dignity then she certainly has none left by this point anyway.

Do tell me when Trump's next scheduled trip to the UK is. Let me know if he plans on meeting the queen. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Caecus said:

Some basic !@#$ing decency, for starters. I know that's a rather ethereal and complicated concept for you, but most people have this thing called a conscience that prevents them from voting for a pedophile into office. 

Don't believe me? Alabama, the reddest state in the union, elected an abortion-loving, gun-banning democrat to the senate; not because it would have gained them something, but because decency demands it. For someone claiming to have courage in doing the "right thing," you seem to struggle in knowing what is right, draining your self-proclaimed bravery in a pool of your own amorality. 

Yeah, pretty much. How the !@#$ you came up with the idea Trump knows what consequences are is beyond me. 

Why do 33% of Americans matter more than the rest of the 66? 

Do tell me when Trump's next scheduled trip to the UK is. Let me know if he plans on meeting the queen. 

Yes yes, we all know for all your talk of decency you still very much despise the people of Alabama. So there is no decency for them from you, you hate and despise them regardless of what they do. 

Alright so lets say Trump is a monkey throwing crap at the wall. You, the MSM, Democrats, so on... are all getting defeated and led around by the nose by a monkey throwing crap. Wow, incredible. Trump clearly has a handle on promotion and how to bring and take away attention. 
You're a complete mark mate. He merely needs to act a bit eccentric and you fall for it hook, line, and sinker. He is comparable to Boris Johnson over here. In reality quite a nasty man, we can see it in the few noted times that the mask has slipped... however, the large majority of the time he puts on the act of the fool. Look at his hair, look at the old funny words he uses, what a fun loving great guy... another is Rees-Mogg who even though being a Tory straight from the 1800s is extremely popular... among the young especially... why? Gimmick dear boy. People love gimmicks, they love characters, and it is oh so useful in smacking guys like you around as you take them as fools when they are anything but.

Trump's numbers last election were not 33%. When a person doesn't vote they straight away don't matter in these things, so 46.1% is the number (Clinton got 48.2%). They can all be against him if they like, but if they don't turn up to vote then they simply do not matter. Trump is as they say, HIGH ENERGY, he gets people out to vote for him. His firm supporters are fanatical in their devotion to him. They see Trump as a saviour of the country and by voting for Trump, they too are doing their part to save the country, heck, the world. What do the Democrats have? Turn up and vote for some Neo-Liberal guy who economically is more for globalism (synonymous now with less jobs) than Trump is? What is the point? Hence they didn't turn out for Clinton and she lost. Trump has been fulfilling his promises and he can point to some good numbers (say they're Obama if you want while saying it's all Trump whenever anything goes wrong if you want. People dislike and can see through dishonesty)... unless the Democrats run someone real good, they're getting smashed again. 

They say February, some sources say he will meet the Queen while others say he won't. Nobody actually knows at this stage, though what is though as certain will be a massive protest against Trump, the "biggest ever" they say, from you know, the Remainer loser crowd. You'll have anti-America signs, pro-BLM randomly, pro-EU, perhaps some hammer and sickles while at it, the full cancer on display. People who disgrace our nation but it is fine... they can bark all they like but they cannot stop Brexit nor Trump. The London crowd love these displays what with being "global people from a global city" but they do not represent our great nation. 

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Yes yes, we all know for all your talk of decency you still very much despise the people of Alabama. So there is no decency for them from you, you hate and despise them regardless of what they do. 

Alright so lets say Trump is a monkey throwing crap at the wall. You, the MSM, Democrats, so on... are all getting defeated and led around by the nose by a monkey throwing crap. Wow, incredible. Trump clearly has a handle on promotion and how to bring and take away attention. 
You're a complete mark mate. He merely needs to act a bit eccentric and you fall for it hook, line, and sinker. He is comparable to Boris Johnson over here. In reality quite a nasty man, we can see it in the few noted times that the mask has slipped... however, the large majority of the time he puts on the act of the fool. Look at his hair, look at the old funny words he uses, what a fun loving great guy... another is Rees-Mogg who even though being a Tory straight from the 1800s is extremely popular... among the young especially... why? Gimmick dear boy. People love gimmicks, they love characters, and it is oh so useful in smacking guys like you around as you take them as fools when they are anything but.

Trump's numbers last election were not 33%. When a person doesn't vote they straight away don't matter in these things, so 46.1% is the number (Clinton got 48.2%). They can all be against him if they like, but if they don't turn up to vote then they simply do not matter. Trump is as they say, HIGH ENERGY, he gets people out to vote for him. His firm supporters are fanatical in their devotion to him. They see Trump as a saviour of the country and by voting for Trump, they too are doing their part to save the country, heck, the world. What do the Democrats have? Turn up and vote for some Neo-Liberal guy who economically is more for globalism (synonymous now with less jobs) than Trump is? What is the point? Hence they didn't turn out for Clinton and she lost. Trump has been fulfilling his promises and he can point to some good numbers (say they're Obama if you want while saying it's all Trump whenever anything goes wrong if you want. People dislike and can see through dishonesty)... unless the Democrats run someone real good, they're getting smashed again. 

They say February, some sources say he will meet the Queen while others say he won't. Nobody actually knows at this stage, though what is though as certain will be a massive protest against Trump, the "biggest ever" they say, from you know, the Remainer loser crowd. You'll have anti-America signs, pro-BLM randomly, pro-EU, perhaps some hammer and sickles while at it, the full cancer on display. People who disgrace our nation but it is fine... they can bark all they like but they cannot stop Brexit nor Trump. The London crowd love these displays what with being "global people from a global city" but they do not represent our great nation. 

See? An ethereal and complicated concept that you can't wrap your head around. 

Trump got lucky one time. Well, if you consider Russian help to be luck. Before Virginia and Alabama, you could claim Trump was a genius and there would be no evidence to refute such a blatantly stupid claim. Now, after Trump has told people in the REDDEST STATE IN THE !@#$ing UNION to vote for his man, he lost ALABAMA, THE REDDEST STATE IN THE !@#$ing UNION to a democrat. When Trump tells people to vote for someone, and everyone votes the other guy into office, that's everyone collectively giving the middle finger to Trump. And if Trump managed to lose THE REDDEST !@#$ing STATE IN THE MOTHER !@#$ing UNION, he's a loser. The American people gave him a chance, and now everyone (including everyone who works for him, who meets with him, who has to listen to him talk every day) except you think he's a !@#$ing idiot. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Caecus said:

See? An ethereal and complicated concept that you can't wrap your head around. 

Trump got lucky one time. Well, if you consider Russian help to be luck. Before Virginia and Alabama, you could claim Trump was a genius and there would be no evidence to refute such a blatantly stupid claim. Now, after Trump has told people in the REDDEST STATE IN THE !@#$ing UNION to vote for his man, he lost ALABAMA, THE REDDEST STATE IN THE !@#$ing UNION to a democrat. When Trump tells people to vote for someone, and everyone votes the other guy into office, that's everyone collectively giving the middle finger to Trump. And if Trump managed to lose THE REDDEST !@#$ing STATE IN THE MOTHER !@#$ing UNION, he's a loser. The American people gave him a chance, and now everyone (including everyone who works for him, who meets with him, who has to listen to him talk every day) except you think he's a !@#$ing idiot. 

Ah. So Trump didn't want to be president according to the nonsense in that book... and yet worked together with the Russians in some very well covered up conspiracy (considering they haven't been able to nail him in the year+ they've been trying) to... become President. See, don't go believing everything you read. F.A.K.E.N.E.W.S.

Excuse me? Being outspent 2 to 1, being smeared 24/7 for over a year by the large majority of the MSM, and even elements in his own party trying to bring him down... nah, you need more than simply luck to take down the Clinton dynasty (after torching Bush) and all their tools in the media, politics, entertainment, and so on. This is the usual nonsense from you guys. Remember the stock market being obliterated if Trump gets elected? How did that work out? Oh right, the sky did not fall. Same was tried with Brexit. You guys talk trash that never manifests while I like to live more in reality thank you. There are always negative effects certainly, nothing is ever all rosy, however the rats will not rise from the sewers to eat all our children or whatever nonsense you guys decide to come out to try to scare people to your side. 

That election didn't go that way because of Trump. You know this so why you made the text all big to further expose yourself is beyond me. Moore said some stupid stuff when defending himself which was face-palm worthy. The fact it was still so close shows very much that were it someone like Strange it would have been a very easy win for the Republicans. You know, the guy Trump actually wanted until Bannon got in the way on that. Trump got "behind him" as he was the Republican candidate, as he gets behind all the rest. One of them losing is evidence of nothing, and you trying to claim it as such shows how taken in you are by the propaganda and how desperate you are.

A billionaire who took down the Clinton machine and became President... is a loser? No ordinary person can read your words and not laugh at how silly they are. You're possessed, ranting and raving, no doubt not helped by you challenging the Roz, the luminary of knowledge, and losing. This is why your deportation is good for you. Perhaps it will teach you some respect, teach you some calm, teach you to not swallow down the Fake News. You don't respect Trump nor me and that is your mistake. Your disrespect means you make these mistakes, it means you underestimate, it means that you lose. Did you not see Rahl? When it was nearly time he went into a little overdrive in throwing out the insults. I told him to be careful, as did some others. He said he had no need, his odds of winning were 100%. Then look what happened. He mocked my observations every time and yet look how it went, I was right all along, just like I was with Brexit against Spite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny not wanting cheaper medical care BEFORE the boomers all begin needing more and more expensive medical with insurance more and more difficult to buy. That means if we stay the way as we are we're still going to pay despite our debt, just that we'll be paying at a much higher rate than the one I mentioned. Our debt is not a particularly bad thing and no one's going to do anything to change its stability.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

It's kind of funny not wanting cheaper medical care BEFORE the boomers all begin needing more and more expensive medical with insurance more and more difficult to buy. That means if we stay the way as we are we're still going to pay despite our debt, just that we'll be paying at a much higher rate than the one I mentioned. Our debt is not a particularly bad thing and no one's going to do anything to change its stability.

To be entirely fair, it's not the boomer's fault. 

The last 70 years saw huge medical advancements. Things like vaccines, dialysis, heart surgery, radiology, and pharmaceuticals have radically transformed life expectancy unlike any period in human history. The last 70 years is the medical equivalent of discovering fire. Instead of people dying at 50 because of some organ failure, we have people living well into the 70s and 80s. In order to keep people alive that long, it requires a shit ton of money to be spent on relatively new technologies and procedures that are invasive and costly to begin with. All developed countries have this problem, where an aging population is now skewing the age distribution curve. China in particular (due to the one child policy) has this issue, where a younger generation must essentially make up for the older generation in sectors of the economy that support the previous generation. 

That being said, unlike France, the US doesn't have a strong social state infrastructure. Let me remind you that the Obamacare website - a prime example of the US attempting to fill in infrastructure for a social state - cost $2.1 Billion. And that was just a !@#$ing WEBSITE. Imagine the amount of money necessary to invest into creating a single-payer system run by the government, and then having subsidies ready for the high costs of healthcare for the elderly. Top that off with the fact that we have practically no price gouging regulations over big pharma, and you have a 40 year nightmare of shitty healthcare and a bankrupt economy. France and the other European countries have had DECADES (and the subsequent billions of dollars associated with the passage of such a long !@#$ing time) to create, fine-tune, and perfect their healthcare social state. A US single-payer system at this point in time is as unrealistic as a McDonald's worker wanting to purchase a rocket to the moon with their next paycheck. 

Debt stifles the economy. Anyone who says "oh, we have $20T in debt now, what does another couple of Ts mean anyway?" doesn't understand how having more and more of your nation's GDP devoted to paying off debt slows economic growth and production. Just look at Greece. The only reason why the US is staying afloat now despite having more debt than the next three major countries combined is because we are !@#$ing geniuses and everyone has confidence in American production and consumerism. Contrary to what Fox and Friends says, the American economy is doing well DESPITE Trump, not because of him, and its because everyone still has massive confidence in the American economy. We should be using this period of time to pay back the debt, not accumulate more. 

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

A billionaire who took down the Clinton machine and became President... is a loser? 

Man, you are right. It must be soooooo easy for such a brilliant and powerful man to convince millions of his own supporters in the reddest state of the !@#$ing Union to elect a pedophile.

Oh wait. No he didn't. He's a loser. Every single candidate he endorsed and campaigned for lost. He got lucky one time because Russians helped him out, and now you think he's some sort of demi-god. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Caecus said:

Man, you are right. It must be soooooo easy for such a brilliant and powerful man to convince millions of his own supporters in the reddest state of the !@#$ing Union to elect a pedophile.

Oh wait. No he didn't. He's a loser. Every single candidate he endorsed and campaigned for lost. He got lucky one time because Russians helped him out, and now you think he's some sort of demi-god. 

??? Moore wasn't his pick and when it became Moore who went forward, he tried his best. The man is not a miracle worker. Trump can get away with things like this because he talks in a very normal and common way. Take the grab 'em by the !@#$ and they let you do it. Every man and woman on the street knows that when you're rich like that, women throw themselves at you. They're all too happy to give themselves up. As such for all the fake outrage, in reality it doesn't affect Trump one bit. The only people who "care" (they know it's true if they are honest) are people who are already completely against him. Moore talked some stuff about how the girls were young but he asked their mother's permission or something (?). Just stupid stuff. 

According to the source you're choosing to believe, Trump did not care to win. As such, why would he take part in some Communist plot? To increase his odds? For something he doesn't want to win to begin with, and would act as leverage on him by the Russians as he'd get arrested if it got out? Makes zero sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

??? Moore wasn't his pick and when it became Moore who went forward, he tried his best. The man is not a miracle worker. Trump can get away with things like this because he talks in a very normal and common way. Take the grab 'em by the !@#$ and they let you do it. Every man and woman on the street knows that when you're rich like that, women throw themselves at you. They're all too happy to give themselves up. As such for all the fake outrage, in reality it doesn't affect Trump one bit. The only people who "care" (they know it's true if they are honest) are people who are already completely against him. Moore talked some stuff about how the girls were young but he asked their mother's permission or something (?). Just stupid stuff. 

According to the source you're choosing to believe, Trump did not care to win. As such, why would he take part in some Communist plot? To increase his odds? For something he doesn't want to win to begin with, and would act as leverage on him by the Russians as he'd get arrested if it got out? Makes zero sense. 

Pedophilia is "Just stupid stuff," huh? For someone who thought Clinton's sexual harassment was so morally disgusting, you really lose all morality when your beloved pro-wrestling demi-god wants people to vote for Moore. 

Oh, and yes. Trump endorsed Strange in the beginning. But unlike every republican on the hill, he decided to throw his weight behind Moore despite having the option to say "just let Alabama decide." I'll give him credit though, McConnel and Ryan didn't have any !@#$ing backbone to jump on either side, but Trump did the brave thing by admitting he was a giant piece of shit who sees pedophiles as good senators. Trump told people to vote for Moore. In fact, here it is: 

Your lies are so easily proven, it's sad. When you have to blatantly lie in order to try and prove that your man isn't a loser, you've lost. 

 

 

This may come as a shock to you, but...

Have you ever considered that Trump is just a !@#$ing moron? I know this is hard to believe, considering that everyone in the world has said that he's a !@#$ing idiot, but maybe Trump isn't the genius you think he is. Maybe he is dumb as shit and doesn't think that far ahead. Otherwise, he wouldn't be losing all the time. Even when he wins, it's when he doesn't want to win, so he loses. Trump is just a loser. And stupid as shit. 

 

Again, I'm not sure what that says about you if you think he's a winning genius. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Caecus said:

To be entirely fair, it's not the boomer's fault.  Nope, we've known for decades that people age.

The last 70 years saw huge medical advancements. Things like vaccines, dialysis, heart surgery, radiology, and pharmaceuticals have radically transformed life expectancy unlike any period in human history. The last 70 years is the medical equivalent of discovering fire. Instead of people dying at 50 because of some organ failure, we have people living well into the 70s and 80s. In order to keep people alive that long, it requires a shit ton of money to be spent on relatively new technologies and procedures that are invasive and costly to begin with. All developed countries have this problem, where an aging population is now skewing the age distribution curve. China in particular (due to the one child policy) has this issue, where a younger generation must essentially make up for the older generation in sectors of the economy that support the previous generation. 

That being said, unlike France, the US doesn't have a strong social state infrastructure. That can change here for single-payer just as it has eventually been in many countries. It's really not particularly difficult. Nationalize the private insurers into Social Security, remove the restrictions that prevent Social Security from negotiating the rates they are willing to pay for various services rather than just going with whatever the biller says because there's no way to challenge it. So, everyone already now has insurance coverage since we all have Social Security cards and numbers, so we don't really have to even reprint things. A single-payer system funded by reduced taxation, avoidance of emergency treatment as much as possible and putting more of an emphasis on preventative care, which is far cheaper.  No changes are necessary for the medical industry and there's no reason the transition would be terribly difficult in anyway. The infrastructure is basically already there and just requires a little nationalization and we're up and running. Let me remind you that the Obamacare website - a prime example of the US attempting to fill in infrastructure for a social state - cost $2.1 Billion. And that was just a !@#$ing WEBSITEObamacare is basically irrelevant since it's not single-payer and was sabotaged as it started by the GOP shortly after they'd been "working together" with Obama. The private insurance companies filled their risk pools to numbers they hadn't even imagined and then had the fun of increasing pricing while their risk level was decreased to convince the public that single-payer is terrible and look at all of the damage it's doing. I think none is the answer you're searching for. In fact, the limited socialism experienced during Obama's work to staunch the damage to the economy via government investment in endangered industries not only helped to keep several industries in business, but when it was over netted the United States a pretty nice profit, too. Then when that stopped they have yet to reduce their increased costs. Imagine the amount of money necessary to invest into creating a single-payer system run by the government, and then having subsidies ready for the high costs of healthcare for the elderly. I am. The answer is essentially none. If we fold it into Social Security we copy and paste the risk pool of the private insurers into the risk pool of the entire US population, Social Security would require a bit more management size, but that's hardly difficult since they already outperform the private sector there. With the ability to negotiate with medical providers regarding cost, a massive risk pool and basically no significant effort needed on our part it's actually a lot easier than other places have had it when they changed over.  Top that off with the fact that we have practically no price gouging regulations over big pharma, and you have a 40 year nightmare of shitty healthcare and a bankrupt economy. France and the other European countries have had DECADES (and the subsequent billions of dollars associated with the passage of such a long !@#$ing time) to create, fine-tune, and perfect their healthcare social state. A US single-payer system at this point in time is as unrealistic as a McDonald's worker wanting to purchase a rocket to the moon with their next paycheck. No, it's not. We have two versions of health socialism going for decades too. We just don't let them compete with the gougers in the private sector. The area they are allowed to alter reduces administrative costs by 50% of the private sector. Social Security is a conceivably already created either a prelude to socialism, or socialism that's just being prevented from adaptation into single-payer due to people waving their hands in a panic over a term. France had to change at some point to do what they're doing. Everyone has a time when thy don't have something that works as well as it should and find a need to change it. France's single-payer is excellent care and far cheaper than that of the United States. We also pay for the most expensive possible medical care in most cases by having to cover the full cost, without negotiation, from emergency room visits where preventative treatment could reduce ER visits just as much as negotiation of acceptable pricing can be.

Important Question: are the incoming elderly going to cost money somewhere to pay for medical care? If we avoid single-payer does that make that incoming cost less likely to happen or need to be addressed? Since the answer is no, we should probably be adjusting now to compensate for it since it's inevitable and we can begin earlier to ensure it's ready to begin absorbing the elderly and poor, especially, into a single-payer system. Or we can do Social Security (with its benefits like being unable to pay a fair, negotiated rate for medical treatment that prevents them from looking like a good way to go) OR go worse by using the emergency room treatments the US government gets to pay for on behalf of those who are unable to do so. Two socialist, or limited socialist, things we are currently doing. Perhaps we should adjust to make it less costly in advance of the inevitable influx of a larger number of elderly people requiring medical treatment in a way that makes it cost less to us before we just have it happen and have done nothing to prepare.

Debt stifles the economy. Anyone who says "oh, we have $20T in debt now, what does another couple of Ts mean anyway?" doesn't understand how having more and more of your nation's GDP devoted to paying off debt slows economic growth and production. Just look at Greece. Greece is a tax problem, not one of debt aside from Germany  The only reason why the US is staying afloat now despite having more debt than the next three major countries combined is because we are !@#$ing geniuses and everyone has confidence in American production and consumerism. Contrary to what Fox and Friends says, the American economy is doing well DESPITE Trump, not because of him, and its because everyone still has massive confidence in the American economy. We should be using this period of time to pay back the debt, not accumulate more. 

Actually the debt really isn't as bad as you're suggesting. It picks up a little bit of profit while it's here. Many countries have had large debts and have paid them off over a period of 175 years or more. Our debt isn't a danger because if the major holders decided to try to cash it in and failed all of their assets of American debt would be rendered neutral and collapse the world economy. So people aren't going to do that. We're going to end up paying for stuff over a long period of time (shorter if we could do increased taxation and reduced government spending by pulling virtually everyone extra remaining in our two vanity wars Bush ran and knocking the bloat off of the DoD budget allocations.)

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Caecus said:

Pedophilia is "Just stupid stuff," huh? For someone who thought Clinton's sexual harassment was so morally disgusting, you really lose all morality when your beloved pro-wrestling demi-god wants people to vote for Moore. 

Oh, and yes. Trump endorsed Strange in the beginning. But unlike every republican on the hill, he decided to throw his weight behind Moore despite having the option to say "just let Alabama decide." I'll give him credit though, McConnel and Ryan didn't have any !@#$ing backbone to jump on either side, but Trump did the brave thing by admitting he was a giant piece of shit who sees pedophiles as good senators. Trump told people to vote for Moore. In fact, here it is: 

Your lies are so easily proven, it's sad. When you have to blatantly lie in order to try and prove that your man isn't a loser, you've lost. 

 

 

This may come as a shock to you, but...

Have you ever considered that Trump is just a !@#$ing moron? I know this is hard to believe, considering that everyone in the world has said that he's a !@#$ing idiot, but maybe Trump isn't the genius you think he is. Maybe he is dumb as shit and doesn't think that far ahead. Otherwise, he wouldn't be losing all the time. Even when he wins, it's when he doesn't want to win, so he loses. Trump is just a loser. And stupid as shit. 

 

Again, I'm not sure what that says about you if you think he's a winning genius. 

Misrepresenting what I said as you have nothing as always. I said Moore's defenses were stupid stuff, not that paedophilia is. Try harder please.

Those guys love to play morality police when you know, they're extremely corrupt and hypocritical... even more reason for Trump not to flake I'd say.  

Lies? Where did I say Trump didn't back Moore after Strange fell? Nowhere. You're just making stuff up. Sad!

Again. If he didn't want to win as they say, why would he create some huge conspiracy with Russia? You can't have both narratives. Pick 1... or if you're smarter you'll see that both are bloody stupid. Do you not stop and think how often your sort contraindicates themselves? Lets back up a little and go through another narrative. Trump is arrogant and prideful, he wanted to become President simply to be President. Trump resented and despised Obama so much that he decided after backing two Republicans who couldn't get the job done, to do it himself, that being to piss over Obama's entire precious "legacy". Those are two things put out heavily. At the same time however... Trump apparently is not arrogant or prideful enough to want to be President, no, he is humble about himself and sees it as too much for him. He also doesn't care at all about getting anything done as it's all so irrelevant to him. He also cares so little that he got the Commies on side for a plot to take over America, a hassle that if found out and proven would land him in a big bother. Nothing you guys say is honest or makes any sense. You always want to have all your narratives all at once and as such there is a good reason so many people these days see through them so easy.

Your arrogance is quite something I must say. Like Rahl you seem to not realise that "conventional wisdom" as they call it only applies when things are... conventional, hehehe. Where you see stupidity as you view things in a normal and ignorant manner, I see brilliance. His twitter is an extremely powerful weapon that pulls you, the MSM, politicians, and such along like puppets. You all get so impotently mad and do exactly as he wants. Considering attention that has gone to the book, I'd certainly be worried if you are swallowing it down as it seems by the way you talk. The MSM is heavily distrusted and I recall a figure of something like over half of Americans believe that the media straight up makes up stuff about Trump. That book is nonsense, much of it even the printed MSM has been ripping apart instantly without much trouble. When that gets out there the distrust for the media (for pushing it) and the idea that things are simply made up about Trump only goes up. You are familiar with the boy that cried wolf yes? That is the danger of your Fake News. If you then have actual news... no one (that matters, so not you possessed guys) will believe you anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

 

God damn it Milton. 

It's really not particularly difficult. Nationalize the private insurers into Social Security, remove the restrictions that prevent Social Security from negotiating the rates they are willing to pay for various services rather than just going with whatever the biller says because there's no way to challenge it. So, everyone already now has insurance coverage since we all have Social Security cards and numbers, so we don't really have to even reprint things. A single-payer system funded by reduced taxation, avoidance of emergency treatment as much as possible and putting more of an emphasis on preventative care, which is far cheaper.  No changes are necessary for the medical industry and there's no reason the transition would be terribly difficult in anyway. The infrastructure is basically already there and just requires a little nationalization and we're up and running. 

Besides the fact that there is no legal basis for nationalizing an entire private sector without declaring war or a national emergency (and we haven't done so since fighting the Nazis in the 1940's), such a move would cause chaos, and ironically more people would be without affordable healthcare than to begin with. You make restructuring a fifth of our entire economy sound so easy. Also, your claim for the "infrastructure already being there" is false. I'm not sure if you know, but for people to get Social Security benefits, they have to apply directly through the SSA. Besides the fact that the SSA is ridiculously understaffed and that taking on the rest of the 270 million people in the US would be an impossible task for that size of an administration, you're also missing out on the fact that there is no mechanism for enforcement to have people sign up. People would be confused at the onset, suddenly uninsured because now the government wants you to jump through bureaucratic hoops for health insurance. 

Obamacare is basically irrelevant since it's not single-payer and was sabotaged as it started by the GOP shortly after they'd been "working together" with Obama. The private insurance companies filled their risk pools to numbers they hadn't even imagined and then had the fun of increasing pricing while their risk level was decreased to convince the public that single-payer is terrible and look at all of the damage it's doing. I think none is the answer you're searching for. In fact, the limited socialism experienced during Obama's work to staunch the damage to the economy via government investment in endangered industries not only helped to keep several industries in business, but when it was over netted the United States a pretty nice profit, too. Then when that stopped they have yet to reduce their increased costs. 

But it is relevant. Obamacare is the closest thing we have to any healthcare reform since the 1960s. Obamacare came at a time when the Republicans were thoroughly hated by the public and the democrats controlled Congress. And yes, Obamacare is not a single-payer, but that's the point. There is so much political opposition to single-payer and "sabotage" that you should take it as a lesson from history. You should expect that implementing a single-payer now would have the same (if not more) political opposition and sabotage. Besides, I was talking about how complicated it was to get a website going, not the actual system. We don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the experience.  

I am. The answer is essentially none. If we fold it into Social Security we copy and paste the risk pool of the private insurers into the risk pool of the entire US population, Social Security would require a bit more management size, but that's hardly difficult since they already outperform the private sector there. With the ability to negotiate with medical providers regarding cost, a massive risk pool and basically no significant effort needed on our part it's actually a lot easier than other places have had it when they changed over. 

Where in god's name has the SSA outperformed the private sector? You can't just "fold" shit into another agency and expect things to basically happen. Let me give you an example: The VA had a crisis back in 2010 where vets couldn't get the healthcare they needed within 6 weeks. Like, people who needed liver transplants were on wait lists. It's obvious that the VA needs more funding to expand their facilities and staff to accommodate a larger flow of individuals. Since 2010, we've dumped almost $1 Trillion (with an annual increase of about $20 Billion each year) into improving the VA. That's excluding the money dropped on the bandaid "Veteran's Choice Program," which still struggles to deal with the crisis. How many years do you plan on implementing single-payer, even if it was politically feasible? Overnight? 

No, it's not. We have two versions of health socialism going for decades too. We just don't let them compete with the gougers in the private sector. The area they are allowed to alter reduces administrative costs by 50% of the private sector. Social Security is a conceivably already created either a prelude to socialism, or socialism that's just being prevented from adaptation into single-payer due to people waving their hands in a panic over a term. France had to change at some point to do what they're doing. Everyone has a time when thy don't have something that works as well as it should and find a need to change it. France's single-payer is excellent care and far cheaper than that of the United States. We also pay for the most expensive possible medical care in most cases by having to cover the full cost, without negotiation, from emergency room visits where preventative treatment could reduce ER visits just as much as negotiation of acceptable pricing can be.

Yeah, and I'm telling you that France had decades to do it. It wasn't easy for them either, they spent a lot of time and money in a political environment that was conducive for it to happen. Even then, they still !@#$ed up time to time. For example, they still have to deal with supplementary health insurance similar to medicare. France had to slowly add people into the system over 3 decades, each time accumulating more debt between 1945 and 1973. In the late 1970s, France had to scale back its universal coverages because it was running up the deficit. All the while increasing taxes and reducing coverages. Right now, it's a decent system, but France had to play with it (and have the political motivation to do so) for decades during a time when the population demographic hadn't skewed towards a growing elderly population and France wasn't $20 Trillion in debt. 

Important Question: are the incoming elderly going to cost money somewhere to pay for medical care? If we avoid single-payer does that make that incoming cost less likely to happen or need to be addressed? Since the answer is no, we should probably be adjusting now to compensate for it since it's inevitable and we can begin earlier to ensure it's ready to begin absorbing the elderly and poor, especially, into a single-payer system. Or we can do Social Security (with its benefits like being unable to pay a fair, negotiated rate for medical treatment that prevents them from looking like a good way to go) OR go worse by using the emergency room treatments the US government gets to pay for on behalf of those who are unable to do so. Two socialist, or limited socialist, things we are currently doing. Perhaps we should adjust to make it less costly in advance of the inevitable influx of a larger number of elderly people requiring medical treatment in a way that makes it cost less to us before we just have it happen and have done nothing to prepare.

That's the !@#$ing point about all this! Almost two decades of war, gross mismanagement of the government budget, and a massive economic crisis has put America on a rocky fiscal foundation. You do realize that the pool of money in Medicare is borrowed money from China, right? You do realize that as we pay into the entitlements via deductions from our income, it's going into a pool that is being drained faster than it fills, right? It's a giant !@#$ing ponzi scheme, where Chinese money is now paying for 65-year-olds going to the doctor. 

We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to the corporate wealthy. We shouldn't be trying to implement a system that we don't know works, and would take decades and a shit ton of money to invest in. We should be raising taxes, reducing coverages on medicare, relook at entitlements, and come up with a sound fiscal policy that will get us out of this deficit death spiral within the next 30 years. Anything other than that is going to bankrupt our country within the next half-century. 

Actually the debt really isn't as bad as you're suggesting. It picks up a little bit of profit while it's here. Many countries have had large debts and have paid them off over a period of 175 years or more. Our debt isn't a danger because if the major holders decided to try to cash it in and failed all of their assets of American debt would be rendered neutral and collapse the world economy. So people aren't going to do that. We're going to end up paying for stuff over a long period of time (shorter if we could do increased taxation and reduced government spending by pulling virtually everyone extra remaining in our two vanity wars Bush ran and knocking the bloat off of the DoD budget allocations.)

Actually, yeah it is. The debt is currently 106% of our gross national GDP for 2016. That's not particularly interesting, but this is: the interest payments on the debt is 6.5% of the budget in 2016. It is the fourth largest budget item, barely under Medicaid spending. That doesn't sound high, but that's because interests rates are incredibly low right now. The thing is, interest rates are expected to rise because of the booming economy. Right now, they sit at a nice and easy 2.8%. They are expected to hit 3% this year. By 2020, that figure will rise to 4%. An incremental 1.2% increase in the interest rates would cause interest payments on the debt to surpass national defense spending. By 2021, interest payments will surpass all other discretionary spending combined. 

Anyone who tells you our debt isn't going to be a problem is a short-sighted dumb !@#$ who can't even see 4 years into the future. Contrary to popular belief, right now, entitlement spending costs almost twice the military spending we have now. DoD budget allocations are pathetic in comparison to what the debt rate will be when Trump leaves office. 

Also, I swear to god, Milton, if you pull this colored shit again, I'm going to kill someone. 

Edited by Caecus
  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Lies? Where did I say Trump didn't back Moore after Strange fell? Nowhere. You're just making stuff up. Sad!

You said Trump backed Strange every single time I confronted you about Trump supporting Moore. You are implying that Trump didn't back Moore and are trying to diminish the fact that Trump openly supported an accused pedophile for senate. The next thing you are going to say is "don't assume anything," and it was so obvious too, setting up for this line. I love how you try so hard not to sound like an amoral sociopath who supports pedophiles and molesters because said pedophiles and molesters like wrestling. It's so disgusting how simple-minded your morals are. You are the one being hypocritical. For someone who hates the Clinton dynasty for all the vile things Bill Clinton allegedly done, you seem to accept it so long as they are "anti-globalist."  

Sad!

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2018 at 0:46 AM, Caecus said:

Yeah, but the French aren't $20 Trillion in debt. Maybe single-payer does save money in the long term. Maybe it does provide better quality of care. But until we as a country figure out how we are going to deal with an entire generation of short-sighted old !@#$ who want to live life large at the expense of its posterity, single-payer is a !@#$ing pipe dream. Anyone who says single-payer would somehow reduce that debt now is discounting basic facts of reality.

 

If anyone is even remotely worried about where our country is headed, perhaps we should be raising taxes and reducing entitlements, not lowering taxes and ignoring the massive hole in the budget that is (mostly) caused by entitlement spending policy. In the words of Libertarians, "IT'S A !@#$ing PONZI SCHEME!"

Reducing the cooperation tax was good for big businesses wanting to come over to the USA. I dont think that Trump will ever give America a decent healthcare system because he cares more about other things.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Haris said:

Reducing the cooperation tax was good for big businesses wanting to come over to the USA. I dont think that Trump will ever give America a decent healthcare system because he cares more about other things.

Yeah, but why? Reducing the corporation tax when the economy is booming is counterproductive. The idea behind reducing taxes for large corporations is the supply-side economics version of a stimulus package. Why would the US economy, which is sitting at 3.2% GDP growth and 4.1% unemployment, need a stimulus package now? Sure, you could potentially grow the economy even more, and that is sound reasoning there, except for the fact that AMERICA IS 20 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT AND THE NEW DUMBASS TAX PLAN IS GOING TO ADD 1.5 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2018 at 0:40 PM, Caecus said:

God damn it Milton. 

Besides the fact that there is no legal basis for nationalizing an entire private sector without declaring war or a national emergency (and we haven't done so since fighting the Nazis in the 1940's), such a move would cause chaos, Congress can handle that. and ironically more people would be without affordable healthcare than to begin with.  More people would not receive medical care if it were single-payer? You make restructuring a fifth of our entire economy sound so easy. Also, your claim for the "infrastructure already being there" is false. What was a big problem with Obamacare? Sign-ups and claims ta an increase in the risk pool necessitated growing premiums. People already have Social Security cards and are de facto already signed up. Get I'm not sure if you know, but for people to get Social Security benefits, they have to apply directly through the SSA. Yes, they do, sort of. Another thing that can be pretty easily changed. Besides the fact that the SSA is ridiculously understaffed (and still outperforming the private sector by 50% in administrative costs already.) and that taking on the rest of the 270 million people in the US would be an impossible task Not at all. We're really the only place that does healthcare this way, currently. Every nation both larger and smaller than us have had no issues, but good ones. for that size of an administration, you're also missing out on the fact that there is no mechanism for enforcement to have people sign up. People would be confused at the onset, suddenly uninsured because now the government wants you to jump through bureaucratic hoops for health insurance.  "Have your Social Security card? Cool, now let's get you treated."

You should expect that implementing a single-payer now would have the same (if not more) political opposition and sabotage. Besides, I was talking about how complicated it was to get a website going, not the actual system. Who needs a website? This isn't something people would need to sign-up for, it's already in place, just needs a few more laws to alter it a tad to cover everyone. We don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the experience.  Is this looming cost no longer going to happen with the elderly if we don't reduce rates? I'm pretty sure people are still going to become elderly whether or not we take the intelligent approach and make the costs reduce significantly.

Where in god's name has the SSA outperformed the private sector? Administrative costs. You can't just "fold" shit into another agency and expect things to basically happen. Let me give you an example: The VA had a crisis back in 2010 where vets couldn't get the healthcare they needed within 6 weeks. Like, people who needed liver transplants were on wait lists. It's obvious that the VA needs more funding to expand their facilities and staff to accommodate a larger flow of individuals. Since 2010, we've dumped almost $1 Trillion (with an annual increase of about $20 Billion each year) into improving the VA. That's excluding the money dropped on the bandaid "Veteran's Choic Program," which still struggles to deal with the crisis. How many years do you plan on implementing single-payer, even if it was politically feasible? Overnight? Probably more like a four or five year program adoption to avoid shocking the economy quite as much. Another simplification, SSA health-care can be established by importing the customer base and costs from the dissolution of the VA.

Yeah, and I'm telling you that France had decades to do it. We could do it over a decade if you like. It wasn't easy for them either, they spent a lot of time and money in a political environment that was conducive for it to happen. Even then, they still !@#$ed up time to time. For example, they still have to deal with supplementary health insurance similar to medicare. France had to slowly add people into the system over 3 decades, each time accumulating more debt between 1945 and 1973. In the late 1970s, France had to scale back its universal coverages because it was running up the deficit. All the while increasing taxes and reducing coverages. Right now, it's a decent system, but France had to play with it (and have the political motivation to do so) for decades during a time when the population demographic hadn't skewed towards a growing elderly population and France wasn't $20 Trillion in debt.  It's happened to every country except ours. It will work for ours. They pay a lower rate of tax with their current single-payer system than we do for the hyper expensive ER costs the poor can't pay that we then pay for them. ER is the most expensive part of medical care. I'm not sure why you're so concerned with debt. Absorption of the VA would already reduce funding, skimming a bit off of the DoD would help, and no longer needing a trillion per year on Bush's wars is going to stop soon. Right now debt is useful and it's never going to be called in for the reasons I already explained. It's a non-issue.

That's the !@#$ing point about all this! Almost two decades of war, gross mismanagement of the government budget, and a massive economic crisis has put America on a rocky fiscal foundation. Risky how? Clinton left a balanced budget for W when he left office. You do realize that the pool of money in Medicare is borrowed money from China, right? You do realize that as we pay into the entitlements via deductions from our income, it's going into a pool that is being drained faster than it fills, right? It's a giant !@#$ing ponzi scheme, where Chinese money is now paying for 65-year-olds going to the doctor.  China, in reality, doesn't actually own that much American debt. A lot of it's held domestically. It's not an issue because if anyone did anything more than trading it like a commodity they'd lose all of that which they use as an asset and completely wreck the economy into a hard-care worldwide economic Depression.

We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to the corporate wealthy. We shouldn't be trying to implement a system that we don't know works, and would take decades and a shit ton of money to invest in. We should be raising taxes, reducing coverages on medicare, relook at entitlements, and come up with a sound fiscal policy that will get us out of this deficit death spiral within the next 30 years. Anything other than that is going to bankrupt our country within the next half-century. We do know it works. It wouldn't take decades. We should absolutely not be reducing coverage or other entitlements unless you'd like to see what the US turning into the wonder of Victorian England.

 By 2021, interest payments will surpass all other discretionary spending combined. I'm not really sure why you're concerned about this. It's not something that's going to happen unless one of the major countries would like to lose the value of all the US debt they hold overnight or to have to deal with a massive economic depression.

Anyone who tells you our debt isn't going to be a problem is a short-sighted dumb !@#$ who can't even see 4 years into the future. Contrary to popular belief, right now, entitlement spending costs almost twice the military spending we have now. DoD budget allocations are pathetic in comparison to what the debt rate will be when Trump leaves office.  If we can afford the DoD, we can definitely fund SSA as a manager of single-payer healthcare. Remember we already have some degree of socialism involved in our healthcare system and the reasons it is so high is a lot of people can't afford healthcare and have to the ER for treatments on an emergency basis, using the most expensive healthcare option that we have available and when they can't pay the hospital, we do it for them. With a single-payer system that's finally permitted to negotiate how much various things are going to cost as private insurance agencies may do costs should be going down slightly. No more people too poor to try for preventative care, fewer people utilizing the ER as their doctor's office and the ability to negotiate rates for various things like any other healthcare body it reduces how much we have to spend to cover the uninsured within the ER, at better prices, and reduced usage with preventative taking a lot of the burden we currently experience costs in that area are going to be reduced, which is a good idea. Absorbing the VA healthcare and automatically instituting single-payer the risk pool is absolutely enormous and the costs should be reduced even more with that.

Also, I swear to god, Milton, if you pull this colored shit again, I'm going to kill someone.  Now you're thinking about how to reduce single-payer costs. Probably, for the record, don't kill people.

 

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Yeah, but why? Reducing the corporation tax when the economy is booming is counterproductive. The idea behind reducing taxes for large corporations is the supply-side economics version of a stimulus package. Why would the US economy, which is sitting at 3.2% GDP growth and 4.1% unemployment, need a stimulus package now? 

Correct. We should return to a 1950s tax system where the top bracket is 90%, corporate taxes should increase, elimination of subsidies to a number of farmers to artificially manage the economy and prevent reductions in costs for the various farming produce we pay to not produce things.  Subsidizing Wal*Mart, for example, in allowing them to pay such a low rate that they seem to consider the welfare system a part of their total compensation package could stop; reduction in permitted ratios of executives to workers to their previous rate would be very helpful, as would preventing the obscene bonuses granted to executives currently. Eisenhower knew his stuff. I've often felt he and FDR would've made a really impressive team.

 

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.