Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

Dulfite said:
Runa216 said:
This entire thread reminds me of this:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1

What started simply enough, as an inquiry about how often one should work out, somehow devolved into a 129 page argument about...how many days there are in a week, with such gems as 'A week is sunday to sunday, moron, that's 8 days' to 'two weeks is 15 days, retard' (They use slurs a lot over there). That is how this thread comes across to me, just people arguing over the basic tenets of speech, some people making shit up to prove their point, and lying to look good. There IS a right answer, but you'd never know it based on how people are acting and how tenuous people's attachment to reality can be.

I started to read through that thread and couldn't handle it haha.

I didn't even make it 5 pages in. I FELT the stupid on my frontal lobe, beating me like a sledgehammer. 

So when people in this thread start saying things like "What Trump REALLY meant when he mocked Parasite for winning was ... blah blah blah international trade", I facepalm so hard it creates a singularity on my forehead. The mental gymnastics on some people is inspiring. 



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

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Hiku said:

I figured as much, but instead of people having to drag the explanation out of you, you should explain it, and then you can question how/why they didn't understand how what was said in the clip correlated to the point you were making.

EricHiggin said:
The second, main individual, based on where your quotes are coming from, just happens to be the one who was recently making demands of me to give them what they wanted if I wanted a response. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing, logically, since the entire thing revolved around the clip?

Is this still about the topic you started with your initial China comment after seeing the video? Or are you referring to something that began before you made that comment? If so, you'd have to point me to the relevant posts, because that doesn't sound familiar.

EricHiggin said:
Proper etiquette would have them, at the very least, watch the clip first. Wouldn't they agree?

Do you think it's proper to give them an 11 minute video without a timestamp to search through just to find a few specific seconds?
If you had typed it out, it would take them a few seconds to read, and there would be no confusion about what you were referring to.

Is it "80% of our antibiotics come from China"
Or "China is a top producer of *insert various medical related things*"?

The first is just one medicine. And the second is very vague, as top producer could mean they supply USA with 1% more than the second closest country.
And if someone guesses what you're referring to, chances are you'd reply with "Nope, that's not it. Watch the video again and you'll understand."

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

You could go on like that the whole time, until someone posts a script of every single word Tucker said that was related to healthcare, and ask you to point it out. And at that point you've wasted their time by an extraordinary amount given how fast this really should have taken.

It's really not too much to ask of people to explain their positions.

EricHiggin said:
After pointing out they didn't watch or understand it, they simply replied with "then enlighten me", etc. After explaining it further, they then ask me to continue to explain, which I do, again.

Because you still haven't told anyone what specifically in that video that you based your comment on.
Everyone understands that you think USA will be in more trouble under Medicare For All if China cut off medical export. What they don't understand is why. And answering the question of "What specifically in that video are you basing this on?" is the first step in understanding this.

So for your next post, please specify the sentence/s from the clip that you based your argument on.

-Guessing at how I would respond? That is really reaching, no? It's one thing if you're concerned about something I've said, but being concerned about how I could have or may converse in the future? I'm not going to try and change how people converse with me by guessing how they would likely react to me in the future or another timeline if it's not in a manner that would benefit me. They can say whatever they want to me as long as the mods don't have a problem with it, and if there's a problem, I would hope it applies equally to everyone.

I said if someone guesses what you're referring to. And when users did (which they had to because you didn't specify), you kept telling them it was wrong, but not why.

EricHiggin said:
-I only suggested they should watch the clip after numerous explanations.

This is your only response on the subject before repeatedly telling people "You didn't watch the clip/do your homework"
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9112114

You said "is based on what Tucker points out about China having such leverage".

Responses for that were met with "Nope that's not it. Watch the video/again."
At that point when people asked you to specify, you should, rather than be upset that someone potentially didn't look through an entire 11 min clip properly enough, or twice, to be able to pinpoint the few seconds of it you were referring to, and what your interpretation of it was.

I also asked you to specify the sentence from Tucker, but you still didn't.
So I'll just move on. But I don't want to hear that I'm misunderstanding something about it.

So now I can respond to your explanation from page 358.

EricHiggin said:
Well yes. More people expecting speedy, quality, services, would put more pressure on the system. It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?

The point is, even under this unlikely scenario you portrayed where China manages to cut off supplies without US having backup providers ready to cover for it, more people still have access to healthcare than they would under the current system.

Let's pretend China cuts off penicillin, and there's no backup supplier.

Current system: A certain amount of people don't have access to penicillin.
Universal Healthcare: The same amount of people don't have access to penicillin.

However, those same people (and other people) can still get treatment for other medical conditions. Many of whom could not under the current system.

EricHiggin said:
You don't invest the majority of your money in a single unstable stock. You spread it out, even if you have a little more dedicated to one specific objective.Those suppliers could instantly fill the demand? If the cut off happened when a serious illness fell upon the world, or worse, would that be seen as acceptable? Waiting to fill the demand while people needlessly perish due to the wait because most of the eggs were placed into one basket?

This sounds more like criticism towards being over-reliant on a potentially unreliable medical supplier, and seems to have little to no relevance to Universal Healthcare.

Each country adjusts the supply and demand process according to the needs of people, so shortages of crucial medical aid should not be a thing.
The amount of people in the US who are uninsured or under-insured is dwarfed compared to the amount of people in the rest of the world that are fully insured. So it's not like USA joining the rest of the world with Universal Healthcare is going to throw everything into chaos.
If there's any actual indication that this would happen, I'd like to hear some concrete evidence that points to this before I'd speculate on the matter.

But I want to point out that Tucker Carlson suggested a problem without actually analyzing the situation he described.
What would happen if China cut off supplies? What are USA's options in such an event? He left that out completely, which is irresponsible and unprofessional at best. That's just fear mongering without any given probable cause.

A couple of weeks ago I was ordering medicine for my grandma since she's bad with technology. I had done it for years, but now for the first time it said something like "Not available in Sweden any longer. Please contact support." So I did. And they told me that all that means is that they'll order it from a different supplier. And the very next day I got a notice saying it was ready to pick up.

That's the only time in my life I ever heard or experienced anything close to what Tucker is suggesting here.

Last edited by Hiku - on 26 February 2020

Hiku said:
EricHiggin said:

-Guessing at how I would respond? That is really reaching, no? It's one thing if you're concerned about something I've said, but being concerned about how I could have or may converse in the future? I'm not going to try and change how people converse with me by guessing how they would likely react to me in the future or another timeline if it's not in a manner that would benefit me. They can say whatever they want to me as long as the mods don't have a problem with it, and if there's a problem, I would hope it applies equally to everyone.

I said if someone guesses what you're referring to. And when users did (which they had to because you didn't specify), you kept telling them it was wrong, but not why.

EricHiggin said:
-I only suggested they should watch the clip after numerous explanations.

This is your only response on the subject before repeatedly telling people "You didn't watch the clip/do your homework"
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9112114

You said "is based on what Tucker points out about China having such leverage".

Responses for that were met with "Nope that's not it. Watch the video/again."
At that point when people asked you to specify, you should, rather than be upset that someone potentially didn't look through an entire 11 min clip properly enough, or twice, to be able to pinpoint the few seconds of it you were referring to, and what your interpretation of it was.

I also asked you to specify the sentence from Tucker, but you still didn't.
So I'll just move on. But I don't want to hear that I'm misunderstanding something about it.

So now I can respond to your explanation from page 358.

EricHiggin said:
Well yes. More people expecting speedy, quality, services, would put more pressure on the system. It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?

The point is, even under this unlikely scenario you portrayed where China manages to cut off supplies without US having backup providers ready to cover for it, more people still have access to healthcare than they would under the current system.

Let's pretend China cuts off penicillin, and there's no backup supplier.

Current system: A certain amount of people don't have access to penicillin.
Universal Healthcare: The same amount of people don't have access to penicillin.

However, those same people (and other people) can still get treatment for other medical conditions. Many of whom could not under the current system.

EricHiggin said:
You don't invest the majority of your money in a single unstable stock. You spread it out, even if you have a little more dedicated to one specific objective.Those suppliers could instantly fill the demand? If the cut off happened when a serious illness fell upon the world, or worse, would that be seen as acceptable? Waiting to fill the demand while people needlessly perish due to the wait because most of the eggs were placed into one basket?

This sounds more like criticism towards being over-reliant on a potentially unreliable medical supplier, and seems to have little to no relevance to Universal Healthcare.

Each country adjusts the supply and demand process according to the needs of people, so shortages of crucial medical aid should not be a thing.
The amount of people in the US who are uninsured or under-insured is dwarfed compared to the amount of people in the rest of the world that are fully insured. So it's not like USA joining the rest of the world with Universal Healthcare is going to throw everything into chaos.
If there's any actual indication that this would happen, I'd like to hear some concrete evidence that points to this before I'd speculate on the matter.

But I want to point out that Tucker Carlson suggested a problem without actually analyzing the situation he described.
What would happen if China cut off supplies? What are USA's options in such an event? He left that out completely, which is irresponsible and unprofessional at best. That's just fear mongering without any given probable cause.

A couple of weeks ago I was ordering medicine for my grandma since she's bad with technology. I had done it for years, but now for the first time it said something like "Not available in Sweden any longer. Please contact support." So I did. And they told me that all that means is that they'll order it from a different supplier. And the very next day I got a notice saying it was ready to pick up.

That's the only time in my life I ever heard or experienced anything close to what Tucker is suggesting here.

-You were guessing at how I would reply to something, and seemed to have a problem with how I could have, potentially, responded.

"And if someone guesses what you're referring to, chances are you'd reply with "Nope, that's not it. Watch the video again and you'll understand.""

I didn't say that, you did. I eventually later on, after trying to explain things a few times, end up suggesting they watch the clip, "where did you get that from? He nor I am under that impression. Maybe you should watch the clip." Considering as I've already mentioned to you, I didn't remember where exactly in the clip that portion was, it's up to me now to go back through it all and find it for them? They have no obligation to have an idea where they are coming from before they begin a conversation with anyone?

-----

-Incorrect. The first reply is to a different individual. The next reply, which is to another individual is, "you either didn't watch the clip or you didn't understand it based on that reply."

I don't tell them they have to watch the clip, I simply point out based on what they said, they didn't understand, possibly because they didn't watch the clip.

They follow up with this, "then enlighten me.  How does the leverage change given the product volume doesn't change?"

And I respond with, "the leverage, based clearly on what is said in the clip, has nothing to do with product volume. You obviously didn't do your homework, again, it seems."

What's wrong with my response? They asked another question about product volume and I explain it has nothing to do with that, which they would know if they watched the clip. Even you say you don't see the connection, so why would they if they watched it? (I'm not talking about the "clip" when I mention homework again, I'm referring to a fairly recent prior conversation with them btw)

Tucker is pointing out the leverage China has over America by being such an important supplier, in many ways. Then he specifies based on the point he's making. Is that what you're looking for?

-----

-I don't get it. I already explained it. "It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?" What's not clear about that?

-----

-Tucker is just asking a question about a general what if scenario. You can't honestly tell me you think there's zero possibility that there could at some point, end up a shortage of medical supplies because of the reliance on China. Tucker didn't elaborate because he didn't have to. It's definitely possible, even if unlikely. So he has a point, even if you don't think it means much based on the likelihood. 



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:

1). -I don't get it. I already explained it. "It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?" What's not clear about that?

2). -Tucker is just asking a question about a general what if scenario. You can't honestly tell me you think there's zero possibility that there could at some point, end up a shortage of medical supplies because of the reliance on China. Tucker didn't elaborate because he didn't have to. It's definitely possible, even if unlikely. So he has a point, even if you don't think it means much based on the likelihood. 

1). So let's just have no healthcare at all.  Why bother, right?

2). Tucker is ONLY bringing this up because of M4A.  Why didn't he say shit about this before?  If it's not about M4A but merely leverage in general, why is it an issue now?  And why have you gone out of your way to bring up M4A in regards to the issue?

And we keep telling you (and Tucker) that we not as dependent on China for medical supplies as you two keeping claiming we are.  The top 40 medical equipment suppliers are all US, Euro and Japanese companies. And the top 25 medical supply chains are all US and Euro companies.

The only thing that China does have a strong hold on is the pharmaceuticals. They manufacture a lot of our medication. But we already have system sin place for that.  All major distributors in the US maintain several months worth of supplies in the event of a national emergency (war, trade, natural disasters, etc...) and they maintain lists of alternative manufacturers for all the critical and most commonly used medications.

So gain, it has shit all to do with China and everything to do with trying to make M4A look bad. 

Oh, and by the way, the one person that can harm our medical supply chain with China the most is Trump.  It's his trade war that births even the notion of a supply cut off from China.  But yeah....M4A. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

1). -I don't get it. I already explained it. "It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?" What's not clear about that?

2). -Tucker is just asking a question about a general what if scenario. You can't honestly tell me you think there's zero possibility that there could at some point, end up a shortage of medical supplies because of the reliance on China. Tucker didn't elaborate because he didn't have to. It's definitely possible, even if unlikely. So he has a point, even if you don't think it means much based on the likelihood. 

1). So let's just have no healthcare at all.  Why bother, right?

2). Tucker is ONLY bringing this up because of M4A.  Why didn't he say shit about this before?  If it's not about M4A but merely leverage in general, why is it an issue now?  And why have you gone out of your way to bring up M4A in regards to the issue?

And we keep telling you (and Tucker) that we not as dependent on China for medical supplies as you two keeping claiming we are.  The top 40 medical equipment suppliers are all US, Euro and Japanese companies. And the top 25 medical supply chains are all US and Euro companies.

The only thing that China does have a strong hold on is the pharmaceuticals. They manufacture a lot of our medication. But we already have system sin place for that.  All major distributors in the US maintain several months worth of supplies in the event of a national emergency (war, trade, natural disasters, etc...) and they maintain lists of alternative manufacturers for all the critical and most commonly used medications.

So gain, it has shit all to do with China and everything to do with trying to make M4A look bad. 

Oh, and by the way, the one person that can harm our medical supply chain with China the most is Trump.  It's his trade war that births even the notion of a supply cut off from China.  But yeah....M4A. 

That's your opinion, based on what you've used to support it, and you're free to have and express it. Hopefully Tucker never get's to say I told ya so.



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.

Around the Network

Trump says the United States is "very ready" for the coronavirus. Then he appoints Pence to be in charge of the virus response.

These amoral idiots are gonna get millions of people killed. -_-



CaptainExplosion said:

Trump says the United States is "very ready" for the coronavirus. Then he appoints Pence to be in charge of the virus response.

These amoral idiots are gonna get millions of people killed. -_-

Very ready.....by having fired the U.S. Pandemic Response Team and cut the CDCs global disease outbreak prevention efforts by 80% 2 years ago.  And now putting a guy who believes the rapture is coming soon in charge of a pandemic response.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Trump says the United States is "very ready" for the coronavirus. Then he appoints Pence to be in charge of the virus response.

These amoral idiots are gonna get millions of people killed. -_-

Very ready.....by having fired the U.S. Pandemic Response Team and cut the CDCs global disease outbreak prevention efforts by 80% 2 years ago.  And now putting a guy who believes the rapture is coming soon in charge of a pandemic response.

I'm waiting for Erighiggin to spin this into a positive so I can have my chuckle for the day. 



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

SpokenTruth said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Trump says the United States is "very ready" for the coronavirus. Then he appoints Pence to be in charge of the virus response.

These amoral idiots are gonna get millions of people killed. -_-

Very ready.....by having fired the U.S. Pandemic Response Team and cut the CDCs global disease outbreak prevention efforts by 80% 2 years ago.  And now putting a guy who believes the rapture is coming soon in charge of a pandemic response.

And once again they'll be acquitted of their actions because the Republicans will say "No witnesses.". We really are living in a dystopian nightmare. -_-



Runa216 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Very ready.....by having fired the U.S. Pandemic Response Team and cut the CDCs global disease outbreak prevention efforts by 80% 2 years ago.  And now putting a guy who believes the rapture is coming soon in charge of a pandemic response.

I'm waiting for Erighiggin to spin this into a positive so I can have my chuckle for the day. 

You rang?..

3:19 - 3:42

2:22 - 3:48, if you want something to complain about after your chuckle.



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.