2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[free2131]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

Giving money to charity is what empathetic people do. The Government demanding I give tons of money to them so they can give money to people is not empathy; it's socialism bordering on communism.

If you want to give a scholarship to allow your neighbor to go to college for free, go ahead and do it. Nothing is stopping form you. If you want to pay your neighbor's medical bills, go ahead. Again nothing stopping you.

But until you are doing this on a regular basis and proving it to all of us here on BO, you should get off your high horse and stop demanding the rest of us give up our hard earned money so everyone else is taken care of.

I don't view providing healthcare for all citizens as charity, I view it as the responsibility of an enlightened and prosperous country.

You act as if tens of thousand are going to be taken from you, when in fact under the 4% payroll tax proposal, the average America would pay $2500 on the US median of $63K. Guess how much we pay for heathcare on average:

U.S. health care spending grew 4.6 percent in 2018, reaching $3.6 trillion or $11,172 per person.

So, you could, in fact, end up pay LESS for healthcare through a single payer system than you currently do (which would be the case for the majority of Americans).

"But I like my insurance and it works for me."

Great, but the systems is failing the majority of people in America. Healthcare shouldn't be a benefit, it should be a right. Yeah, some people will end up paying more for healthcare (I'd argue those are the people who are in the best position to be able to pay more), but the majority would not.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by free2131

I was talking in generalities based on the assumption that someone who's house gets foreclosed on must be a loser or a bum. Trump can run away from debt he owes and he's a "smart businessman" but Joe Average gets in trouble and can't pay his mortgage and he's a loser.

As to the quoted, it is incredible generous for those of us who volunteer our time, money, and service to those less fortunate. However, it isn't enough to curb the need we have in this country. I truly believe as a civilized people we have a responsible to make sure people can get healthcare and basic necessities, and we are failing to deliver on that. Take a look at this:



No one should have to chose between feeding their children or getting the medicine they need.

What you believe and what is outlined in the Constitution are two different things, so while what you believe sounds great. The Constitution in no way supports the governments right to enforce social change on the United States.

It is not the job of the government to decide those things. Never was, never should be.
Once the government begins to decide what is best for the people, especially in the social realm - it is no longer being constrained by the Constitution in the way that was intended.

[RedSoxFan28]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

Giving money to charity is what empathetic people do. The Government demanding I give tons of money to them so they can give money to people is not empathy; it's socialism bordering on communism.

If you want to give a scholarship to allow your neighbor to go to college for free, go ahead and do it. Nothing is stopping form you. If you want to pay your neighbor's medical bills, go ahead. Again nothing stopping you.

But until you are doing this on a regular basis and proving it to all of us here on BO, you should get off your high horse and stop demanding the rest of us give up our hard earned money so everyone else is taken care of.

Unless you're part of the 1% don't think you have too much to worry about.

[RedSoxFan28]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

What you believe and what is outlined in the Constitution are two different things, so while what you believe sounds great. The Constitution in no way supports the governments right to enforce social change on the United States.

It is not the job of the government to decide those things. Never was, never should be.
Once the government begins to decide what is best for the people, especially in the social realm - it is no longer being constrained by the Constitution in the way that was intended.

If the majority of people want it, the government can't do it?

[free2131]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

You can blame another one of Bush's crappy policies for this. It was during his administration when they got rid of the average joe from being able to declare bankruptcy easier and not having to pay it back.

I wonder why they didn't make that new policy applicable to businesses too. Weird, huh?

I have never seen a doctor's office yet not take even as low as $50 a month to pay towards bills even some of the larger ones like knee surgeries they have had.

You don't think you subsidize those situations by paying higher premiums and/or getting charged $20 a piece for Tylenol? Besides, there are several places I know that won't do any type of non-emergency care without payment up front, especially without insurance. I think that is more the norm, but I can't speak to that fact.

[free2131]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

What you believe and what is outlined in the Constitution are two different things, so while what you believe sounds great. The Constitution in no way supports the governments right to enforce social change on the United States.

It is not the job of the government to decide those things. Never was, never should be.
Once the government begins to decide what is best for the people, especially in the social realm - it is no longer being constrained by the Constitution in the way that was intended.

I'm not a constitutionalist, so I don't really care if the Constitution says we CAN do something, only if we CAN'T do something. Anything that isn't expressly forbidden should be fair game, especially considering how times and technologies change.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

If the majority of people want it, the government can't do it?

No.
Laws get passed all the time that end up being overturned due to being unconstitutional. And there are people that want those laws.

Your question is terribly concerning.

[NeedChapmans]

This guy was thousands of votes from being governor of Florida. Wow.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/a...e-say-11594094

Thankfully, DeSantis won and based on his approval rating, he's going to be governor for a long, long time.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

This guy was thousands of votes from being governor of Florida. Wow.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/a...e-say-11594094

Thankfully, DeSantis won and based on his approval rating, he's going to be governor for a long, long time.

Meth protects the blood from the coronavirus..

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by free2131

I'm not a constitutionalist, so I don't really care if the Constitution says we CAN do something, only if we CAN'T do something. Anything that isn't expressly forbidden should be fair game, especially considering how times and technologies change.

Which is why we are in the situation we are now. With a bloated government that does everything it can to wrestle free from the constraints the Constitution places on it.

The Constitution has been losing that battle for 50+ years. We now rely on layers of SC interpretation of the Constitution, instead of the actual text. An opinion on what the Constitution say should have less weight than the Constitution itself. The US government has done a great job of slowly chipping away at that.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

Which is why we are in the situation we are now. With a bloated government that does everything it can to wrestle free from the constraints the Constitution places on it.

The Constitution has been losing that battle for 50+ years. We now rely on layers of SC interpretation of the Constitution, instead of the actual text. An opinion on what the Constitution say should have less weight than the Constitution itself. The US government has done a great job of slowly chipping away at that.

How else do you want to interpret the constitution? Please define what a natural born citizen is because it’s not defined in the text.

[Astros19]

Well our government has been doing such a fine job on that war on poverty maybe we should throw a few more trillion dollars at it for the next few decades.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

How else do you want to interpret the constitution? Please define what a natural born citizen is because it’s not defined in the text.

There are outliers to defining the text and accepting the definition.
Then they are opinions on opinions of the text.

Apparently you need clarification to which one I was referring to.

[rman112]

I typed 'overreacting' into the Twitter search, to get some other people's thoughts on the virus. This was the second result:

https://twitter.com/DrJai32/status/1238231001815486465

If you can ignore the music, can someone who supports him please tell me WTF he's doing?

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by rman112

I typed 'overreacting' into the Twitter search, to get some other people's thoughts on the virus. This was the second result:

https://twitter.com/DrJai32/status/1238231001815486465

If you can ignore the music, can someone who supports him please tell me WTF he's doing?

Queue the "...but look at Trump" responses.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

There are outliers to defining the text and accepting the definition.
Then they are opinions on opinions of the text.

Apparently you need clarification to which one I was referring to.

Yes, can I get examples of both? Not sure what you mean.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Yes, can I get examples of both? Not sure what you mean.

The Heller decision is now considered a stepping point for new 2A case determination, even though it is highly flawed. SC opinion isn’t law. People think it is. Any constitutional case should be judged against the constitution, but once precedent has been set, SC opinion has an undue influence.

Defining natural born citizen is an intrinsic necessity. In cases like that a definition can be determined and used.

[ntgm37]

For those who aren't familiar with Atlas MD, check it out. That's an awesome idea for free market healthcare. Dirt cheap. For all the rest who think we need to pay for everyone else, I assume your already donating to the government right now, right? I for one wish Bernie would get elected and have all of his insanity pass so I can quit my job, work as a Walmart greeter for $15, snag a free new degree and just leach of the system for a few years before it completely breaks down, then we can blow the constitution up, and Wyoming can become its it's own country. I'm sure most midwest states will follow suit and maybe form a new country where people are free, and we can ignore the insanity of socialists and libs. This is my dream.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by ntgm37

For those who aren't familiar with Atlas MD, check it out. That's an awesome idea for free market healthcare. Dirt cheap. For all the rest who think we need to pay for everyone else, I assume your already donating to the government right now, right? I for one wish Bernie would get elected and have all of his insanity pass so I can quit my job, work as a Walmart greeter for $15, snag a free new degree and just leach of the system for a few years before it completely breaks down, then we can blow the constitution up, and Wyoming can become its it's own country. I'm sure most midwest states will follow suit and maybe form a new country where people are free, and we can ignore the insanity of socialists and libs. This is my dream.

You would be able to get all Prizm and Optic too.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by ntgm37

work as a Walmart greeter for $15.

I assumed this was already the job market in Wyoming today.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by arek

Perhaps banging someone who’s not your wife, shortly after your son is born, could be interpreted as failure in fatherhood?

I would say that would be a tick against being a good spouse; which as you can see I did not argue against It certainly hasn't hurt any of Donald's children that he has been divorced.

And it certainly hasn't hurt anything he has done as the President. All of this was before he was in the White House.

I mean if you want to throw stones at him, I would say at least he wasn't a married man getting action from an intern who worked for him while serving as President.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by free2131

I don't view providing healthcare for all citizens as charity, I view it as the responsibility of an enlightened and prosperous country.

You act as if tens of thousand are going to be taken from you, when in fact under the 4% payroll tax proposal, the average America would pay $2500 on the US median of $63K. Guess how much we pay for heathcare on average:



So, you could, in fact, end up pay LESS for healthcare through a single payer system than you currently do (which would be the case for the majority of Americans).

"But I like my insurance and it works for me."

Great, but the systems is failing the majority of people in America. Healthcare shouldn't be a benefit, it should be a right. Yeah, some people will end up paying more for healthcare (I'd argue those are the people who are in the best position to be able to pay more), but the majority would not.

Well that is your opinion and there are certainly many who think it is wrong.

I'm still trying to find in the Constitution where healthcare is a right. Please point it out to me. Please tell me in what document written by a Founding Father on how the US Government should be setup or what rights and liberties should be granted does it may a case for healthcare? And please don't say people didn't care about about needing a doctor or getting over ailments in the 1780s.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

Unless you're part of the 1% don't think you have too much to worry about.

You must be really gullible if you believe only the 1% will be paying any of the Democratic Socialists tax proposals. Many of those proposals would be more than likely found to be unconstitutional anyway; like a wealth tax. Then there is the simple fact that even if my some miracle they did pass or were found constitutional, the wealthy would simply transfer their wealth overseas or hide assets and the middle class would be the ones paying all of the bills.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by free2131

I wonder why they didn't make that new policy applicable to businesses too. Weird, huh?



You don't think you subsidize those situations by paying higher premiums and/or getting charged $20 a piece for Tylenol? Besides, there are several places I know that won't do any type of non-emergency care without payment up front, especially without insurance. I think that is more the norm, but I can't speak to that fact.

Because Bush was a crappy establishment President who cared more for his business cronies than Americans. You know like a lot of long term people we have in Congress now.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

I would say that would be a tick against being a good spouse; which as you can see I did not argue against It certainly hasn't hurt any of Donald's children that he has been divorced.

And it certainly hasn't hurt anything he has done as the President. All of this was before he was in the White House.

I mean if you want to throw stones at him, I would say at least he wasn't a married man getting action from an intern who worked for him while serving as President.

Originally Posted by fulltritty

Well that is your opinion and there are certainly many who think it is wrong.

I'm still trying to find in the Constitution where healthcare is a right. Please point it out to me. Please tell me in what document written by a Founding Father on how the US Government should be setup or what rights and liberties should be granted does it may a case for healthcare? And please don't say people didn't care about about needing a doctor or getting over ailments in the 1780s.

Originally Posted by fulltritty

You must be really gullible if you believe only the 1% will be paying any of the Democratic Socialists tax proposals. Many of those proposals would be more than likely found to be unconstitutional anyway; like a wealth tax. Then there is the simple fact that even if my some miracle they did pass or were found constitutional, the wealthy would simply transfer their wealth overseas or hide assets and the middle class would be the ones paying all of the bills.

Originally Posted by fulltritty

Because Bush was a crappy establishment President who cared more for his business cronies than Americans. You know like a lot of long term people we have in Congress now.

Multi quote man. Stop stat padding!