Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Round Table
Reload this Page The American Politics Discussion Thread

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

The Round Table Have a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #476    
Old November 13th, 2012 (12:23 AM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
For Money
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,370
The reason its a dick move is because all of these people dedicated their time and effort into helping him win the election, and in the end he doesn't even care enough to spare them (Or, at least, the large majority of them) the cab fare to get to get home.

And, of course, although his campaign was over the organization itself still had things to file with the government before they could 'officially' close.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #477    
Old November 13th, 2012 (12:35 AM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,431
Quote originally posted by Mr. X:
The reason its a dick move is because all of these people dedicated their time and effort into helping him win the election, and in the end he doesn't even care enough to spare them (Or, at least, the large majority of them) the cab fare to get to get home.

And, of course, although his campaign was over the organization itself still had things to file with the government before they could 'officially' close.
The Romney-Ryan campaign provided transportation, food, and lodging to its volunteers.
Reply With Quote
  #478    
Old November 13th, 2012 (12:38 AM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
For Money
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,370
Quote originally posted by FreakyLocz14:
The Romney-Ryan campaign provided transportation, food, and lodging to its volunteers.
Yes, until they lost that is. After that, he suddenly didn't care about them.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #479    
Old November 14th, 2012 (12:43 AM).
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Very disappointed Gary Johnson did not get the 5% he needed for the Libertarian party to be recognized federally. I'm not going to comment on silly issues like healthcare or abortion or any of that political football. There are more important issues at hand, but a pokemon forum is not the place to discuss it.
Reply With Quote
  #480    
Old November 14th, 2012 (01:00 AM).
Zet's Avatar
Zet Zet is offline
Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 7,588
Quote originally posted by FreakyLocz14:
The Romney-Ryan campaign provided transportation, food, and lodging to its volunteers.
Those cancelled credit cards totally worked when they tried to leave the hotel.
Reply With Quote
  #481    
Old November 14th, 2012 (01:29 AM).
Keiran's Avatar
Keiran Keiran is offline
Spheal Hacking Administrator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Posts: 1,750
Quote originally posted by Lishy:
Very disappointed Gary Johnson did not get the 5% he needed for the Libertarian party to be recognized federally. I'm not going to comment on silly issues like healthcare or abortion or any of that political football. There are more important issues at hand, but a pokemon forum is not the place to discuss it.
The health of a nations population is a silly matter! Not sure there is a more important issue than healthcare beside avoiding foreign conflict.

Doesn't matter who is elected in 2016, whether it be Gary Johnson or not if Congress can't get anything positive done for the nation!
__________________
Mod of Trade Corner| Pair | Trainer Information

又 yltfos os kaeps and low 又
Wandering Allowed, Wondering Aloud
Reply With Quote
  #482    
Old November 14th, 2012 (09:11 AM). Edited November 14th, 2012 by Lishy.
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Quote originally posted by Keiran777:
The health of a nations population is a silly matter! Not sure there is a more important issue than healthcare beside avoiding foreign conflict.
Healthcare would not be a silly issue if the U.S. government wasn't violating our liberties more than any other Western country in the world.

It's like going to a drug dealer for prescription medication.

That may or may not be the best example, but our government tried to prosecute Julian Assange, putting him on the same level of Al-Qaeda. And Bradley Manning IS being prosecuted over the wikileaks fiasco!

So forget all the war crimes our military has done in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed by those documents. Our government only cares about prosecuting Bradley Manning? Not the person in a helicopter gunning down innocent Arabs?

Let's take this a step further. Did you know the federal government bans people from government-jobs if they read wikileaks? It's true. Now we're being punished for our first amendment rights for what is already in the public domain. Taking it a step further, we're being punished simply for "knowing too much". Don't you see there's something pretty messed up about that?

Healthcare in the United States is not just a silly issue, but also a STUPID issue! Because why should we trust our government who try to cover up the truth? Once you give them power over healthcare, how do we know they wont mandate treatments which are harmful for people? It's not like they even acknowledge the truth, so how can we trust them whatsoever?

Furthermore, once the federal government takes over healthcare, does that mean no doctor is allowed to read wikileaks? If the government continues to monopolize jobs after healthcare, does that mean they could censor any citizen they choose at the expense of his job?

Again, this is not just silly. It's stupid! Prosecute the crooks BEFORE they touch healthcare!

Let's get our priorities straight, people!
Reply With Quote
  #483    
Old November 14th, 2012 (09:37 AM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
Quote originally posted by Mr. X:
Yes, until they lost that is. After that, he suddenly didn't care about them.
I grant that at least keep them active until everyone's back home. Beyond that though... campaign's over. Why keep them active? They should have given them 72 hours, beyond that nothing. Time to move on
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #484    
Old November 14th, 2012 (09:51 AM). Edited November 14th, 2012 by Lishy.
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
As for Romney, Howard Stern tares him apart best:

youtu.be/YvvKvI3nr4k (Cannot post as url due to needing 15 posts...)

I also hear Romney stood for increasing the size of our military and attacking Iran. But imagine if Iran had a presidential candidate who ran on promises of attacking Israel? We would call them terrorists. There for I will not hesitate calling Mitt Romney a terrorist either!

Romney stood for no revolutionary ideals whatsoever. He never once preached to his supporters whatsoever about the crisis of our dissolving liberties. All he did is blame Democrats. (And I'm saying this as an independent who hates democrats too!)

Obama is not good either, but my god, Republicans must be borderline crazy if they voted Romney to go against Obama!

I hear Ron Paul polled best of any of the Republican candidates to go against Obama. But NOPE! Romney was more "electable" (establishment?) so even though Ron Paul was more capable of going against Obama they still voted Romney anyways because he is "electable" even though he polled bad against the president, BUT it didn't matter to republicans because he was "electable"?

I think Republicans deserve a terrorist like Romney if they are so deep into Stockholm's syndrome.

And yes, Romney is a terrorist. I explained in this very post why he is a terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #485    
Old November 14th, 2012 (10:01 AM). Edited November 14th, 2012 by TRIFORCE89.
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
Quote originally posted by Lishy:
Healthcare in the United States is not just a silly issue, but also a STUPID issue! Because why should we trust our government who try to cover up the truth? Once you give them power over healthcare, how do we know they wont mandate treatments which are harmful for people? It's not like they even acknowledge the truth, so how can we trust them whatsoever?

Again, this is not just silly. It's stupid! Prosecute the crooks they touch healthcare!

Let's get our priorities straight, people!
Right, well you wouldn't have military folks in charge of health care first off. Nor the government. "Obamacare" is private insurance. Just like car insurance, where you're mandated to have it. The government isn't taking over healthcare. They aren't supplying it or funding it. No changes in how it is administered. Unless your private insurance can mandate a treatment for you, you have nothing to worry about.

Neither would you for actual public health care. France, Germany, England, Canada - largely public/private partnerships. Coverage of different degrees depending on the country, but always there's private insurance to supplement it. There may be case where prices are regulated (Canada enforces what private doctors who accept the public plan may charge, for instance. As does England's NHS, but then there are also hospitals and clinics that will only accept private plans and they have see higher costs for the patient). Government doesn't perform surgery on you or give you medicine, it's just a way of having healthcare more affordable (not free. Pretty sure Germany is only long-term care. France is 70% coverage. Canada doesn't cover medicine. NHS lacks some specialized treatments and clinics. Your own pocket, or private insurance makes up the difference. Not free, just cheaper)

In the US, military gets coverage and elected officials get coverage. There's also medicare and medicaid. This isn't really foreign to the US. Just need to extend it and tailor it for the whole population.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #486    
Old November 14th, 2012 (10:09 AM).
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Quote originally posted by TRIFORCE89:
In the US, military gets coverage and elected officials get coverage. There's also medicare and medicaid. This isn't really foreign to the US. Just need to extend it and tailor it for the whole population.
Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of universal healthcare. However, the federal government has zero credibility. We should not be trusting them to extend healthcare until we set the liberties issue straight.

It's a trust issue more than anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #487    
Old November 14th, 2012 (10:14 AM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
Quote originally posted by Lishy:
Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of universal healthcare. However, the federal government has zero credibility. We should not be trusting them to extend healthcare until we set the liberties issue straight.

It's a trust issue more than anything else.
But they're not actually doing... anything. What do you have to trust them with? That when you swipe your health card it actually works?

My beef is with bureaucracy and mismanagement. But, nothing malicious like you seem to be implying.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #488    
Old November 14th, 2012 (10:51 AM).
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx Oryx is offline
CoquettishCat
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 13,207
Quote originally posted by TRIFORCE89:
I grant that at least keep them active until everyone's back home. Beyond that though... campaign's over. Why keep them active? They should have given them 72 hours, beyond that nothing. Time to move on
I don't think anyone would be upset if they had given 72 hours and a warning, or even just the rest of the night, as long as the people with the cards knew when it was. No one's saying to keep them active forever. o_O

@Lishy: It's kind of silly to argue that everything else needs to be fixed before we can try to get healthcare for everyone. It's not like the person who slipped and fell down the stairs and broke their arm can wait until we figure out every single other problem with our government. They need healthcare.

I won't deny that there are serious issues with our government; there have been serious issues probably since it began, and it will never be perfect and pushing for reform in instances of terrible things happening is a noble task. But once you get into the "government is the worst EVER you guys IT'S HIDING EVERYTHING KILL IT WITH FIRE" mentality you're getting off-track. The government runs the road systems, the DMV, libraries, they regulate drugs so you can be guaranteed to get the drug you're paying for and banks so they can't lend out your life savings and then lose it. That's just things I can think of off the top of my head. To start going on about how the government is terrible at everything and needs to be denied regulating healthcare seems to make massive generalizations and assumptions.

In addition, think of it the other way. The goal of private companies is to make money. The goal of private insurance companies? To make money. Not to help anyone. If they can drop someone for a profit, whether or not the person is sick and needs care, they will because it affects their bottom line. Why should they be given unrestricted control over the health of our citizens?
__________________


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Reply With Quote
  #489    
Old November 14th, 2012 (11:40 AM).
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Quote originally posted by Toujours:
In addition, think of it the other way. The goal of private companies is to make money. The goal of private insurance companies? To make money. Not to help anyone. If they can drop someone for a profit, whether or not the person is sick and needs care, they will because it affects their bottom line. Why should they be given unrestricted control over the health of our citizens?
I wont deny there are flaws with the private insurance companies.

But I guarantee you, the next excuse to violate our liberties with what we do to our own bodies will be "..well society is paying for it!"

Also, why is healthcare a federal issue instead of state issue? It's like getting an electrician to fix your computer because he works with electricity. That's not to say the federal government hasn't already overstepped their boundaries, but why is this suddenly a federal issue? What is wrong with having it remain a state issue?
Reply With Quote
  #490    
Old November 14th, 2012 (11:53 AM).
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx Oryx is offline
CoquettishCat
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 13,207
Because it's remained a state issue and people are still going without insurance because they can't afford it, avoiding going to the doctor and getting preventative care because they can't afford the cost of it, and then going into massive debt when something bad happens because they never were able to afford to get insurance. If the states were doing a good job of making sure everyone could afford insurance to begin with we wouldn't have a problem.
__________________


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Reply With Quote
  #491    
Old November 14th, 2012 (12:41 PM).
Rodriguezjames55's Avatar
Rodriguezjames55 Rodriguezjames55 is offline
No Jokes #MegaCharizard
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United states, New York, New York City, Bronx
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 391
Send a message via Skype™ to Rodriguezjames55
Quote originally posted by Toujours:
Because it's remained a state issue and people are still going without insurance because they can't afford it, avoiding going to the doctor and getting preventative care because they can't afford the cost of it, and then going into massive debt when something bad happens because they never were able to afford to get insurance. If the states were doing a good job of making sure everyone could afford insurance to begin with we wouldn't have a problem.
You states had health care if you had a pre existing condititon before obama took health care he added mandates increased price added thing people are against and they pay 0 dollars for it if we had candain healthcare it would be good but we dont
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #492    
Old November 14th, 2012 (12:48 PM).
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Quote originally posted by Toujours:
Because it's remained a state issue and people are still going without insurance because they can't afford it, avoiding going to the doctor and getting preventative care because they can't afford the cost of it, and then going into massive debt when something bad happens because they never were able to afford to get insurance. If the states were doing a good job of making sure everyone could afford insurance to begin with we wouldn't have a problem.
It doesn't matter if some people still can't afford a doctor. We have to look at the bigger picture.

If the people of whatever state vote AGAINST healthcare, the federal government should not have the power to triumph over their rights to force their own ideology on them.

We might as well not have states if this continues. Under the current system, it's like the federal government is mommy and daddy and the states have to ask them permission before they could make their own decisions.

The legal duty of the federal government, as intended by the founders, is to vigilantly maintain the constitution of the United States to protect the individual liberties from state-level government. However, today it's nothing more than Mommy/Daddy-welfare.

It's like hiring an electrician to fix your computer. It's just plain not their job! I don't care whether or not it's efficient, because it's simply not their job!
Reply With Quote
  #493    
Old November 14th, 2012 (12:50 PM). Edited November 14th, 2012 by Oryx.
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx Oryx is offline
CoquettishCat
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 13,207
You don't care about the people that can't afford a doctor? That's where our conversation ends. I have basic sympathy for people, and I can't have a discussion with someone who does not as we're not on the same basic moral page.

Edit: Rodriguez, it's not enough. If it was, then we wouldn't have people unable to afford insurance and drowning in debt because they got in an accident of some sort or got ill through no fault of their own. I wouldn't be against something that revamped the state insurance system, but until that something is proposed instead of Obamacare, my support goes to the option that would actually allow people to get insurance. I don't think it's perfect. But repealing it should come with something better.
__________________


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Reply With Quote
  #494    
Old November 14th, 2012 (12:53 PM). Edited November 14th, 2012 by Lishy.
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Quote originally posted by Toujours:
You don't care about the people that can't afford a doctor? That's where our conversation ends. I have basic sympathy for people, and I can't have a discussion with someone who does not as we're not on the same basic moral page.
Why should an entire nation accommodate one person's misfortunes? Don't spin my words. I suggested we need to look at the bigger picture. If someone lives in Washington, why should they have to pay for the medical bills of someone in Colarado?

That stance doesn't make me any less moral than anyone else (especially since a majority of readers on this forum do not know me IRL.) But this does pose an ideological question of government and liberty.

If there is such a concern about a minority of people who cannot afford healthcare, why aren't we paying taxes to the UN for welfare programs in Africa? Because it's a different country? So why do we have a federal program here? Because we're American? But one person is from Colorado, and the other from Washington!

How about the UN passes a program where both Canada and the UK must pay for the same healthcare system?

My point is this healthcare program disrespects the votes and decisions of individuals in their own states. We have to end our addiction to the federal government or else we wont have state-level government in the first place. Especially considering our federal government is one which does NOT have a reliable, nor' moral, nor' even LEGAL track record!

Again, the issue is not healthcare as an idea. The issue is our federal government continuing to get bigger each day, and ignoring state rights.

And on the subject of morality, morality is helping others willingly. Not taking it by force. That would be immorality in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #495    
Old November 14th, 2012 (01:47 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
Quote originally posted by Lishy:
If the people of whatever state vote AGAINST healthcare, the federal government should not have the power to triumph over their rights to force their own ideology on them.
Why? Do people break their legs in some states and not in others? If you need care, you need care.

There's a lot of things that you do, even if you don't like it, because it's the right thing to do. Like seat belts. Or back in the day, getting rid of slavery - that wasn't really popular
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #496    
Old November 14th, 2012 (02:04 PM).
Lishy Lishy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Quote originally posted by TRIFORCE89:
Why? Do people break their legs in some states and not in others? If you need care, you need care.

There's a lot of things that you do, even if you don't like it, because it's the right thing to do. Like seat belts. Or back in the day, getting rid of slavery - that wasn't really popular
You're missing the point. Why are we expanding the federal government for something which should be a state issue?

If someone breaks their leg in a state without health care, isn't that an issue for the state to debate, and ultimately for the state implement the healthcare? Not the federal government?

It doesn't matter how efficient it is, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with morality! Isn't it a state issue instead of a federal issue?

And, as people have missed my original point in my original posts: Why is healthcare a bigger issue than our corrupt foreign policy, or our collapsing economy? If we don't address either of them, healthcare wouldn't even be sustainable in the first place!
Reply With Quote
  #497    
Old November 14th, 2012 (02:11 PM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 7,743
What if states voted to do away with their fire departments? There are some things that shouldn't be up for a popular vote because they're necessary to keeping basic standards of living. Health issues are, I'd argue, very important to our standard of living. If you look at the places in the world with the healthiest citizens they tend to have some level of socialized medicine because that's one of the best ways ensure everyone stays as healthy as they can be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #498    
Old November 14th, 2012 (02:20 PM). Edited November 14th, 2012 by TRIFORCE89.
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,116
Quote originally posted by Lishy:
And, as people have missed my original point in my original posts: Why is healthcare a bigger issue than our corrupt foreign policy, or our collapsing economy? If we don't address either of them, healthcare wouldn't even be sustainable in the first place!
Bigger than foreign policy because it affects average joes a heck of a lot more. It affects people of the home nation rather than abroad.

And personally I think it is a part of the economy puzzle.

Quote originally posted by Lishy:
If someone breaks their leg in a state without health care, isn't that an issue for the state to debate, and ultimately for the state implement the healthcare? Not the federal government?
There is an argument to be made there, yes. If they both handle it then you have redundancy. As a Canadian, I have no idea why you have a federal Department of Education. We don't do that here. So it seems particularly odd since the US is supposed to be "states first, federal second" where in the priority chain and in Canada kind of the opposite.

It isn't a public plan though that the US government is proposing. If they were, then just having that mandate and having the states implement it as they chose (like they do with education) could work. But it isn't public. It's just a mandate for insurance. Just like if you have a car. Or a house
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #499    
Old November 14th, 2012 (02:56 PM).
Pvt Tamama's Avatar
Pvt Tamama Pvt Tamama is offline
Chii!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Posts: 53
lower-class Americans are not worry about foreign policy because they want to know that if they brake there finger today they will be able to pay for it not about other countries its not there fault ether i mean if canda were to invade they would probably be happy due to the new free hhealth care
(even if canda did invade i doubt the health care would be the same as canda's)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #500    
Old November 14th, 2012 (03:22 PM).
Rodriguezjames55's Avatar
Rodriguezjames55 Rodriguezjames55 is offline
No Jokes #MegaCharizard
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United states, New York, New York City, Bronx
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 391
Send a message via Skype™ to Rodriguezjames55
Quote originally posted by Lishy:
It doesn't matter if some people still can't afford a doctor. We have to look at the bigger picture.

If the people of whatever state vote AGAINST healthcare, the federal government should not have the power to triumph over their rights to force their own ideology on them.

We might as well not have states if this continues. Under the current system, it's like the federal government is mommy and daddy and the states have to ask them permission before they could make their own decisions.

The legal duty of the federal government, as intended by the founders, is to vigilantly maintain the constitution of the United States to protect the individual liberties from state-level government. However, today it's nothing more than Mommy/Daddy-welfare.

It's like hiring an electrician to fix your computer. It's just plain not their job! I don't care whether or not it's efficient, because it's simply not their job!
Nice quote i know where you got it from
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links

You may also like.. (Beta)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 07:39 AM.