• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

The American Politics Discussion Thread

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
What if they get pregenant as a result of rape?

Wait, don't tell me. You believe in "Legitimate Rape'.

Obama's comment about contraceptives was about them denying it in their health plans.

Why should the child be punished for what happened to the mother?

And employers don't have to cover anything. They especially shouldn't be forced to if they're a religious organization.
 
3,299
Posts
19
Years
So, uh, anyone help me make any sense out of the polls?

- Is the race tied with Obama having an edge in the key states and thus leading the college?
- Is Obama's performance in the swing states being overvalued and thus Romney will win everything?
- Is Romney winning Red non-swing states with 99% of the votes and thus getting an useless national lead that won't prevent him from losing the college?
- Is Romney's national share oversized and thus he'll lose both the vote and the college?
- Has Gallup gone completely nuts?

The multiple number of polls are constant skewed and spinned by both campaigns in order to show their candidate is doing better than the other. I really can't fully answer your question, but I would go with Gallup going nuts. Maybe you can add in the CNN poll and the AP Poll as well.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Obama's comment about contraceptives was about them denying it in their health plans.
Indeed.

But, we're talking about private insurance plans here. They're not all created equal. I agree with Obama in that an employer should not be to exclude contraception coverage solely on the basis of their own moral or religious beliefs. They should not be in a position to enforce that on their employees. No more so than if you had some employer who only agreed with "new agey" treatments. That employer should not deny traditional coverage because that's what the "feel" is the right thing to do. That'd be imposing on you and your well-being.

However, generally the insurance plan a company offers is tailored to what they deem are the needs of their employees. If the demographics of that organization don't support giving everyone a plan that includes contraception then they could probably go for a lesser plan that doesn't include it.

It should be covered and addressed as anything else with insurance. If it's needed, they should include it. If it isn't, they shouldn't have to - based only on that reasoning and not one's morals. The question is though, how would you prove their intentions? Tricky.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Why should the child be punished for what happened to the mother?

abortion_not_a_difficult_concept.jpg


Anyway, I see contraceptives as one of the... Well, essentials, in health plans. Stuff that is standard because of its widespread use, or being cheap enough to include standard.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
abortion_not_a_difficult_concept.jpg


Anyway, I see contraceptives as one of the... Well, essentials, in health plans. Stuff that is standard because of its widespread use, or being cheap enough to include standard.
Perhaps, but.... a lot of health plans just cover procedures not medicine.

Where I am, we have "universal health care", which is just a baseline. For procedures that aren't yet covered you need to go with private insurance or your employer's insurance. Further, medicine is largely not covered. Lots of people rely the health plans they get from work to cover only some of those costs - and what is covered differs by plan offered.

So, nothing really is as standard as you seem to think it is. O_o
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
Indeed.

But, we're talking about private insurance plans here. They're not all created equal. I agree with Obama in that an employer should not be to exclude contraception coverage solely on the basis of their own moral or religious beliefs. They should not be in a position to enforce that on their employees. No more so than if you had some employer who only agreed with "new agey" treatments. That employer should not deny traditional coverage because that's what the "feel" is the right thing to do. That'd be imposing on you and your well-being.

However, generally the insurance plan a company offers is tailored to what they deem are the needs of their employees. If the demographics of that organization don't support giving everyone a plan that includes contraception then they could probably go for a lesser plan that doesn't include it.

It should be covered and addressed as anything else with insurance. If it's needed, they should include it. If it isn't, they shouldn't have to - based only on that reasoning and not one's morals. The question is though, how would you prove their intentions? Tricky.

Maybe something along the lines of "If X% of your company is women" or "If X% of your company indicates in an anonymous survey that they use hormonal contraception", then it must be provided? This is just me brainstorming though, feel free to tell me if this isn't a great idea for a reason I didn't think of offhand.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Imo, best solution would be to include everything in the package, but let the employee pick what parts they want from the full package. What they pick is what they pay for, what they pick is what they get.

Edit - Since diffrient plans would have diffrient prices on the specific packages, the person coule pick parts of a plan from multiple providers.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Maybe something along the lines of "If X% of your company is women" or "If X% of your company indicates in an anonymous survey that they use hormonal contraception", then it must be provided? This is just me brainstorming though, feel free to tell me if this isn't a great idea for a reason I didn't think of offhand.
Nah. That's probably fine.

(Also, not saying I'm against the mandate. I'm just saying... I can see that argument)
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Jobs should go to the most qualified appplicants. If more happen to be men rather than women, then that's just how the cookie crumbles.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Jobs should go to the most qualified appplicants. If more happen to be men rather than women, then that's just how the cookie crumbles.

That I can agree with, however a lot of the time they are denied just because they are female.

Edit - Although, I can sometimes see the point to this. When a person is hiring, they are usually looking for someone to fill a long-term positon, not someone who is liable to need a quarter of the year off with pay, all while forcing the company to hire a temp to fill this position.
 
Last edited:
3,299
Posts
19
Years
All power to him. The more parties (or lack there of) and more representation, the better.

On that note, Jesse Venture may run four years from now. How do you think he'll fare?
Both parties probably don't like that. Especially Mitt Romney.

I wouldn't mind supporting "The Body", mainly because I'm a wrestling fan and I enjoyed his commentary during matches back in the day. Wasn't he on Piers Morgan talking about if there were no political parties in the U.S.?
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
No political parties would be kind of interesting. Only if we had runoff elections though. We really should have runoffs regardless.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
What needs to be done is something to reduce the hatred between parties.

Imo, heres my plan.

Presidents can't run for consecutive terms. You serve a term, you can;t run for the next. (Imo, should be in place already. We want the president to run our country for his full term, not spend the last year of in campaigning all around the nation.) They can still serve two terms, they just can't be consecutive terms. This also applies to the VP, they can't serve consecutive terms either.

Because we will now have new people campaigning each election, lets change the VP system. Once the canadiates, for each party, are decided they then go against each other. The winner becomes the president, and then the remaining canadiates then compete to become the vice president.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
I think it used to be true that in a presidential election the runner up became the vice president. Like, back in the original days of the US.

Not the best idea in current politics, I think. Personally, I believe the biggest problem isn't with politicians, but with money in politics, followed closely by (and somewhat related to) problems with the media which don't inform us as well as they should.
 
3,299
Posts
19
Years
What needs to be done is something to reduce the hatred between parties.

Imo, heres my plan.

Presidents can't run for consecutive terms. You serve a term, you can;t run for the next. (Imo, should be in place already. We want the president to run our country for his full term, not spend the last year of in campaigning all around the nation.) They can still serve two terms, they just can't be consecutive terms. This also applies to the VP, they can't serve consecutive terms either.

Because we will now have new people campaigning each election, lets change the VP system. Once the canadiates, for each party, are decided they then go against each other. The winner becomes the president, and then the remaining canadiates then compete to become the vice president.

What about Congressmen who keep serving multiple terms? Would your idea of not being able to serve consecutive terms be good since this will also have new people in the House and Senate instead of the same faces that have been serving for as long as I have been on this earth? Or at least limit their terms to 2?
 
9,468
Posts
15
Years
One of the problems with term limits that arisen here in California is that during the first term lawmakers just try to get as much for their district to get re-elected for the next term since they know that they only get 2 never the less.

There's no incentive to specialize for committees in the long term.
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
No political parties would be kind of interesting. Only if we had runoff elections though. We really should have runoffs regardless.

No political parties would end up causing the same political parties to exist but by any other name. After all, if you have two "Republicans", they'll split their votes up reducing their chances to be elected if the "Democrats" had only one candidate (and viceversa). So, in the end, it would be 1 VS 1 as it is now but without party banners.

After all, look at the campaigns. It's "Romney-Ryan" and "Obama-Biden", not "Vote Republican Party" or "Vote Democratic Party", as it goes in most European countries where presidents/prime ministers aren't nominally elected. If you have a personalist persidential system, this is what usually ends up happening- you end up voting for the guy, not for his party. Removing parties wouldn't make almost any difference.
 
Back
Top