- 3,756
- 7,649
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
blco02
Banned
- 3,932
- 1,281
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,477
- 76,754
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
Who do conservatives hate more and why: Obama or Hillary?
- 3,996
- 4,930
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,178
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Obama, not even a competition. The racism aspect puts it over the top
Taxes
next question:
Gays or black people?
Last edited:
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,442
- 85,640
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
We don't hate either. We love freedom and what this country stands for. Black on black crime is a huge problem and traditional relationships are what this country was founded on.
Blacks but we like Benjamin Carson.
Last edited:
dirtbagchueco
Banned
- 126
- 71
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
Tell me why i shouldnt vote for sanders and who i should vite for instead
- 36,235
- 11,047
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Country was also founded on slavery.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,178
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Or as Ben Carson would call it, entrepreneurship and capital investments
dirtbagchueco
Banned
- 126
- 71
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
Im gona give yall 4 more hours to answer me
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
With all the bad stuff in America's history (and there's plenty) it's still the best example of multiple races and cultures co-existing.
Do people agree with that?
Do people agree with that?
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,178
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Wait huh? I'm a lil confused famb
Are you asking if people agree that slavery is the best example of multiple races and cultures co-existing?
Last edited:
ben roethlisberger
Banned
- 2,676
- 1,334
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
I'll answer you.
You shouldn't vote for Sanders. You shouldn't vote for Hilary. You shouldn't vote for Trump. Matter of fact, don't vote for any of them.
They all cater to a specific demographic. It's why they are up on that performance stage in the first place. They all promise change. They all provide the narrative for what you should care about. Yet they all don't really say anything at all. Bunch of rah rah rah America speeches that don't say a damn thing. And what really changes? Other than the provided salad bar rhetoric, what really changes for the betterment of humanity?
They all work for and represent the corporate elite. ALL OF THEM. Bernie is no exception. They claim big corporations don't support him but he gets contributions from Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Google, Kaiser, The Navy and The third largest arms and fighter jet manufacturer in the world Boeing Co. Those are the people he will serve if elected. Not you or I.
Don't vote. It doesn't count. It's just used to measure public compliance.
Last edited:
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
Im asking about america in it's current form. Not a hypothetical question, i genuinely want to know what people think.
- 17,697
- 2,714
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
It's not necessarily siding with the rich. It's realizing that money will always flow to the place of least resistance. It's also believing that the biggest issue with healthcare was the rising prices instead of realizing that rising prices are caused by external forces.
It's not like we as Americans can just eat all the junk we want, not exercise and then blame our health issues on lack of insurance.
I agree, we tend to be a "get a cut now and cover it w/ a bandage later" society, we are more reactive than proactive.
Insurance is a necessary evil unfortunately and I'm certain that only those who can't afford the coverage have it. I'm certain that millionaires don't have health insurance because they can afford out of pocket expenses.
The way food has been processed is ridiculous. Sugar lobbyist have even successfully had sugar percentages removed off of food packaging; sugar goes into everything almost and you'd never know unless u did research. Most people think regular white sugar is the only sugar substance put into your food
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,178
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
It's not necessarily siding with the rich. It's realizing that money will always flow to the place of least resistance. It's also believing that the biggest issue with healthcare was the rising prices instead of realizing that rising prices are caused by external forces.
It's not like we as Americans can just eat all the junk we want, not exercise and then blame our health issues on lack of insurance.
I agree, we tend to be a "get a cut now and cover it w/ a bandage later" society, we are more reactive than proactive.
Insurance is a necessary evil unfortunately and I'm certain that only those who can't afford the coverage have it. I'm certain that millionaires don't have health insurance because they can afford out of pocket expenses.
The way food has been processed is ridiculous. Sugar lobbyist have even successfully had sugar percentages removed off of food packaging; sugar goes into everything almost and you'd never know unless u did research. Most people think regular white sugar is the only sugar substance put into your food
This is more a general comment on the issue and a response to Crc proposal. Not directed at you famb
-I'm all for America getting it's fact together food wise because that will make people healthier and help drive down healthcare cost, but that is not a solution to our healthcare problem.
What about freak accidents? What about cancer? Snake bits? Birth defects? All and host of other things.
Plus healthcare cost in this country are are being driven up by a lot of other things too. So just telling folk "eat better" is not a all aorunf fix to the problem
-In 2007-2008, healthcare form was one of the biggest issues in the country, it was reaching crisis levels. I mean Clinton tried to reform the system 15 years prior. The can was kicked down the road too long, and something had to be done.
All three major candidates: Obama, Clinton, AND McCain (which had some great ideas in it BTW, great) had healthcare reform plans. This notion that Obama just inferred with a system that was functioning well is not true, it was failing a lot of people.
Getting cancer without helth insurance was a death sentence to folk without great insurance, either literally or financially.
-And healthcare cost were still rising so the reckoning was going to come sooner or later. It is just that America seems to love to only do stuff when things blow up in their faces. So since the system was working for those with health insurance already, some folk just wanted to ignore the folk suffering and take the free rise until the bubble popped
-In America, even before the ACA, most people (nearly all) get their health insurance subsidized by the government in one way or another. The poor get Medicaid, public workers are compensated with tax dollars, the old get Medicare, working people get their's subsidized through tax breaks to their employer (which cost the country hundreds of billions). So everyone was getting a subsidize the the folk that were, mostly the work poor were getting screwed.
-And that is what the ACA main goal is, a targeted program to help the working poor get or afford health insurance. While I feel bad that folk who had the plans cancelled, premium raise (I was one of them btw), or inconvenienced the other way. That doesn't match the sympathy I had for folk that get their life destroyed over getting sick at the wrong time. Not even close
-Now to make things truly fair, we could either a) go universal so everyone gets equal coverage from the say pool of money, and be comfortable with seeing that tax getting taken outta there paycheck.
BTW, it is estimate that a universal system would cost less and provide better overall care than the current one we have.
or b) Have a neoliberal paln were everyone loses their health insurance. no Medicaid, no Medicare, no employer subsidies, no insurance for public workers and give everyone a voucher to help buy health insurance from a private seller. And tear down the regulation
An be comfortable with seeing seniors not being able to afford/or even get health insurance, the poor not being able to afford it, healthcare cost rise on all working people. Just look at the student loan situation to see if a plan like this won't clap the collective cheeks of the America people.
-What we could do instead is use policies that drive down the cost of insurance and health care. Either come to terms that health care providers need to be treated as regulated monopolies and put in price controls, or provide a low cost public option to create a competitive fringe and drive down prices
Or you could go the "free market" route and let firms join together to bargain better prices, allow people to buy health insurance across state lines (killing price discrimination), let folk import drugs from Canada, let healthcare companies join with Medicare to negotiate reimbursement rates, and lets invest in preventative care which would save us money in the long run.
To my knowledge, the most of GOP is against all of this, even though McCain plan had many of these policies. So they are against progressive policies, the economic liberal policies, all of it. They indulge so many industries in their rent seeking behavior, they don't know which one to screw over to solve the problem
When the ACA was being debated, their major talking point was tort reform
No matter if McCain became president over Obama, we would have still seen a ACA type arrangement, because the ACA is based on Romneycare. A compromise between a Republican executive and Democratic legislature. I mean the same economist, Jonathan Gruber, designed both systems. (Everyone should watch his Microeconomics lectures on youtube btw, unbelievably great)
But now I see progressives like Bernie championing a system that would be cheaper and benefit most people, while the right champions............................well nothing, they are too busy talking about the evils of Obamacare (even though it is accomplishing it's main job, getting more people especially the working poor coverage) and putting forward no solid ideas to make the system better.
Just that folk should get there act together, so that we can go back to the old failing system.
-------
I mean look at this ****:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/cbbn2...ld-health-care---knoxville--tennessee-edition
We claim to have the best system, be the best country in the world, but we allow this to go on :x
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,015
- 189,178
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Yeah sure, but it is far from perfect.
But modern day only looks so great because the past has been soooooooooooo ****** up
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
[h2]Clinton has early, commanding delegate lead for nomination[/h2]
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER and HOPE YEN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has locked up public support from half the Democratic Party insiders who get to cast ballots at the party's national convention.
Their backing gives Clinton a commanding advantage over her rivals for the Democratic nomination for president.
Clinton's margin over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is striking.
Not only is it big, but it comes months before primary voters head to the polls.
The Associated Press contacted all 712 people known as superdelegates, and more than 80 percent responded.
They were asked which candidate they plan to support at the convention next summer.
Clinton got endorsements from 359, while Sanders was endorsed by eight. Two superdelegates supported O'Malley, and the rest were uncommitted.
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER and HOPE YEN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has locked up public support from half the Democratic Party insiders who get to cast ballots at the party's national convention.
Their backing gives Clinton a commanding advantage over her rivals for the Democratic nomination for president.
Clinton's margin over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is striking.
Not only is it big, but it comes months before primary voters head to the polls.
The Associated Press contacted all 712 people known as superdelegates, and more than 80 percent responded.
They were asked which candidate they plan to support at the convention next summer.
Clinton got endorsements from 359, while Sanders was endorsed by eight. Two superdelegates supported O'Malley, and the rest were uncommitted.
Last edited:
blco02
Banned
- 3,932
- 1,281
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
Anybody watching this debate 
- 16,413
- 8,760
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
Me
Hillary getting a lot of talking time
Bernie needs to articulate better, he has a very limited vocabulary on stage. Love him but he needs to get better at stage oratory.
Hillary getting a lot of talking time
Bernie needs to articulate better, he has a very limited vocabulary on stage. Love him but he needs to get better at stage oratory.
blco02
Banned
- 3,932
- 1,281
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
All three candidates refuse to use the term radical Islam.
- 5,983
- 533
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
Lol bernie sanders and his tax plan. Almost half of the money earned isnt enough.
Last edited:
- 5,983
- 533
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
You get a car, you get a car, you get a car, Everybody gets a car - Oprah (Bernie)
Last edited:
- 16,413
- 8,760
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
HAHAHAHA
Hillary just played the gender card, the 9-11 card, and victim card in ONE SENTENCE when Bernie called her out on Wall Street.
Pathetic
Hillary just played the gender card, the 9-11 card, and victim card in ONE SENTENCE when Bernie called her out on Wall Street.
Pathetic
Last edited:
- 16,543
- 7,757
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
