Apology accepted. I'll go further and say that Obamacare, despite dealing with a glaring inadequacy in our healthcare (pre-existing conditions), was like replacing a flat tire with your steering wheel. It keeps the car rolling but into territory you don't want to be in. If you have to mandate people to pay into it for it to work, but the mandate is unconstitutional, moving the mandate to tax code is stepping around the process by which these things should go through. What we really need is a European-style multi-payer system or single-payer, but that is a can of worms I'd rather not open. Originally Posted by howdy_bootyI am not against some form of safety net as far as a contingency for healthcare.
Also, I am not against an Euro-centric system, but yeah, fuck taxes. That is something for another day.
Dude, I have provided so many links for a lot of my positions! I don't think I've made any argument that wasn't backed up by evidence. And I think we've both been going point by point, but I have tried to focus on rebutting your points and not strawmanning you. You have, on the other hand, called me a lemming, a government cuck, an authoritarian, a democrat, and I think that's just in this post alone.Bullshit. Your entire position was against a strawman of whether or not people should take the vaccine from a medical perspective. I actually agree with you that a vaccine might not be a bad thing, however, I am also willing to give people the benefit of the doubt on conditions, personal medical, religious or otherwise on why they want to make the DECISION to take the vaccine.
My position is that I don't want the government to forcibly make everyone take it via mandate. You bitch and whine about how it's for "public safety" yet I asked you many times why there weren't mandates for other viruses or any other condition.
The Mueller thing was a huge fucking waste of time for everyone involved because it wasn't going to show any kind of tampering with the actual process of the election (of which there was none). Did the report show a foreign nation trying to influence voters. Yes. Yes. But how many other social media advertisements were paid for with foreign donations? It's all public. Was the hacking portion criminal? Sure. Undoubtedly. It showed that the DNC was snubbing the popular candidate. We should be thanking those hackers.Influence? How? Because Russian memes against Hillary? Because people in Russia preferred one to another? That's not influence any more than when Americans had an opinion about Brexit. Is hacking criminal? Yes. But you didn't need hackers to see that the DNC was snubbing Sanders. You only need to see the massive media push for Killary and the fact that she started off the primaries with almost half of her delegates in the bag via Super Delegates, which, btw, you are more than welcome to explain to me because I still don't understand why she started with that when nobody else did.
We should be thanking those hackers.Seriously, what exactly have the hacks revealed? Shit that literally anyone else with eyes could have seen. That's not news. The DNC spent 10 million on an investigation people have been talking about (especially the Bernie people) have been saying for months.
Not that it matters, because even after she bent him over the table and buttfucked him, he still endorsed her. And the fact that he got a third house kind of makes up for it, I guess? But, yeah, fuck the DNC.
Two differences between 2016 and 2020. Number one, evidence. There was a breach and the emails were released to the public. That is HARD evidence of mischief, none of which has been substantiated for 2020.If you know anything about emails, you know that those are often ignored completely by the media. The media buried JOE BIDEN LITERALLY BRIBING SOMEONE WITH BILLIONS ON CAMERA. You speak of hard evidence. That couldn't be more hard evidence than literal video proof of him speaking and bragging about how he bribed the UK AG.
Number two, the Democrats did not contest the facts of the election. Going off of the evidence of the hack, they investigated but did not question the legitimacy of the government. It did also result in a bunch of indictments for crimes as Trump's associates tried to cover their asses. Giant clown circus on all sides.Even before the election, Hillary was saying the Russians were involved. Hell, she was saying the Russians were involved with Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. That's her go-to. The Russians!
But ultimately, this is unrelated to the 2020 election. It's just a "what-about [x]" instead of addressing the lack of evidence for a stolen election.I am not going to say anything about a stolen election. My point is that, why was there a massive, public, multi-million dollar investigation, impeachment threats against Trump's alleged cheating.. but there is none against claims of Biden? And yes, this is What-aboutisms. It's bullshit that only one party seems to get away with everything while the other does nothing.
Which brings me to... both. parties. suck. I am willing to bet someone a session that after all of the cameras are off, the Pelosis, the Bidens, the Bushes, the Obamas, the Schumers, the McConnells and everyone on both sides of the parties go off and laugh at everyone.
How many dozens of lawsuits were filed in the days after the election contesting it?Lawsuits are not the same as investigations on the scale of the Russiagate that the DNC. There was a massive push by every facade of the media, social media changed the rules of posting because of the "Russians"
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN2AF1G1
Compare this to some lawsuits. And you think there is an equivalency? Get the fuck out of here.
The Arizona Republican party just concluded an audit where they DID hire someone to look into their election and now Texas is doing the same. Maybe delusional is too strong a word and I apologize, but what do you call this if not a refutation to your point?The Russia crap lasted a year and some change. And it spent millions. The media got hard talking about Russia. Yeah, big, big difference between hiring someone to look at one state. Are you really going to say that the same amount of effort took place compared to the previous witchhunt?
Well, we have some common ground there. It's why I'm not a Democrat.And I'm not a Republican. If there's anything I hate more than Democrats, it's Republicans. They're the worst. They spent something like 7 years bitching about Obamacare, but when it was time to deliver and they had all three branches, they just shit their pants. FUCK Republicans.
Let me give you the subheading of the article you just linked:Fine. I never said I wanted to continue with the stolen election thing. I am enjoying watching old Joe crash and burn now too much.
"President Trump’s campaign and its allies have lost dozens of court cases challenging President-elect Joe Biden’s win"
A debunked claim does not constitute evidence.
Tell me: did I say there weren't protests? Did I say there weren't riots? No, it definitely happened in both years, don't strawman me on this. Protests I'm definitely cool with. Riots, I'm not, and I'll condemn them on both sides. But the difference between the two responses was the conduct of the losing candidate.I was referring to the party of the losers. Okay. Trump didn't handle the loss graciously. But whining about it and suing someone (which the DNC later would cancel out via Russiagate) is a far cry from the party of the losing candidate actively rioting against the winning candidate. Kamala, Waters, Schumer, all of these morons barely did anything to condemn the shit ton of whining and rioting the losers did.
Oh, and Clinton didn't incite a riot that broke into the Capitol, there was that tooTrump didn't either. You realize he literally told people "Go home" And he made it a point to protest peacefully. But, of course, the media had to spin that as "inciting."
The Burisma thing is still in the news though, which is good. The corruption and influence-peddling has to stop, and this back and forth whataboutism isn't helping us get money out of politics. It's bullshit and no one should cover for Hunter Biden.Money should be out of politics. Special interests should be out of politics. PORK FILLED BILLS should go get fucked.
So, why was Trump shit on so much during the primaries when he funded his own campaign?
Trump was booted from twitter because he used the platform to incite a riot. That's not censorship, it's consequences.He did no such thing. Just like how he didn't say the people in that Alabama incident were "good people." Just like how the media lied about him saying Mexicans were rapists, they lied about him "inciting" violence.
And btw, what violence? You had some morons run into the capital, mess up some desks and one "rioter" gets killed.
Mind you, at this point, there had been almost a year of lockdowns and masking mandates, economies fucked. I don't condone riots or breaking into capitals, but I sure as hell don't blame people for being pissed at that point.
First, let's establish that the federal government is not behind any of this censorship. They have filed no suits (except against protestors that broke into the Capitol).Never said it was. But why is it that these censorships always seem to skew in one direction.
These companies have decided to censor this content because they have deemed it dangerous misinformation and don't want it on their platforms.Define misinformation. What misinformation.
I generally disagree with that assessment, I think people can make up their own minds and judge the validity of information on their own (even if they don't actually do it). The judgment that it's "dangerous" kind of makes sense if you view it as dangerous to the institutions that guarantee our rights.Do you realize that if you saw trans women aren't real women, you can get banned from Facebook or twitter? Or at least get put in "FB jail"? You realize that if you speak out against Islam, the same? That's part of the "misinformation" that these platforms think.
If your issue is the partisan nature of personality-driven news media, I'm right there with you. It absolutely divides us more than it should. MSNBC, Fox, CNN, I think all of their anchors are a net-negative.There's a reason why people say "TV program"
But let's be careful about word choice here. "Cheating" and unfair" could imply voter fraud, and not partisan bias, which you appear to mean.Semantics. If one side has lies constantly told about them, while the others have their lies constantly covered up or excused, that's cheating. You can call it unfair, but if it were any other competition, it would be called cheating.
Also, Trump won in 2016. Do you think the left-wing media was more fair to Trump in 2016 and that's why he won?Trump winning in 2016 was the biggest fluke in American political history. He was never supposed to have won. It was either supposed to have been Rubio (fuck you), Jeb Bush (REAL Fuck you) against Hillary. Gotta continue that dynasty.
Absolutely. I totally agree with you, up to a point. Assertions require evidence, and if none can be found, well... at what point do you stop listening to the fringe?You can listen or stop listening anytime you want. That's choice. But if someone automatically labels them as "conspiracy theorists" and completely disregards them, that does no good.
There are/were concerns. And while some of it is air, some of it is true. But when the media ACTIVELY labels anyone who says so as conspiracy theorists/loons and even censors them, that does nothing in the form of political discourse. It just empowers that group more and makes the other side more adamant towards them.
Let's say someone believes in unicorns. Now I can't absolutely say unicorns don't exist (you can't prove a negative, after all). And maybe I look everywhere this person says they've seen them and don't find them. Maybe I was unlucky, and maybe they're just good at hiding. There is still that tiny percent chance that I'm wrong. However, I'm not going to make any important life decisions based on that tiny chance.If you're saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I agree. However, my problem is when one side is never listened to. That guy who honestly believes in unicorns should at least be able to say it. But he's being called names, being told to STFU and is being banned off of everything because of his claims.
With regards to election, the answer is fairly simple.
Voter ID laws. If you don't have an ID, you don't get to vote. And you vote on the day of. or maybe a day or two before.
