In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
The immigration issue has been a long standing one dating back to the 1980s and before. People don't like deportations of long standing immigrants that get screwed over by our flawed dated visa system. It is a crowd please right up until someone from your community gets deported. Reagan was the only one that was able to cut a deal on immigration because he allows for a path to citizenship and forgiveness for breaking immigration law. Since then the long standing GOP condition for immigration reform is "deport every illegal immigrant, then we will reform the visa program." Which might as well be code for "we will never do this because we love running on this issue." Democrats have their own stupid pet projects, like their obsession with assault rifles.
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
You display a startling amount of ignorance in every post you make. I suggest you google "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013," specifically Title I dealing with increased border security. This bill was killed by House conservatives.
Sorry for being a jerk but you should seriously read up on things before spouting off.
"I come here to seek your friendship, and to trade and establish a commerce with your country. ... I need to buy, if you can a grant me a soft loan, ... because the arms that we ordered from America were cancelled, and we're having a problem with ISIS, there's a rebellion going on."
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
To be fair, Canada doesn't have to spend nearly as much in terms of military, that bill is essentially being footed by the USA.
In order for US to adapt a Canadian style of medical care, the country needs to stop being the world police which Trump ran on. USA is tied to all sort of foreign commitments that drained the country's resources.
How many times to we need to post information showing that the US govt already pays more per person for healthcare than countries that have universal healthcare?
On May 25 2017 02:16 KwarK wrote: He literally doesn't get that you can't brag about how humble you are.
You can't, but he does it well. Really, really, really well. Honestly, I've never seen anybody do it better.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
To be fair, Canada doesn't have to spend nearly as much in terms of military, that bill is essentially being footed by the USA.
In order for US to adapt a Canadian style of medical care, the country needs to stop being the world police which Trump ran on. USA is tied to all sort of foreign commitments that drained the country's resources.
How many times to we need to post information showing that the US govt already pays more per person for healthcare than countries that have universal healthcare?
Until the heat death of the universe or the implosion of the US healthcare system.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
This is where I remind everyone that I'm in favor of baseline single payer healthcare. You're basically proving my larger point: so many of y'all on the left have worked yourselves up into such a frenzy that you can no longer see straight on these political issues.
You may say you support single payer, but you voting record shows you value other things far more. This is the problem conservatives like yourself have. You want to political results that will result in harsh negative effects on people's lives, but then expect this real rational debate it after wining. Which is in sharp contrast to the emotion based rhetoric that win Trump this election.
Unlike some of y'all on the left, I don't demand strict orthodoxy from politicians whom I support.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
To be fair, Canada doesn't have to spend nearly as much in terms of military, that bill is essentially being footed by the USA.
In order for US to adapt a Canadian style of medical care, the country needs to stop being the world police which Trump ran on. USA is tied to all sort of foreign commitments that drained the country's resources.
How many times to we need to post information showing that the US govt already pays more per person for healthcare than countries that have universal healthcare?
Until the heat death of the universe or the implosion of the US healthcare system.
Sadly the heat death of the universe is a pre-existing condition.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
This is where I remind everyone that I'm in favor of baseline single payer healthcare. You're basically proving my larger point: so many of y'all on the left have worked yourselves up into such a frenzy that you can no longer see straight on these political issues.
You may say you support single payer, but you voting record shows you value other things far more. This is the problem conservatives like yourself have. You want to political results that will result in harsh negative effects on people's lives, but then expect this real rational debate it after wining. Which is in sharp contrast to the emotion based rhetoric that win Trump this election.
Unlike some of y'all on the left, I don't demand strict orthodoxy from politicians whom I support.
We all know how little you demand out of the politicians you support. Trust me, nobody here thinks you're particularly demanding when it comes to politicians.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
This is where I remind everyone that I'm in favor of baseline single payer healthcare. You're basically proving my larger point: so many of y'all on the left have worked yourselves up into such a frenzy that you can no longer see straight on these political issues.
You may say you support single payer, but you voting record shows you value other things far more. This is the problem conservatives like yourself have. You want to political results that will result in harsh negative effects on people's lives, but then expect this real rational debate it after wining. Which is in sharp contrast to the emotion based rhetoric that win Trump this election.
Unlike some of y'all on the left, I don't demand strict orthodoxy from politicians whom I support.
So you support single payer, but don’t really care if it happens or not because you have healthcare and can afford it for your family before the ACA. As I said before, it is very easy to maintain emotional distance when the consequences will have minimal impact on you. And I have never demanded ideological purity, that much is evident in the thread. In recent years, I have been forced by life to become deeply invested in healthcare and veteran support.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
This is where I remind everyone that I'm in favor of baseline single payer healthcare. You're basically proving my larger point: so many of y'all on the left have worked yourselves up into such a frenzy that you can no longer see straight on these political issues.
You may say you support single payer, but you voting record shows you value other things far more. This is the problem conservatives like yourself have. You want to political results that will result in harsh negative effects on people's lives, but then expect this real rational debate it after wining. Which is in sharp contrast to the emotion based rhetoric that win Trump this election.
Unlike some of y'all on the left, I don't demand strict orthodoxy from politicians whom I support.
Do you mind me asking what that means? No specifics, general terms are sufficient.
On May 25 2017 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's such a douchy comment to make. The country is made of people, he is a citizen, so it's partly about him, and about the countless people who are in his situation.
Ever heard of empathy, or don't you give a fuck about anything that doesn't happen to you? I mean would it be just "personal" if you were in his situation?
Empathy has nothing to do with it. Proper governance isn't about righting individual wrongs and injustices. It's about creating a policy that applies to the whole. There will always be people at the margin who get the short end of the stick when a policy is implemented. Healthcare is no different. Like everything else, it is a finite resource. And just because my observation is douchey doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
No, just the overwhelming evidence that our healthcare system is a for-profit capitalist nightmare that was bankrupting Americans and slowly destroying our economy. And the entire group of functional of smaller nations, including Canada, that can support have functional heathcare systems that work. As always, it is the evidence that makes you wrong. The doucheyness speaks for itself.
This is where I remind everyone that I'm in favor of baseline single payer healthcare. You're basically proving my larger point: so many of y'all on the left have worked yourselves up into such a frenzy that you can no longer see straight on these political issues.
You may say you support single payer, but you voting record shows you value other things far more. This is the problem conservatives like yourself have. You want to political results that will result in harsh negative effects on people's lives, but then expect this real rational debate it after wining. Which is in sharp contrast to the emotion based rhetoric that win Trump this election.
Unlike some of y'all on the left, I don't demand strict orthodoxy from politicians whom I support.
Do you mind me asking what that means? No specifics, general terms are sufficient.
In the US they describe social democratic voters as liberals who are too purist to vote for or to like actual liberals, it's part of the great trick they play on the left.
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
The immigration issue has been a long standing one dating back to the 1980s and before. People don't like deportations of long standing immigrants that get screwed over by our flawed dated visa system. It is a crowd please right up until someone from your community gets deported. Reagan was the only one that was able to cut a deal on immigration because he allows for a path to citizenship and forgiveness for breaking immigration law. Since then the long standing GOP condition for immigration reform is "deport every illegal immigrant, then we will reform the visa program." Which might as well be code for "we will never do this because we love running on this issue." Democrats have their own stupid pet projects, like their obsession with assault rifles.
You don't need to deport people, you just have to have a tough stance on it similar to Trump and improve border security. We all know the democrats actually prefer the law being broken in this regard, because it leads to more votes for them in the future. It's the opposite of voter suppression.
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
The immigration issue has been a long standing one dating back to the 1980s and before. People don't like deportations of long standing immigrants that get screwed over by our flawed dated visa system. It is a crowd please right up until someone from your community gets deported. Reagan was the only one that was able to cut a deal on immigration because he allows for a path to citizenship and forgiveness for breaking immigration law. Since then the long standing GOP condition for immigration reform is "deport every illegal immigrant, then we will reform the visa program." Which might as well be code for "we will never do this because we love running on this issue." Democrats have their own stupid pet projects, like their obsession with assault rifles.
You don't need to deport people, you just have to have a tough stance on it similar to Trump and improve border security. We all know the democrats actually prefer the law being broken in this regard, because it leads to more votes for them in the future. It's the opposite of voter suppression.
Actually I think you're wrong. Most illegal immigrants are heavily conservative when it comes to societal values. They are also by and large, hardworking and have no love for taxes to eat into their income, and are not eligible for most Social Security programs so wouldn't really miss them if the Republicans decided to cut those programs.
If tomorrow, the Republican party softened their stance on immigration, I bet you would actually see a huge swathe of Latino voters swing to the right. Right now, immigration is the only boogeyman through which the Democrats retain Latino votes.
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
You display a startling amount of ignorance in every post you make. I suggest you google "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013," specifically Title I dealing with increased border security. This bill was killed by House conservatives.
Sorry for being a jerk but you should seriously read up on things before spouting off.
I'll read over it when I have time and get back to you
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
The immigration issue has been a long standing one dating back to the 1980s and before. People don't like deportations of long standing immigrants that get screwed over by our flawed dated visa system. It is a crowd please right up until someone from your community gets deported. Reagan was the only one that was able to cut a deal on immigration because he allows for a path to citizenship and forgiveness for breaking immigration law. Since then the long standing GOP condition for immigration reform is "deport every illegal immigrant, then we will reform the visa program." Which might as well be code for "we will never do this because we love running on this issue." Democrats have their own stupid pet projects, like their obsession with assault rifles.
You don't need to deport people, you just have to have a tough stance on it similar to Trump and improve border security. We all know the democrats actually prefer the law being broken in this regard, because it leads to more votes for them in the future. It's the opposite of voter suppression.
You should think long and hard about how stupid that plan would be. The illegal immigrants can’t vote. So the democrats are playing the 18 year long game with their children. But really its more like the 30 year long game, since that is when people really start voting. And there is literally no assurance that those kids will vote for them. That is some conspiracy theory level stuff.
On top of that, they don’t need the thirty year plan if the voting trends stay the same. 2040, whites are no long the majority of voting age adult citizens. The children that will be the future demographics already exist and most of them are not white.
Edit: Piledriver is also correct. The immigration issue is a political football that the GOP like to use to get their anti-immigration voters to the poles.
On May 25 2017 01:59 biology]major wrote: We need candidates with integrity who are willing to reach over to the other side on at least one big ticket issue. For the democrats, it could have easily been strict enforcement of immigration law. What did they do instead? Celebrate illegal immigration. For republicans, Trump campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Honestly, these parties are so out of touch with the average voter, they don't get it. They are obsessed with rigid ideological thinking, and not looking at ways to adapt and increase their voter base. There is a good opportunity for future candidates to bridge the divide, but doing so will require them by neccessity to go against their party platform in some way or another.
This time it was Trump, next time we should hope it will be someone with better temparement.
Think I found another one that should have supported Bernie Sanders. Ironically he got a lot more flack from the left than he did credit from the right over his somewhat nationalistic immigration statements.
Compromise can come easily I belive on immigration. Strict deporting of any criminals with a criminal history from mexico or in america while allowing a sort of "resident worker" visa that doesn't expire but doesn't guarantee a min wage or any of the other rights of a citizen worker. A migrant work force to bring in the harvest would combine a poor population from mexico with a technologically and mechanically advanced agriculture base in america.
The security situation could be better pitched as "the last battle of the drug war" getting some buy in as this being the last thing we need to do before declaring victory in the war on drugs. It can be repackaged as a war against the drug cartels and with FARC signing a peace treaty the south american theater can be declared over with just the drug war in mexico being the last vestiges of cartelism.
Both would require politicians to get off the pot and do something about the issues they get easy points in their reelection campaigns and probably won't happen.
EPT
