First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply A Conservative's Criticism of the President
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

PumpkinHat wrote:
Silence is not an endorsement of a group, silence is silence. If Obama had not invited BLM to the White House and instead said nothing not even I would suggest that he was defending them, just because they supported him.



I don't disagree, but this is another example of the same argument I'm making.

Obama didn't say the crucial words "Stop it. Get some help." to them when they needed it the most. Instead he condemned the violence, and not the people that committed the crimes and riots there after in the name of justice, which were primarily black.

He gave the BLM a national stage from which speak of the aggression and injustice of white institutionalized racism, which doesn't statistically exist, and police violence against blacks, which is lower than the white percentage. I don't have the time to get the citations ready, but I'll post them sometime later.

He actually super-broadcasted a violent group and gave them what they wanted, which is recognition, by inviting them to whisper in the nation's ear.
957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

gwargan wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lastly, this bit about "repeal and replace the ACA" is pretty meaningless for myself and a lot of other conservatives. It is the premise that we disagree with. The government shouldn't be an insurance provider (or a lot of other things, for that matter). So I'm honestly not too worried about that. For that matter, I don't really care about The Wall®. But hey, if they think they can come up with something better, go for it, I guess. Just don't talk about it forever without doing anything.



I absolutely agree with what you say about the ACA. The government shouldn't force people to subsidize other people's healthcare, or car insurance for that matter, because it's essential stealing. Using private insurance was a mistake. Public charities pick up most of the slack in making healthcare affordable, so statistically speaking if we want affordable care, donate to charities that support what you want to happen.



Are you saying we should get rid of all forms of insurance? I understand relying on charities to help with healthcare,but as far as I'm aware they don't cover things like car insurance.
108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / The Southern Unit...
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17
Perhaps this is a difference of principle. I 100% agree that he should denounce the alt-right to drive them back into whatever violent, racist hole they crawled out of. We also need to promote education to get minorities to work hard and become successful because it isn't racism that that is holding them back, it is partly culture, partly laziness, and partly entitlement. This is one of the reasons I voted for Bernie, because while college campuses are toxic far left atmospheres, and while education is not necessary for success. education still greatly increases the odds of success in a free-market. But the difference in principle comes because I do not think that Donald Trump choosing not to disavow the alt-right (which is morally abhorrent if you ask me) is somehow an endorsement. I think he definitely needs to but I'm not go to go all McCarthy on him because he doesn't. I think it's a tactical decision not a racist decision.
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

danagram wrote:


gwargan wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lastly, this bit about "repeal and replace the ACA" is pretty meaningless for myself and a lot of other conservatives. It is the premise that we disagree with. The government shouldn't be an insurance provider (or a lot of other things, for that matter). So I'm honestly not too worried about that. For that matter, I don't really care about The Wall®. But hey, if they think they can come up with something better, go for it, I guess. Just don't talk about it forever without doing anything.



I absolutely agree with what you say about the ACA. The government shouldn't force people to subsidize other people's healthcare, or car insurance for that matter, because it's essential stealing. Using private insurance was a mistake. Public charities pick up most of the slack in making healthcare affordable, so statistically speaking if we want affordable care, donate to charities that support what you want to happen.



Are you saying we should get rid of all forms of insurance? I understand relying on charities to help with healthcare,but as far as I'm aware they don't cover things like car insurance.


Ah, well I admit that the car insurance thing wasn't really relevant. I suppose it's mostly an example of what healthcare continues to grow into.

We need insurance definitely for the things that happen in life of course. But that doesn't mean that I should have to pay for Healthcare for others not as well off as I am. While I understand the altruism behind it, that just doesn't justify why the money I work for has to go to others.

I suppose the main argument in this case is that charities already pay a lot of the way for healthcare for pre-existing conditions and such. I pay to the St Jude's charity as my friend's little girl has leukemia.
108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / The Southern Unit...
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

gwargan wrote:


danagram wrote:


gwargan wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lastly, this bit about "repeal and replace the ACA" is pretty meaningless for myself and a lot of other conservatives. It is the premise that we disagree with. The government shouldn't be an insurance provider (or a lot of other things, for that matter). So I'm honestly not too worried about that. For that matter, I don't really care about The Wall®. But hey, if they think they can come up with something better, go for it, I guess. Just don't talk about it forever without doing anything.



I absolutely agree with what you say about the ACA. The government shouldn't force people to subsidize other people's healthcare, or car insurance for that matter, because it's essential stealing. Using private insurance was a mistake. Public charities pick up most of the slack in making healthcare affordable, so statistically speaking if we want affordable care, donate to charities that support what you want to happen.



Are you saying we should get rid of all forms of insurance? I understand relying on charities to help with healthcare,but as far as I'm aware they don't cover things like car insurance.


Ah, well I admit that the car insurance thing wasn't really relevant. I suppose it's mostly an example of what healthcare continues to grow into.

We need insurance definitely for the things that happen in life of course. But that doesn't mean that I should have to pay for Healthcare for others not as well off as I am. While I understand the altruism behind it, that just doesn't justify why the money I work for has to go to others.

I suppose the main argument in this case is that charities already pay a lot of the way for healthcare for pre-existing conditions and such. I pay to the St Jude's charity as my friend's little girl has leukemia.


Can't help but feel that can't rely on people donating to charities out of the goodwill of their heart. 1.) a lot of money that goes to charities goes to "awareness" or advertising to get more money. 2.) A good case study is to look at how foreign aid doesn't always get used in the way it is supposed to be used, while I know that they are not the same thing humans are humans and greed is greed. Charities are fine but for something as imperative as healthcare I don't think the largest economy in the world should have it's people not getting the very best healthcare available. IMHO.
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

PumpkinHat wrote:

Perhaps this is a difference of principle. I 100% agree that he should denounce the alt-right to drive them back into whatever violent, racist hole they crawled out of. We also need to promote education to get minorities to work hard and become successful because it isn't racism that that is holding them back, it is partly culture, partly laziness, and partly entitlement. This is one of the reasons I voted for Bernie, because while college campuses are toxic far left atmospheres, and while education is not necessary for success. education still greatly increases the odds of success in a free-market. But the difference in principle comes because I do not think that Donald Trump choosing not to disavow the alt-right (which is morally abhorrent if you ask me) is somehow an endorsement. I think he definitely needs to but I'm not go to go all McCarthy on him because he doesn't. I think it's a tactical decision not a racist decision.


Absolutely respectable. Very well said.

29629 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17
The thing is Trump views are not opinion by committee. He seems pretty passionate about jobs and the race issues seem to be side thing for him that people like to rope him into. I agree, condemning as often as he can is good. But he can't let the blatantly racist or those that accuse him of being racist turn that into a quagmire. Getting your opponent to be defensive is every republican's Achilles' heel.
957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

gwargan wrote:


danagram wrote:


gwargan wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lastly, this bit about "repeal and replace the ACA" is pretty meaningless for myself and a lot of other conservatives. It is the premise that we disagree with. The government shouldn't be an insurance provider (or a lot of other things, for that matter). So I'm honestly not too worried about that. For that matter, I don't really care about The Wall®. But hey, if they think they can come up with something better, go for it, I guess. Just don't talk about it forever without doing anything.



I absolutely agree with what you say about the ACA. The government shouldn't force people to subsidize other people's healthcare, or car insurance for that matter, because it's essential stealing. Using private insurance was a mistake. Public charities pick up most of the slack in making healthcare affordable, so statistically speaking if we want affordable care, donate to charities that support what you want to happen.



Are you saying we should get rid of all forms of insurance? I understand relying on charities to help with healthcare,but as far as I'm aware they don't cover things like car insurance.


Ah, well I admit that the car insurance thing wasn't really relevant. I suppose it's mostly an example of what healthcare continues to grow into.

We need insurance definitely for the things that happen in life of course. But that doesn't mean that I should have to pay for Healthcare for others not as well off as I am. While I understand the altruism behind it, that just doesn't justify why the money I work for has to go to others.

I suppose the main argument in this case is that charities already pay a lot of the way for healthcare for pre-existing conditions and such. I pay to the St Jude's charity as my friend's little girl has leukemia.


Would you be willing to give up your own healthcare insurance,and just rely on charities? There would no need for employer,and government worker insurance if charities can cover all the costs.
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

danagram wrote:


gwargan wrote:


danagram wrote:


gwargan wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Lastly, this bit about "repeal and replace the ACA" is pretty meaningless for myself and a lot of other conservatives. It is the premise that we disagree with. The government shouldn't be an insurance provider (or a lot of other things, for that matter). So I'm honestly not too worried about that. For that matter, I don't really care about The Wall®. But hey, if they think they can come up with something better, go for it, I guess. Just don't talk about it forever without doing anything.



I absolutely agree with what you say about the ACA. The government shouldn't force people to subsidize other people's healthcare, or car insurance for that matter, because it's essential stealing. Using private insurance was a mistake. Public charities pick up most of the slack in making healthcare affordable, so statistically speaking if we want affordable care, donate to charities that support what you want to happen.



Are you saying we should get rid of all forms of insurance? I understand relying on charities to help with healthcare,but as far as I'm aware they don't cover things like car insurance.


Ah, well I admit that the car insurance thing wasn't really relevant. I suppose it's mostly an example of what healthcare continues to grow into.

We need insurance definitely for the things that happen in life of course. But that doesn't mean that I should have to pay for Healthcare for others not as well off as I am. While I understand the altruism behind it, that just doesn't justify why the money I work for has to go to others.

I suppose the main argument in this case is that charities already pay a lot of the way for healthcare for pre-existing conditions and such. I pay to the St Jude's charity as my friend's little girl has leukemia.


Would you be willing to give up your own healthcare insurance,and just rely on charities? There would no need for employer,and government worker insurance if charities can cover all the costs.



Not necessarily. I would get rid of mandatory private insurance, but keep insurance based from employers because those aren't just based on quality, it is also offered by liability of investment depending on the size of and quality of products and services your company or employer provides, as we are already taxed for it on the state, federal, and local level.

edit: well, not locally taxed for healthcare from my employer. that's silly.
957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

gwargan wrote:

Not necessarily. I would get rid of mandatory private insurance, but keep insurance based from employers because those aren't just based on quality, it is also offered by liability of investment depending on the size of and quality of products and services your company or employer provides, as we are already taxed for it on the state, federal, and local level.


Thing is it won't be up to you,or me on what we get rid of,and what we keep.Employers could argue that they need another yacht while their employees don't need healthcare because the charities can take care of them. Tax payers could argue that they want their money spent else where instead of government workers,or lousy politicians.
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

danagram wrote:


gwargan wrote:

Not necessarily. I would get rid of mandatory private insurance, but keep insurance based from employers because those aren't just based on quality, it is also offered by liability of investment depending on the size of and quality of products and services your company or employer provides, as we are already taxed for it on the state, federal, and local level.


Thing is it won't be up to you,or me on what we get rid of,and what we keep.Employers could argue that they need another yacht while their employees don't need healthcare because the charities can take care of them. Tax payers could argue that they want their money spent else where instead of government workers,or lousy politicians.


While I get your point, there are a few points I want to make.

First, in a free market, it is entirely up to us what we invest in. We can employ the services of any business we want within the confines of the law, and dictate their decisions based on the business they see from us, the general populace.

I'd have to see a little more data, but I'm fairly certain that for companies that make a certain amount of money and have a certain amount of risk are obligated, and mandated, by the government to offer health insurance as a benefit. Like I say I might be mistaken.

Taxpayers have the right to decide to what and where their money goes. But I see your point nonetheless.

But I fear we've gotten a bit of thread topic.
38467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

gornotck wrote:

As to Unversal Healthcare, how much good do you think it would do to support a system that loudly and in public killed a baby? That sort of thing tends to wring hands.


Dr. Hirano hadn't even seen Charlie Gard before he gave his opinion on the boy's case (hell, he hadn't even read Gard's medical records, looked at his brain scans, or heard any of the second opinions before he gave his own), and he was extrapolating his opinion from a handful of findings in patients with a different condition. The experts who had actually seen Gard all agreed with the decision that he should be given as much comfort as possible and allowed to pass. Gard's parents dug in and fought a long legal battle based on the loose promises of a man who had borderline no foundation upon which to offer a clinical opinion. That's the core problem in the Charlie Gard case.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/25/michio-hirano-us-doctor-intervention-charlie-gard-case-raises-ethical-questions

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/24/how-new-brain-scans-showed-charlie-gard-could-not-be-helped

And an FAQ, with a couple of things I want to highlight.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie-gard-key-questions-answered


Why did the hospital go to the courts?

Charlie’s doctors say his condition is incurable and that his quality of life is poor. They say nobody can know whether he is suffering pain. Under these circumstances, and believing treatment to be futile, they would not want to prolong his life. They went to court because they could not come to an agreement with Charlie’s parents to turn off the machines keeping Charlie alive.

The high court, appeal court and the European court of human rights in Strasbourg all agreed that to prolong Charlie’s life risked causing him further suffering and gave permission for the hospital to switch off the life support systems. They said that further treatment would not help him.



What do the Great Ormond Street doctors think of this treatment?

They say they considered this treatment at the end of last year, when Connie Yates found out about it online and raised it with them. In a statement last month, the hospital said it had actually applied for ethical permission to try the experimental drug on Charlie, even though it had never been used before on a patient with his condition.

“By the time that decision was made, Charlie’s condition had greatly worsened and the view was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him,” said the hospital.


Simply put, there wasn't enough time for the treatment to help Gard and no one could be sure it even would've even if it might later help other children. The NHS did not kill Charlie Gard, and his doctors did not act inappropriately.
38467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

MysticGon wrote:

As for the healthcare. I think the U.S. has a stronger moral compass than the U.K., enough to let the parents decide when they should pull the plug on their unresponsive child.


The reason the state intervened in Gard's case was that his doctors agreed he was suffering needlessly under a terminal illness for which there was no effective treatment available. Prior to that point they had petitioned for ethical permission to try a treatment that had been used in patients with other conditions, but were unable to secure that permission quickly enough to help Gard and never had an assurance the treatment would be effective anyway. A point was eventually reached where a consensus that Gard ought to be allowed to pass peacefully emerged among those who'd seen him. The parents, spurred on by insistence that the treatment might work from a man who hadn't even seen their son or read his medical records prior to offering an opinion, prolonged their child's suffering and allowed his condition to worsen while desperately pursuing appeals out of false hope.

That's what happened. Gard's doctors behaved ethically, the courts intervened within the purview of their appropriate authority given the particulars of the case and Gard's rights, and Hirano should've seen Gard (or at least read his records) prior to offering an opinion. This wasn't a moral failing on the part of the UK or the NHS. It was a tragic set of circumstances besetting an unsuspecting family where the available experts (possibly excluding Dr. Hirano) did exactly what they were supposed to do.
runec 
41912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17

MysticGon wrote:
The thing is Trump views are not opinion by committee. He seems pretty passionate about jobs and the race issues seem to be side thing for him that people like to rope him into. I agree, condemning as often as he can is good. But he can't let the blatantly racist or those that accuse him of being racist turn that into a quagmire. Getting your opponent to be defensive is every republican's Achilles' heel.


Most of the time when he's on the defensive its a direct result of a self inflicted wound. Mix that with a pathological inability to accept criticism and you get his 3 am Twitter melt downs and off script ranting at the podium.

Being "passionate" about jobs is also meaningless when you have no idea what you're doing in that regard. Thus far the bulk of what he has done in regards to "jobs" is take credit for things that had nothing to do with him. I also question whether not he's actually passionate about said jobs given how he runs his own businesses in the exact manner he claims is responsible for lost jobs.

25208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / In
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/17/17
Plus if he is going to tweet something maybe check and make sure it's true

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/898254409511129088

Oh and advocating war crimes whither true or not is not very presidential
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.