By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Runa216 on 20 February 2020
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Well you won't know if you just keep voting. How do you think the free market works? Are you forced to buy a certain product you want, even if both companies make a lousy version of it? Can you refuse to purchase it, complain in some manner, and eventually get a better version from either of those companies or a new start up? That's not possible in politics?

It was based off of a general point of not doing something because it could end up bad, which could be anything. It's not directly related to Chernobyl, and if that's what you're trying to link it to, then no wonder why you're lost.

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.

For some people, it's never time to stop. There are still issues to misrepresent! Values to uphold despite being 50 years outdated! Arguments to be had! Smugness to share without earning! 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
Bofferbrauer2 said:
EricHiggin said:

Didn't realize America relied so heavily on Chinese medical products. Free health care? Hmm.

*Chinese medical products are far superior. China would never manipulate. China is the best.

And will continue to do so, since the american pharma giants asking prices are way above what most people can afford even with a healthcare plan while the chinese drugs are mostly generics. But that's only true in the US because nobody's there to reign in anybody in that domain - as opposed to virtually every other country in the world.

Don't think you got the point, which is based on what Tucker points out about China having such leverage if it ever wants to use it. 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.

"*Chinese medical products are far superior. China would never manipulate. China is the best."

This was a joke btw. A follow up to what was initially said, also based on what Tucker points out.



EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

You'll have to follow the conversation. 

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

>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?



EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Well you won't know if you just keep voting. How do you think the free market works? Are you forced to buy a certain product you want, even if both companies make a lousy version of it? Can you refuse to purchase it, complain in some manner, and eventually get a better version from either of those companies or a new start up? That's not possible in politics?

It was based off of a general point of not doing something because it could end up bad, which could be anything. It's not directly related to Chernobyl, and if that's what you're trying to link it to, then no wonder why you're lost.

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?



EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Don't think you got the point, which is based on what Tucker points out about China having such leverage if it ever wants to use it. 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.

"*Chinese medical products are far superior. China would never manipulate. China is the best."

This was a joke btw. A follow up to what was initially said, also based on what Tucker points out.

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.



Around the Network
EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

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

Then enlighten me.  How does the leverage change given the product volume doesn't change?

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.



EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

And I'm asking you to explain it.

What if China wants to cut off medical supplies to America for whatever reason. That's the gist of it. Putting all/most of your eggs into one basket, assuming those eggs are of significant importance. What if those eggs aren't just for your family, but for the entire village?



EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

What if China wants to cut off medical supplies to America for whatever reason. That's the gist of it. Putting all/most of your eggs into one basket, assuming those eggs are of significant importance. What if those eggs aren't just for your family, but for the entire village?

And this is where the ignorance of Tucker Carlson is on full display and you're eating it up.

Medicare for all does not me ONE medical goods supplier for all. I can't even believe this is you and Tucker's reasoning.

Does Canada use one medical goods supplier for the whole country?  The UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Germany, etc.....................?

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



sundin13 on 20 February 2020
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...



EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
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?