New Hampshire Primary

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dierking, Feb 5, 2020.

  1. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    3,985
    I’m going to play victim here and argue that if the reasonable candidates are drowned out by the lunatic candidates, it’s not my fault for not paying close enough attention. I have no control over my actions and decisions; I’m a garbage bag being blown about in the wind so we need to regulate the wind.
     
  2. HomeoftheJets

    HomeoftheJets Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Messages:
    7,718
    Likes Received:
    10,926
    Yes, there were factors other than trickle down economics that caused the 2008 recession. I'm aware of that, which is why I wouldn't make the claim that the 2000s prove trickle down economics don't work. But at the same time, you shouldn't be making the claim that the 1980s prove trickle down economics do work. Because in the 1980s, there were also factors other than trickle down economics that turned the economy around. Like cheap oil and the Fed reducing interest rates. Whether supply side economics works is a really complicated question that nobody knows the answer to.

    Anyway, supply-side economics focuses on boosting the economy through the supply side (tax cuts and deregulation) while cutting back on the demand side (spending cuts). Trump isn't doing that; he's just taking every method known to stimulate the economy and pushing for it (including ultra-low interest rates). So he certainly isn't going to cause a recession, but when a recession comes (which eventually it will no matter who's president, though predictions from politically-motivated pundits are useless), he's taking a gamble his policies aren't going to make it worse. Because once the recession comes, there won't be any more low-hanging fruit to implement on the supply or demand side.
     
  3. Ralebird

    Ralebird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,879
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    Absolutely batting practice here. Trying to get you to perfect your argument beyond simple buzzwords when everything done in government always has the devil in the details. I'll note first that the hyperbole of any of this scaring the hell out of you has disappeared; that's a good first step. Bronco's list, already being revealed as rhetorical BS is exactly what people need to get beyond. It may work for the politicians but I believe we're better than that.

    With any of the topics you've chosen to address there are a myriad of definitions and a broad scope of ideas of how they should be addressed so without knowing exactly what is problematic for you it's impossible to suggest what you might be missing or where you may be a hundred percent correct.

    Having said that, the first thing you mention is universal healthcare which we have had in this country for decades in Medicare. Contrary to your generalizations that government does nothing well, Medicare is a very successful program which can be tailored to the needs of its beneficiaries through the addition of commercial products such as those labeled "Advantage plans." To bring food and shelter into the mix is another topic or two which do nothing to alter the fact that we are virtually alone in the civilized world in not having a health care program for all residents regardless of age.

    Your "Free College" complaint, without citing any details of any particular candidate's proposal for such, is also indefensible, especially as I have never seen any specifics of any plan calling for totally free college for anyone who wants it. I do not believe that such a thing would ever be taken seriously by anyone. Once again, bringing housing and car loans into such a discussion only serves to muddy the waters.

    "Victimizing Criminals." I don't see anything in those two words that resemble anything claimed by any candidate from any party, as if that should matter.

    In your closing paragraph I note you've employed a partial quote of what most of us know as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These are not things for which we should be offered an opportunity but are called "unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence. In order to have life an argument can be made that health care is imperative. While not completely satisfied with our current state of liberties, I am nonetheless relatively content. You'll note that the last part of that phrase does not call happiness one of those unalienable right but the pursuit thereof. That's up to each one of us alone.
     
    westiedog1 likes this.
  4. red75bronco

    red75bronco Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    89
    Mayor Pete on the view. Says it woman’s choice and government should not draw a line.

    Bernie is good with abortion to “save the planet”
     
  5. Ralebird

    Ralebird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,879
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    You made that up.
     
  6. Dierking

    Dierking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,117
    Likes Received:
    7,908
    Yah, that’s pretty extreme, but politically, it’s gonna cost him about a half dozen votes or so. Pro lifers aren’t voting for a gay man. So the cold political calculus is that it may be a smart move. A Trump supporter should appreciate that.

    On its merits, if I had to defend that position, I guess I’d say I’d rather people who had no interest in raising kids and would likely do a terrible job at it not have them. Save the rest of us a lot of money and anguish. It’s actually a pretty conservative take considering how cold hearted republicans generally are about helping kids out after they’re actually breathing. But that’s really the best I can do.
     
    Donttasemebro likes this.
  7. red75bronco

    red75bronco Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    89
  8. red75bronco

    red75bronco Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    89
    You know there is a choice before a woman spreads her legs or a man sticks his thing everywhere. There are a bunch of choices virtually free to not to get a woman pregnant. Why not focus on those? Abortion should not be birth control. People act like one day a woman walks down the street and the next day, bam she is pregnant. Had no say in it and no way to prevent it. She is just a victim of the baby fairy. Then the next argument is she had no idea even after 3 or 4 month that she is pregnant so there has to be late term abortion.

    Society needs some personal accountability. Not sure what you are talking about on helping kids. Any actual things that you have in mind or just general statement? School choice is very pro kid, but anti indoctrination. Gotta get them young so you can control them.
     
  9. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    3,985
    Medicare is not universal healthcare in how the Democrats want it — the assumption of all medical for the entire population — full government healthcare. We are talking about their proposal. In contrast Medicare is limited healthcare — limited in scope of who is covered and what is covered. The fact that you don’t know the difference does not bode well for you with the rest of the argument. Stick to batting practice, the rest of us are in the game here.

    And to claim it is successful you are going to have to define what criteria you are evaluating its success on. Any argument based on any semblance of honesty would start with success require the ability to sustain itself. Medicare certainly does not do that. It is government heavy handedness, which you either agree or disagree with.

    That’s not to say I’m opposed to it. It’s valuable to ensure that the elderly and incapable aren’t left without any semblance of care. It only works because of that limited scope, hence why it isn’t an example of universal healthcare. Batting practice looks too difficult for you, back to tee ball.
    your ignorance of the highly publicized claims of free college would be a discussion about your ignorance. Both Warren and Sanders have pushed for such plans. If you choose to ignore my pointing you in the right direction, that’s your choice. But to claim it’s never been proposed is laughable.

    And no my other examples don’t muddy the water, they reveal hypocrisy. The argument of student debt is based solely on the size of the debt; well, the sizes of those other debts are just as large and larger. How can one be crippling but the others not without illogically narrowing your argument to simply conveniently suit your needs. You want to disregard that hypocrisy simply to avoid addressing it. Unfortunately logical reasoning does not allow for such.

    the very concept that the judicial system is racist is claiming the criminals are the victims of the judicial system, not perpetrators of crimes they were punished for. If you aren’t able to grasp the reasoning of that claim, which is a huge part of the Democrat message, again that is a result of your own shortcomings or you are being dishonest in any claim that argues that isn’t what they are saying.
    Life and liberty can be objectively defined, happiness is subjective and not worth discussing because it’s absence doesn’t change my arguments. Pointing its absence out is a red herring, serving to merely attempt to distract from the real argument.
     
    #149 JetBlue, Feb 15, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
    red75bronco likes this.
  10. Ralebird

    Ralebird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,879
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    Except Bernie Sanders never said that abortion should be used as a tool to control global population, he simply repeated his stance that women should have the choice to control their own bodies. He never said it should be used "to save the planet." You made that up. The questioner had an agenda; that does not indicate Sanders had the same.

    But thanks for the link to show how his words were misinterpreted, by yourself as well as others. Politics as usual.
     
  11. Ralebird

    Ralebird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,879
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    Do not suggest that I "don't know the difference" simply because you are unable or unwilling to follow the discussion. If you want to be "in the game" you need to show up at the right field.

    Perhaps before going any farther you should elaborate on what you refer to as "how the Democrats want ir." Feel free to link to any platform statement by any specific candidate or in general from the party. Until then you are simply creating strawmen; allow those you are attacking to define their own proposals.

    Medicare satisfaction by its users is consistently in the 80 - 90% range, higher than most private plans; I call that successful. If you're looking for sustainability you must understand that if such a program exists within government at any level it is extremely rare. If you're looking to find a source for affordable healthcare for large portions of the population, it is Medicare.

    Once again, if you aredetermined to fight a battle against characterizations of free college for all, do so with citations rather than echoing rhetoric and buzzwords. If you want to fight hypocrisy and get money back for your car loan as well, that's a topic I've seen no candidate make. It is not an argument in today's campaign.

    Your diatribe about the judicial system once again is irrelevant to the argument here without citing specifically what it is that the candidates themselves have proposed that is troublesome for you. Less empty prose, more facts. To be very clear - people who are found guilty of crimes need to be held accountable; that's my stand and the stand of any viable candidate in any election anywhere. It's what the people want.

    You may choose to ignore the fact that healthcare contributes to life; you may skip over the part in the Declaration citing Liberty as an unalienable right and you might not care about pursuing happiness, that makes none of them a "red herring" in this discussion, particularly after you introduced them to the conversation.
     
  12. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    3,985
    Healthcare is a completely a man made system — nothing in medicine is something that occurs in nature. To argue a man made medicine is a human right defies logic. The only healthcare that is a human right is caring for your health — exercise and eating correctly. And last I checked that doesn’t need to be provided by government.

    medicine is a product, man conceived and manufactured. You have no more intrinsic right to it than any other man made product.

    and, no, it doesn’t fall on me to cite something that has been so widely publicized and known that no rational person questions it’s existence. That’s simply you attempting to deflect because you can’t dispute the position. What you are doing is the equivalent of requiring proof that two hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecule creates water. Nope, it’s well known enough that only a person with dishonest motives would require such in a discussion about water.

    And I never argued that I wasn’t interested in happiness, that’s a strawman on your part, one if several in your post. I stated addressing happiness wasn’t necessary for my argument, and I stated so explicitly that your strawman isnt an honest mistake and can only be a reflection of dishonesty on your part or lack of ability to grasp simple statements.
     
    red75bronco likes this.
  13. CBG

    CBG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,736
    Likes Received:
    4,678
    “ Ok , this thread is ass “ :D
     
  14. Ralebird

    Ralebird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,879
    Likes Received:
    3,544
    This is getting a bit bizarre; of course healthcare is man made, as is the formation of nations. Healthcare need not be provided by the government but is successfully provided by government in almost all of the civilized world. I don't want people dying and suffering here because they cannot afford appropriate care, that hardly is civilized. I am of the opinion the USA should not be the exception to the rule and should support the unalienable right to life with healthcare. If you don't that is simply a difference of opinion and I find that opinion frightening.

    Again, when you make claims that something has been proposed by an entire party of candidates is "scary" you have an obligation to drill down to the facts involved rather than communicating in bumper sticker slogans to support your contentions. What does "Universal Healthcare" mean to you? Who is advocating it? How would they frame it? Does everyone you vaguely refer to share the exact same plan? What do you find scary or inappropriate within any program? Simply claiming it has been "widely publicized" explains nothing. There is nothing rational in the slightest in creating such a vague boogie man, even if you believe "everybody knows" it.

    We need not discuss the pursuit of happiness any further as I noted when I stated that it is "up to each one of us alone" if it is problematic to you or detracts from the other issues at hand, I just thought it odd that you omitted it when quoting the Declaration of Independence.
     
    westiedog1 likes this.

Share This Page