Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 267: Dang, Yang Gang

(+) Yeah! (+)

RaidenGarai posted...

Sorry about that, I miss a lot of what goes on here with real life stuff, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking.

The private sector is driven by profits and there's a ton of corporate greed, there's no disputing that, but that's one thing I think makes them better than the government in some areas. I believe that innovation comes primarily from the private sector. They're always looking at ways to increase efficiency and reduce costs because that gets them more money. I feel anything run by the government wouldn't work anywhere near as hard in those areas. To me, the private sectors greed will make them try a lot harder than the government, who has no problem tossing money away. I'm not saying the private sector is perfect because they're not even close, but that's my reasoning.

No problem. It initially took me like 30-40 minutes to get all of my thoughts into words on that one, and things happen.

Anyways, let's look at two of the areas that are commonly brought up as things that people want taken out of private/corporate hands:
1) Healthcare. Collectively, we've had this argument ad infinitum at this point. But this is by far the most egregious example because it attaches the profit motive to people's literal lives. The ACA was a step forward, but people can and have literally died because insurance companies didn't want to cover them. Why is that happening, if not for greed? And why is it acceptable?

2) Telecom infrastructure/Internet Service Providers. Do you know anybody who actually likes their cable/satellite TV provider or ISP (To clarify, I do not mean "Is ok with" their provider, especially when factored in relative to the competition where applicable. I mean "actively likes")? These businesses are coordinated, regional monopolies that go out of their way to not compete wherever possible. They provide crap for infrastructure and refuse to upgrade it (Going so far as taking grant money to do so, then not upgrading a damn thing), and they provide worse for customer service. They lobby heavily to be able to keep their monopolies. What is competition and innovation accomplishing here?

There may be other industries where the competition and innovation argument applies. However, it seems to me that those aren't the ones that people want to see put into the government's hands.

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't think it's personal at all.

It's just that you've kinda openly admitted that you work in a sector that screws over a lot of people, and thus since you personally benefit from it, you'd rather vote Trump then potentially lose that.

And that's perfectly fine, but you gotta expect people to not like that.

I do work for one of the major insurers, yes, but I've given plenty of reasons as to why I don't think M4A is a viable solution to this countries broken healthcare system, and why I remain at that company. Hell, there was actually a decent discussion about a few topics ago when I first brought it up. Like I said then, I have no problem losing my job to government run healthcare if I feel the system will work and will actually benefit people. Based on my knowledge of the industry, I don't think M4A will do that.
PerfectChaosZ posted...

I guess you can put up with a lot as long as it isnt directed at you and only affects other people. Name calling. Jeez Louise.

I don't care what someones political beliefs are, just that they're capable of talking about things in a rational manner. People get upset here, but most of us seem like mature adults. That's a good thing.

---

I really dont know what Wangs obsession with Tucker is.

I remember last time he brought him up a few topics ago, I counter-argued with some obscene dehumanizing shit Tucker spouted awhile ago and Wang tried to counter by saying Tuckermellowed out after Jon Stewart destroyed Crossfire, despite my examples being many years AFTER that happened.

I think its some attempt to depolarize politics but thats impossible and is certainly not a goal of mine. No compromise on equal rights.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Lmfao. Get outta here with that shit.

Remember when the Right tried to say Obamacare would create death panels?

Well without the laws preventing them, health insurance discriminating on preexisting conditions and coverage caps are almost literally that, so...

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Why does the fact that they may share one set of opinions suddenly mean they're one in the same on everything and thus he can't insult Tucker without "hating himself?"

Like, are you claiming that Reg must definitely spout far right rhetoric in his spare time just because they share the same thoughts on a few candidates?

That's pretty dumb.

if you agree with someone in politics multiple times, on multiple issues, sounds like you two share similar political beliefs on some level. realistically i wouldn't put either as far right but it's a fun tongue in cheek thing to go with since there's agreement. this isn't "some opinions" it's opinions on politics, on presidential candidates, on political parties. this is a direct instance to help identify where one falls on a political spectrum and what their differences are.

Jakyl25 posted...

Hannity always beats him

i thought tucker consistently was getting better numbers? hannity... targets a different group of republicans, i think. neocons are more in line with him for sure but i'm not sure what category they'd fall for with him. maybe more popular with evangelicals?

StealThisSheen posted...

...Wait. You say you're afraid of Bloomberg buying Congressional seats and then pick the guy who quite literally has half of Congress literally doing whatever the fuck he wants, and then insist Trump is "kept in line?"

more so than bloomberg would.
bear in mind, i also think there's a real chance republicans lose the senate too. so in my head it's trump + dem house + dem senate or at least a senate that's even closer. i'd like the executive branch to have its powers limited much more than they currently are and with trump there's a real chance that can happen. let's start with "pre-Clinton" and go from there.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

...Wait. You say you're afraid of Bloomberg buying Congressional seats and then pick the guy who quite literally has half of Congress literally doing whatever the fuck he wants, and then insist Trump is "kept in line?"

Yeah this is pretty weak reasoning

Also Trump might not actually step down after 2024 anyway!
---

Wanglicious posted...

i thought tucker consistently was getting better numbers? hannity... targets a different group of republicans, i think. neocons are more in line with him for sure but i'm not sure what category they'd fall for with him. maybe more popular with evangelicals?

Nope. Its close but Hannity wins the night over everyone. Then its a battle between Tucker and Maddow for 2nd and 3rd, then then Ingraham a solid 4th.

All of them can fuck off. Especially Chris Matthews
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I think its some attempt to depolarize politics but thats impossible and is certainly not a goal of mine. No compromise on equal rights.

this is definitely one of the things i'd like to do as much as possible, yes. i really hate the polarization we're stuck in.

if the left has figures the right can agree with, it should be pointed out. bernie and yang are both examples for candidates that do it well. if the right has figures the left can agree with, it should be pointed out. tucker is, oddly enough, very often an instance of this.

---

Wang, I will say this exactly once

Quit trying to normalize a literal fucking white supremacist, or fuck off forever.

Your choice. But do one of them.

Jakyl25 posted...

Also Trump might not actually step down after 2024 anyway!

and bloomberg wouldn't after 2028 if his run as mayor in new york is anything to go by!
you know, where he bought people off to change the rules so he could run a third time.


---

Ugh this is so gross

https://twitter.com/franklinleonard/status/1227784469249003520?s=21

---

Reg posted...

Wang, I will say this exactly once

Quit trying to normalize a literal fucking white supremacist, or fuck off forever.

Your choice. But do one of them.

if you mean tucker, i don't need to normalize shit - he is your mainstream standard. he ain't a white supremacist. and you agree with him a hell of a lot more than you wish you did. that's your issue to deal with, not mine.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ugh this is so gross

https://twitter.com/franklinleonard/status/1227784469249003520?s=21

Hey maybe Corrik is right about his theory of Bloomberg taking a good chunk of Trump's base!

---

Okay I was wrong about one thing; Ingraham consistently beats Maddow now for 3rd
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ugh this is so gross

https://twitter.com/franklinleonard/status/1227784469249003520?s=21

Would you still put this fuck above Bernie?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nope. Its close but Hannity wins the night over everyone. Then its a battle between Tucker and Maddow for 2nd and 3rd, then then Ingraham a solid 4th.

All of them can fuck off. Especially Chris Matthews

man, i thought tucker overtook him a few times but not even the iran bit had him. 5.7 to hannity's 5.74.
...well that's depressing.

but if hannity gets evangelicals... guess it fits.

---

Wanglicious posted...

if you mean tucker, i don't need to normalize shit - he is your mainstream standard. he ain't a white supremacist. and you agree with him a hell of a lot more than you wish you did. that's your issue to deal with, not mine.

Well I can agree that he is a mainstream standard

Thats why the far left wont ever win here

Which is why I was trying to get Corrik to fund my relocation to another country so I dont have to live somewhere where half the people relate to Tucker
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well I can agree that he is a mainstream standard

Thats why the far left wont ever win here

Which is why I was trying to get Corrik to fund my relocation to another country so I dont have to live somewhere where half the people relate to Tucker

I'll order you an Uber when ur ready jakyl!

---

Wanglicious posted...

man, i thought tucker overtook him a few times but not even the iran bit had him. 5.7 to hannity's 5.74.
...well that's depressing.

but if hannity gets evangelicals... guess it fits.

Tucker does routinely win the key demo, but Hannitys seniors keep him higher in overall viewers

And seniors run the country
---

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1227771973079650304?s=21

Warren stabbing Bernie in the back when she literally crossed the Culinary Unions picket line last year (details in the replies).

Such a shame.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Remember when the Right tried to say Obamacare would create death panels?

Well without the laws preventing them, health insurance discriminating on preexisting conditions and coverage caps are almost literally that, so...

The idea of death panels is they discriminate based on something else, like value to society. So a Harvard professor might be deemed worthy of a surgery while a factory worker or sickly child is left to die. In it's most extreme form, it could become partisan - with conservatives denied healthcare for their political views.

---

Wanglicious posted...

and bloomberg wouldn't after 2028 if his run as mayor in new york is anything to go by!
you know, where he bought people off to change the rules so he could run a third time.

This is true

I trust Bloomberg would kowtow to more agreeable special interest groups for me than Trump does though
---

i didn't expect Hannity to be an even bigger one but guess i'm not in touch with many who support that one. i assume Corrik probably is though. the two at least are close (checked November numbers, 3.585 vs. 3.413) but maybe there's a certain urban/suburban split there. just don't know enough of Hannity's base to really figure that one out. but either way, the idea that I'm somehow normalizing the 2nd most watched news guy is hilarious.

in terms of the far left - hannity's likely the bigger issue. tucker at least agrees with a few things and can hold a conversation, disagree with and mock maybe but there's something to work with. i don't think you'd get that from the other fox hosts. for other countries i thought you were just targetting canada?

---

Tucker feels disingenuous to me. And he does that thing about mocking the defenseless which really bothers me.

Judge Jeanine is way better - she goes after people who deserve it, and can take it.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1227771973079650304?s=21

Warren stabbing Bernie in the back when she literally crossed the Culinary Unions picket line last year (details in the replies).

Such a shame.

Dude, its this works. Shes in her campaign death throes so she has to bullshit some differentiation somewhere.

Then once shes out shell be praising Bernie if hes the nominee.

Never have any expectations of any politician during a campaign. The entire process is garbage.
---

Reg posted...

No problem. It initially took me like 30-40 minutes to get all of my thoughts into words on that one, and things happen.

Anyways, let's look at two of the areas that are commonly brought up as things that people want taken out of private/corporate hands:
1) Healthcare. Collectively, we've had this argument ad infinitum at this point. But this is by far the most egregious example because it attaches the profit motive to people's literal lives. The ACA was a step forward, but people can and have literally died because insurance companies didn't want to cover them. Why is that happening, if not for greed? And why is it acceptable?

2) Telecom infrastructure/Internet Service Providers. Do you know anybody who actually likes their cable/satellite TV provider or ISP? These businesses are coordinated, regional monopolies that go out of their way to not compete wherever possible. They provide crap for infrastructure and refuse to upgrade it (Going so far as taking grant money to do so, then not upgrading a damn thing), and they provide worse for customer service. They lobby heavily to be able to keep their monopolies. What is competition and innovation accomplishing here?

There may be other industries where the competition and innovation argument applies. However, it seems to me that those aren't the ones that people want to see put into the government's hands.

1.) I don't think it is acceptable, and I think that it is greed. I've never agreed with the concept of pre-existing conditions. It's a garbage practice and I think it should have been banned long before the ACA came along. I might work for an insurance company, but I don't agree with the majority of what they do. My biggest concern with a government run plan is that the quality of care for everybody will take a massive dive as we start having less doctors to treat more people. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. The only way I see a government run plan with no private insurance working is if the government can reimburse doctors and hospitals at the same rates that the insurance companies do, and not at the much lower rates that Medicare does. A friend of mine is moving to Ireland later this year, and I've already asked her to give me the details on how they do things there. She said her clinic has private insurance in addition to the universal coverage, and I'm very interested to see how that works. It sounds like the private insurance might be some kind of supplemental coverage, but she won't be there for another 6 or 7 months so it'll be a while before I can get her firsthand experience with it.

2.) I can't offer much on this one. I certainly hate Spectrum, and I haven't heard of anybody who likes their ISP or cable provider either. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of ISPs in the same ways that I am with the healthcare industry so there are too many gaps in my knowledge here. I certainly can't think of anything that drives innovation there.

Trying to make something more cost effective or efficient wouldn't work the same in Telecoms as it would in something like Healthcare, since they're so different and are a lot of things are specific to that industry. A way to get claims out the door faster so they don't need to get touched by a person won't help an ISP anywhere. I don't know enough about something like auto insurance, but there might be some overlap there if the private sector was removed from healthcare, so they might be able to work together in that way when we eventually do get to a government run system.

And with that, I need to haul my ass to bed. Need to get up in 6 hours and I'm still wide awake!

---

red sox 777 posted...

Tucker feels disingenuous to me. And he does that thing about mocking the defenseless which really bothers me.

Judge Jeanine is way better - she goes after people who deserve it, and can take it.

I do agree that Judge Jeanine seems to honestly believe every batshit thing that comes out of her mouth
---

Wanglicious posted...

news guy

Thats inaccurate for any of the nighttime hosts on any channel
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Would you still put this fuck above Bernie?

In 1996 and 1997, four women filed sexual harassment suits against Bloomberg LP. One of them, a sales executive named Sekiko Garrison, alleges that Michael Bloomberg told her to "Kill it!" when she shared with him that she was pregnant.

I guess he is pro-choice! = /

And doesn't even get the benefit to act ignorant to the fact it is taking a life!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Would you still put this fuck above Bernie?

Ugh I dont know

I guess Id probably vote for a third person even if they were the only two viable candidates (though thankfully theres no way thatll happen since Im voting on Super Tuesday)

---

Nobody disagrees that abortion kills something that is alive, Corrik
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nobody disagrees that abortion kills something that is alive, Corrik

Uh, yes, some do.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Uh, yes, some do.

...citation needed
---

Im really trying to fathom how stupid someone would have to be who knows what cells are and doesnt know they can be alive
---

Jakyl25 posted...

...citation needed

We already talked about the parasite theory.

The main premise besides that is that the fetus cannot live on its own so it is simply not having it's life taken, but it just cannot support its own life and thus dies without the body it is in.

---

Corrik7 posted...

In 1996 and 1997, four women filed sexual harassment suits against Bloomberg LP. One of them, a sales executive named Sekiko Garrison, alleges that Michael Bloomberg told her to "Kill it!" when she shared with him that she was pregnant.

I guess he is pro-choice! = /

And doesn't even get the benefit to act ignorant to the fact it is taking a life!

For the record I am extremely pro choice and still find that quote to be completely disgusting

---

Corrik7 posted...

We already talked about the parasite theory.

The main premise besides that is that the fetus cannot live on its own so it is simply not having it's life taken, but it just cannot support its own life and thus dies without the body it is in.

Something dying would imply it was alive

All parasitic organisms are alive at some point
---

i mean alive or not in the sense that it's a living thing... yeah, nobody disagrees with that. but the abortion objection comes on if that thing that's alive counts as human or not. when you say 'kill it' nobody's thinking 'oh he's just meaning kill a bunch of cells' as much as 'kill the fetus,' even if it's not technically a fetus yet. i don't think you're gonna get much support from the pro-life side with the defense of "when I referred to 'it,' I merely meant clump of cells, not child."

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Something dying would imply it was alive

All parasitic organisms are alive at some point

Are you like talking about something other than what I am? He said "Kill it".

I said "taking a life".

Are you trying some ass backwards shit that doesn't apply here?

---

Wanglicious posted...

mean alive or not in the sense that it's a living thing... yeah, nobody disagrees with that.

I assumed Corrik was claiming some people do!

Maybe the point of contention was kills?

The process of abortion ends an organisms life. I hope everyone on earth who can comprehend that sentence agrees with it.
---

I shed some skin cells today. I sure took some fucking lives today ayyyyyy o. - Jakyl.

Like wtf dude. Make sense some lol

---

if you shed the skin cells I think they were already dead

you didnt take their life, they committed suicide
---

Can someone help us here? Im honestly lost.
---

oh i get what you meant on it.
i just also don't think he thought that at all, that it just went over his head because he just wasn't thinking of anything in that category and was in "abortion, baby" mode.


---

I briefly unignored Corrik, saw the skin cells post, and immediately had to ignore him again

What in the world

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I briefly unignored Corrik, saw the skin cells post, and immediately had to ignore him again

What in the world

Give this guy a pat on the back. What a hero of the people.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nobody disagrees that abortion kills something that is alive, Corrik

Corrik7 posted...

Uh, yes, some do.

This is the sequence I keep going back to and wondering how Corrik continued from there in the manner that he did.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

if you shed the skin cells I think they were already dead

you didnt take their life, they committed suicide

The point was that no one talks that way and jakyl is just trying to be that guy right now. His post as he is trying to say he means it doesn't make sense in context nor with what is even being said.

Killing it and taking its life is the context and he is talking about cells are alive hurrdurr or some shit. Like, lol really?

---

sure.

Corrik7 posted...

I guess he is pro-choice! = /

And doesn't even get the benefit to act ignorant to the fact it is taking a life!

corrik: pro-choice and when he says kill it he's talking about taking a (human) life!

Jakyl25 posted...

Nobody disagrees that abortion kills something that is alive, Corrik

jakyl: of course that thing was alive. it's a clump of cells, it's a living thing, saying to 'kill it' means that he wants to remove that thing inside her, which for the record is not a human.

corrik meant human life.
you just saw all life.
both can be viewed as technically correct as it's really however you interpret bloomberg to be, which i assume is pro-choice anyway. if you're saying abortion and kill in the same sentence pro-lifers assume human, pro-choice don't.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

This is the sequence I keep going back to and wondering how Corrik continued from there in the manner that he did.

I assumed you were talking in context, Jakyl.

---