Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

You: *Compares voting to buying a product*

Me: Your analogy of "buying" a product doesn't work for voting because you end up having to purchase a product even if you don't vote (ie, a President gets elected).

You: Yeah, but what if we compare voting....to buying a product

Dude...

Its time to stop.

If nobody votes, what happens?

Have to buy a product? Since when was anyone in America forced to buy a product, or forced to vote?

I mean, that is a functionally impossible question. If everyone who disliked both candidates chose not to vote, you would still have tens of millions of voters.

As previously stated, if you don't vote, you aren't getting no president and a redo, you are just letting a bunch of idiots make the decision for you. And again, you aren't forced to vote, but you are forced to have a president.

Maybe the reason you aren't understanding this is that someone keeps making bad comparisons instead of just looking at the question at face value and seeing how simple it is. Like, we don't need abstract maths to do simple addition...



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Where did you get that from? He nor I am under that impression. Maybe you should watch the clip.

Holy hell man, that's exactly what he said. 

China is already a huge medical supplier for the US.  But it's also not the only supplier.  If China cuts supply, we get them from somewhere else.  That doesn't change just because we move to a Medicare for All system.

You said, "Imagine how much of a problem that would be now, and how much bigger of a problem it would be with free health care for all."   Now I am asking you, how the hell does it become a bigger problem under Medicare For All?

Tucker said Medicare for all means one medical goods supplier?

Free health care for all would certainly mean more people using and expecting medical services. Fast, reliable, service. How much worse would an interruption with the existing system be compared to a free for all system? How quickly could this situation occur, and how quickly could other suppliers fill the demand?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

If nobody votes, what happens?

Have to buy a product? Since when was anyone in America forced to buy a product, or forced to vote?

I mean, that is a functionally impossible question. If everyone who disliked both candidates chose not to vote, you would still have tens of millions of voters.

As previously stated, if you don't vote, you aren't getting no president and a redo, you are just letting a bunch of idiots make the decision for you. And again, you aren't forced to vote, but you are forced to have a president.

Maybe the reason you aren't understanding this is that someone keeps making bad comparisons instead of just looking at the question at face value and seeing how simple it is. Like, we don't need abstract maths to do simple addition...

It's impossible for everyone to hate the candidates available to choose from? We're not talking hundreds to choose from. I wonder how revolutions happen?

I also don't believe that every other voter other than myself is an idiot, but that's just me.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Holy hell man, that's exactly what he said. 

China is already a huge medical supplier for the US.  But it's also not the only supplier.  If China cuts supply, we get them from somewhere else.  That doesn't change just because we move to a Medicare for All system.

You said, "Imagine how much of a problem that would be now, and how much bigger of a problem it would be with free health care for all."   Now I am asking you, how the hell does it become a bigger problem under Medicare For All?

Tucker said Medicare for all means one medical goods supplier?

Free health care for all would certainly mean more people using and expecting medical services. Fast, reliable, service. How much worse would an interruption with the existing system be compared to a free for all system? How quickly could this situation occur, and how quickly could other suppliers fill the demand?

Let me get this straight.

Current system:
China is large supplier
Majority have healthcare

Medicare for All:
China is large supplier
All have healthcare


If more people have healthcare, more people could be affected by a supply shortage if China halts supplies. 

And somehow a halt on medical supplies under M4A is a bigger problem compared to our current system where many people have no healthcare at all?

And yes, they could be restocked pretty damn quick.  Suppliers exist all over the world.   Again, does Canada worry about this? The UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Germany, etc.....................?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

He complained about Parasite winning Best Picture because it's a South Korean movie, and said Gone With the Wind, a movie from 1939, should've won instead.

Not only does he hate South Koreans, he doesn't know what decade he's in.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Current system - Chinese products.
Medicare 4 All - Chinese products.

OK, how did the leverage change?

You either didn't watch the clip or you didn't understand it based on that reply.

People should not have to ask you multiple times to explain your position on something.
And including a clip is a good supplement to an answer. But forcing people to comb through an 11 minute clip (more than once) for a specific remark that you neither time stamped, nor sufficiently described, is not a proper answer by itself.

Also, if you use an analogy to make a point, it's best to avoid scenarios that would never occur, like "What if no one voted?"
Let's try to not waste people's time like this any more please.

Last edited by Hiku - on 20 February 2020

EricHiggin said:
the-pi-guy said:

>You'll have to follow the conversation. 

The issue is, there's no way to follow the conversation because you make up nonsense that comes up out of no where.  

>If there wasn't nuclear fusion happening at the core of the sun, would there still be solar flares?

1.) Not likely because there wouldn't be much of a sun without fusion.    

2.)  You're trying to interlink two ridiculously unrelated things, that are basically only connected by the Sun's existence.  

3.) Why don't you read the answers that both SpokenTruth and I gave you, for why the solar flares are not relevant to the discussion?  

Then why are you following it if it's nonsense?

So you admit they wouldn't exist without the sun, but also think they aren't linked and are "ridiculously unrelated"? So like the people who voted for Trump have nothing to do with the decisions he makes as President? I wonder why they're always getting blamed for what Trump does then? All the finger pointers must be wrong then, right, since trying to link the voters to the President would be "ridiculous" based on how "ridiculously unrelated" they are, correct?

Watching you argue is actually painful to watch. You are doing your stance a disservice by doing a piss-poor job backing it. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

CaptainExplosion said:

He complained about Parasite winning Best Picture because it's a South Korean movie, and said Gone With the Wind, a movie from 1939, should've won instead.

Not only does he hate South Koreans, he doesn't know what decade he's in.

He knows what decade he wishes he was in, though! 

Seriously, how did someone this bigoted get elected, faulty electoral college or not? I know this just shows how many racist and xenophobic people there are in the US, but there's no way I'm comfortable accepting that there are more outright racist bigots in the US than there is the entire population of Canada. We should know better. We do know better. I guess some people are just super, duper shitty and proud of it. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Runa216 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

He complained about Parasite winning Best Picture because it's a South Korean movie, and said Gone With the Wind, a movie from 1939, should've won instead.

Not only does he hate South Koreans, he doesn't know what decade he's in.

He knows what decade he wishes he was in, though! 

Seriously, how did someone this bigoted get elected, faulty electoral college or not? I know this just shows how many racist and xenophobic people there are in the US, but there's no way I'm comfortable accepting that there are more outright racist bigots in the US than there is the entire population of Canada. We should know better. We do know better. I guess some people are just super, duper shitty and proud of it. 

I'm surprised he hasn't referred to anyone as the n-word. He's only in it for himself, and the people who blindly support him are too stupid to realize that.



So I didn't want to make a thread about this because the general election is still almost 9 months away, but I was thinking about something. How will President Trump react if he loses? Will he have a Twitter meltdown, but accept the results? Will he demand a recount? Would he be super hostile towards any potential victorious opponent, or would some make him more angry than others?
I think Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders would anger him the most. Joe and the whole Ukraine stuff, plus Joe is a VP of Barack Obama would make Pres. Trump mad. On the other hand, Bernie's supposed radicalism would make Pres. Trump extremely salty and could lead to fear-mongering to the max.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

PS4: 130 mil (was 100 million) Xbox One: 55 mil (was 50 mil) Switch: 96 million (was 73 million)

3DS: 77 mil (was 73 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima