Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so what youre saying is that the only reason people pay for socialised healthcare is because of government coercion. You want that to continue because of your own personal scenario and it can't be allowed to stop because most people not in that scenario are also selfish and would keep their money, given the choice.

what a bleak view of humanity man.

I have health insurance so would be pretty untouched. However I also know people who can't afford good care. I don't know anyone who would really want our healthcare system to flip over to something closer to that of the US. By the way, the Irish government spend less per head in terms of the healthcare system. France spends half that of the US and has a superb healthcare system.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health

Timberrrrrrrr

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don’t want them to beg to me. I just want a say in who I’m contributing to and how much I’m contributing to them.

There’s a premise here that I need to make clear.

My money that I make through the fruits of my labor is mine. Just as yours is yours.

What I want is to be able to do whatever I like with it. If I want to give charity that’s my business and I should be able to choose exactly who I’m giving it to. I should also have the right not to give charity.

I think a system that forcibly my money and redistributes it to people I don’t know the names off or even care about is immoral.

Do you drive?

20Cent

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don’t want them to beg to me. I just want a say in who I’m contributing to and how much I’m contributing to them.

There’s a premise here that I need to make clear.

My money that I make through the fruits of my labor is mine. Just as yours is yours.

What I want is to be able to do whatever I like with it. If I want to give charity that’s my business and I should be able to choose exactly who I’m giving it to. I should also have the right not to give charity.

I think a system that forcibly my money and redistributes it to people I don’t know the names off or even care about is immoral.

The fruits of your labour don't just come from you though. The infrastructure that allows people to make money comes from society. Only fair one contributes to that unless you expect it for free.

Sean.3516

Leroy42 wrote: »

This was posted in relation the labelling of the kids wearing MAGA hats




And this was in relation to Muslims.



I'm just going to leave these posts on here together

I wasn’t saying that you should assume all Muslims are terrorists. What I said was that in the absence of individual information you have no choice but to defer to group statistics.

This is not comparable to assuming the intentions of the kids for wearing MAGA hats. Individual information was available there in the form of video evidence and showed they were not acting in racist fashion

Pedro K

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don’t want them to beg to me. I just want a say in who I’m contributing to and how much I’m contributing to them.

There’s a premise here that I need to make clear.

My money that I make through the fruits of my labor is mine. Just as yours is yours.

What I want is to be able to do whatever I like with it. If I want to give charity that’s my business and I should be able to choose exactly who I’m giving it to. I should also have the right not to give charity.

I think a system that forcibly my money and redistributes it to people I don’t know the names off or even care about is immoral.

This really is repugnant in the context of health.

Sean.3516

Pedro K wrote: »

You think it's immoral to force other people to foot the healthcare bill. I think it's immoral to deprive somebody in need of medical treatment of that medical treatment because they can't stump up the cash. That is just disgusting.

You think it’s immoral to deprive someone in need of medical treatment.

I think it’s immoral to deprive someone else of their own money against their will in order to provide that healthcare for someone.

As I’ve said the right of an individual to healthcare is an immoral right because I’m order to provide it you have to involuntarily impose duties on other people. Any right that does this is immoral.

Quin_Dub

All,

The discussion on Healthcare and Positive/Negative rights is potentially an interesting one , but perhaps not really for this thread.

If you wish to continue the conversation , by all means open a new thread and a Mod can move the posts from this thread over.

But for now , can we stay broadly on topic here - Meaning Trump..

Thanks

pixelburp

So then. Back to the subject, and more specifically the fallout from the grandiose Tax Cut of 2017 (sidebar, that feels like aeons ago). A survey from the National Association for Business Economics is making the rounds at the moment, because among various quotables there's this fun little nugget:

"A large majority of respondents—84%—indicate that one year after its passage, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans,"

(taken from https://nabe.com/NABE/Surveys/Business_Conditions_Surveys/January_2019_Business_Conditions_Survey_Summary.aspx)

So for all the waffle and talk of the mythic Trickle Down Economy model, the much vaunted tax cut has not translated into accelerated job creation - giving corporations money / tax back does not get transferred to employees, new or current. Or at least at a perceptual level, insofar as a survey can be taken as a guide.

Indeed, AT&T, who apparently lobbied on behalf of the cut as a job generator, ended up axing thousands of jobs - at least according to a Union report.

Those once-off(?) bumps and bonuses that some demographics earned from the cut were always meant to be the sweetener for what is clearly, functionally, money back to the corporations.

Manic Moran

The issue of religious studies in US schools is one which my wife and I have debated from time to time. We think the US has gone too far the other way in excluding from all learning any religion at all in public schools. Given that religion is such an important cultural and political touchstone in global society, some basic knowledge of, say, Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism and Judaism should be taught so that people actually have at least a basic frame of reference in their interactions with others or even when encountering historical cultural references like a lot of books How many misconceptions of Islam, for example, might be reduced if there were a mandatory religion class in US schools? In the US, Christianity is the dominant form of religion, so as long as there is a difference observed between "This is the way it is" and "this is the belief most common in the US which you should know about", at least as an opt-outable option, it's not automatically a bad thing. Of course, I am not sure the details of the bible studies as referenced in the Trump tweet.

Leroy42

Studying religion from a historical and cultural POV is not only useful, I would wager it is totally necessary in order to understand many historical and cultural norms. But that is not bible studies.

However, which bible studies? Is it actually reading the bible itself. Which version. Do they read both the old and new Testaments? Which version of Christianity will it involve?

As a tweeter pointed out, surely when people start to actually read the bible, study it, they will see that Jesus helped the poor and the sick, welcomed everyone into his fold, not just those born in Bethlehem. That he railed against the rich.

Upon reading it, they may be surprised that their POTUS has managed to break do many of the rules within it. Adultery, coveting your neighbours wife, false evidence (lying about Obama and HC), steal (he failed to pay many contractors.

Its a complete nonsense. A tweet sent out to try to recover some of the lost ground with his base since he failed so utterly and completely in the shutdown. It is so transparent that I wonder why you thought it worthy to mention.

Also Jesus was a pretty peaceful dude, not sure what he would think of people carrying guns everywhere!

Itssoeasy

I see Trump has hit out at some Fox News journalists and it seems Ann coulter won't be on the president Christmas card list this year. He needs the base as while Ann coulter isn't all of the base I'm sure she helps to keep the base with Trump, but she is off the Trump train it seems. I mean I don't know how Donald Trump gets out of this mess and there isn't another government shutdown in 18 days from now. What a mess.

Itssoeasy

Nancy pelosi has invited president Donald Trump to deliver the state of the union address on February 5th.

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Nancy pelosi has invited president Donald Trump to deliver the state of the union address on February 5th.

Surprised at that , I thought she'd hold off until a final deal was done.

This just gives him a pulpit to spout his idiotic "National Emergency" rhetoric.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Nancy pelosi has invited president Donald Trump to deliver the state of the union address on February 5th.

Matt Whitaker in the last few hours says the Mueller report is due shortly!

(Maybe Pelosi invited him, so that when he walks in, they slap the cuffs on him...)

Water John

No, Pelosi's judgement is correct. Always be magnamanous.

Midlife

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You think it’s immoral to deprive someone in need of medical treatment.

I think it’s immoral to deprive someone else of their own money against their will in order to provide that healthcare for someone.

As I’ve said the right of an individual to healthcare is an immoral right because I’m order to provide it you have to involuntarily impose duties on other people. Any right that does this is immoral.

Do you actively blame poor people for being poor or do you just not care about them?

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Matt Whitaker in the last few hours says the Mueller report is due shortly!

His language was vague and I think he's full of shít. Mueller's team only recently executed search warrants on Stone's properties. Processing that will take some time. As will the NRA stuff. As will processing the House Intel closed sessions transcripts which the Republicans are slowing down by not filling committee positions. There's the mystery state owned company too.



This is most likely the same kind of nearly done that you've been hearing from Giuliani over the past few years.


Peter Carr had no comment.

Leroy42

Edit

prawnsambo

mcmoustache wrote: »

His language was vague and I think he's full of shít. Mueller's team only recently executed search warrants on Stone's properties. Processing that will take some time. As will the NRA stuff. As will processing the House Intel closed sessions transcripts which the Republicans are slowing down by not filling committee positions. There's the mystery state owned company too.

I would have thought those would be old news to Mueller. Maybe I'm wrong, but the house intel committee would be playing catch up really.

Christy42

I doubt it is any day now in any case.

I had thought I had heard March somewhere? Anyway this stuff can't be rushed. A single i does not get dotted correctly and it will be used to throw out the entire thing.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

Matt Whitaker in the last few hours says the Mueller report is due shortly!

Trump and his disciples have been saying the same thing for many months now.

It’s just wishful thinking on their part.

mcmoustache

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would have thought those would be old news to Mueller. Maybe I'm wrong, but the house intel committee would be playing catch up really.

That's true for the facts of what happened but Mueller has been charging people with lying to Congress and the house intel committee can refer the testimony to Mueller. The Senate Intel has already done so in some cases that they didn't name.


There's no question that Mueller is way ahead of the committees but false testimony about material facts from people like Trump Jr and Eric Prince would certainly be of interest and provide for easy indictments.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Are you saying that mattis and the trump administration are in no way responsible for the almost eradication of ISIS

duploelabs wrote: »

I said nothing of the kind, I merely asked you to back up your initial claim.

I'm still waiting

Leroy42

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I wasn’t saying that you should assume all Muslims are terrorists. What I said was that in the absence of individual information you have no choice but to defer to group statistics.

This is not comparable to assuming the intentions of the kids for wearing MAGA hats. Individual information was available there in the form of video evidence and showed they were not acting in racist fashion

You were saying they were potential terrorists and should be treated with extreme caution until they prove otherwise. Yet we should treat all the people wearing Trump hats has being nothing but followers of fashion with no alignment on his policies.

The issue you had was that people were ascribing the traits and personality of Trump onto these kids, and other people, simply for wearing the hat. When, quite rightly, just wearing the hat does not in of itself show they support everything about him (although I would argue it is a known symbol and goes beyond simply the slogan written on it).

On the other hand, you think it is perfectly reasonable to categorise every single person from a particular country as to sharing the same outlook as a terrorist.

Why do you have one rule for one group of people (that happen to be white and whose politics you agree with) yet a completely different rule for another group (who happen to have a different religion and a different skin colour).

Leroy42

serfboard wrote: »

Trump and his disciples have been saying the same thing for many months now.

It’s just wishful thinking on their part.

Totally. He only just arrested Stone. Are we supposed to believe that he thinks he can get no further info from Stone, that he won't bother checking anything Stone says, or in some cases doesn't say?

To believe that one has to believe that Mueller already has a water tight case against Stone and doesn't need him at all in the investigation, meaning that he already knows what Trump was up to.

I don't see why the journos don't pull SHS or others up on the previous time they have cited the end of the investigation and ask them why they should believe them this time.

seamus

The Mueller report won't arrive before Kushner or Trump Jr are arrested.

Penn

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would have thought those would be old news to Mueller. Maybe I'm wrong, but the house intel committee would be playing catch up really.

Can't remember if I saw it here or Twitter, but the GOP haven't assigned any Republicans to sit on the House Intelligence Committee yet, which means the Committee is unable to do anything until they do, including releasing any transcripts or similar to Mueller (which I believe I read there are requests for those pending). So there is a hold-up on documents requested by Mueller from the Committee. Sen.Schiff has said the first act of the Committee will be issuing those documents.

GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has said they'll assign people to sit on the Committee next week. No reason for a hold-up though, considering others have already been assigned to over 20 other committees without hassle or delay.

Just realised I remember where I saw it. It was Rachel Maddow. Explains it better than me.
https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1088992076027572224

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally. He only just arrested Stone. Are we supposed to believe that he thinks he can get no further info from Stone, that he won't bother checking anything Stone says, or in some cases doesn't say?

To believe that one has to believe that Mueller already has a water tight case against Stone and doesn't need him at all in the investigation, meaning that he already knows what Trump was up to.

I don't see why the journos don't pull SHS or others up on the previous time they have cited the end of the investigation and ask them why they should believe them this time.

The difference here is that Whitaker prefaced his comments by saying he has been fully briefed. This is the first time a senior official with direct knowledge has said such a thing. When Rudy or SHS says it, I disregard. It was just interesting to note his comments.

Having said all of that, I have now seen the footage and the guy was sweating profusely and stumbling through. Either he realised that he shouldn't be talking about the report or he knew he was lying and may get into trouble for it.

Igotadose

So, in a briefing room meeting, porn-moustache John Bolton, one of the best people, had '5000 troops to Colombia' on a visible notepad. Venezuela was discussed in the meeting. Brilliant.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/427383-white-house-says-all-options-on-the-table-after-bolton-notepad

Brian?

New dot on the timeline for obstruction of justice.

Kushner fires Flynn.

Lunchtime 14th of Feb, Chris Christie has lunch with Trump and Kushner. He’s amazed they think firing Flynn will be the end of the investigation. Tells them so and they start to panic.

3 hours later Trump meets with Comey and asks him to drop the investigation.