There Will Be Hell Toupée! (The Donald Trump Thread)

[heyimdb]

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/05/gary-johnson-on-meet-the-press-all-this

just gonna leave this here. 

[heyimdb]

Seems like reasoning is dead in society. DEVO was right. Man is evolving in reverse. 

There are forward thinking people with answers and then there is the liberal establishment telling us were all idiots and that the answer is more government and more taxation. Spend your way out of debt. Create more debt to get out of debt. The answer is never more government. 

 

[Bladewillisisdead]

1 hour ago, heyimdb said:

Why should healthcare be socialized? How can the nation afford that?

You're a fucking moron.

[heyimdb]

3 minutes ago, Bladewillisisdead said:

You're a fucking moron.

In a nation with increasing inflation, decreasing job market, and decreasing industry, how do you propose we pay for it? 

I would like to hear your response rather than telling me I'm a moron. You seem to be the one who is a broken record repeating himself and contradicting himself. You spout off and say immature things about killing people you don't agree with as well as using the government to enforce your ideas on others. 

So what is your solution? Enforce mass extortion on everyone? Use violence and limit the rights of the individual merely because your opinion differs?

 

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

29 minutes ago, Bladewillisisdead said:

You're a fucking moron.

It is a reasonable question, even if it is posed a little aggressively.

 

If the government were to raise my taxes significantly enough to socialize healthcare I'll be broke and homeless.

 

It seems like you're not comprehending that taxes will have to be raised for everyone (not just corporations and the ultra rich) to socialize healthcare. If I were to lose my home and savings, it would be a short time before I lost my job. Then the taxes I was paying would disappear putting more of that burden on you.

I'm not out here making 100k/year even combined with my wife's income. Hell, if we gross 75k between the two of us that would surprise me. Yet my taxes would certainly increase because most people making our income or more already have insurance through their jobs.

It becomes a question of why I need to work my ass off to provide for people who work part time. I know that's not the nicest thing to say, but we get by comfortably, but I'm also not out here buying "solid gold toilets." Why should my quality of life suffer to provide to other what they won't provide for themselves? (Disabled folks excluded, of course. Anyone with a disability preventing them from working deserves help and should get it.)

Edited June 5, 2016 by The Ghost of Randy Savage

[heyimdb]

12 minutes ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

It is a reasonable question, even if it is posed a little aggressively.

 

If the government were to raise my taxes significantly enough to socialize healthcare I'll be broke and homeless.

 

It seems like you're not comprehending that taxes will have to be raised for everyone (not just corporations and the ultra rich) to socialize healthcare. If I were to lose my home and savings, it would be a short time before I lost my job. Then the taxes I was paying would disappear putting more of that burden on you.

I'm not out here making 100k/year even combined with my wife's income. Hell, if we gross 75k between the two of us that would surprise me. Yet my taxes would certainly increase because most people making our income or more already have insurance through their jobs.

It becomes a question of why I need to work my ass off to provide for people who work part time. I know that's not the nicest thing to say, but we get by comfortably, but I'm also not out here buying "solid gold toilets." Why should my quality of life suffer to provide to other what they won't provide for themselves? (Disabled folks excluded, of course. Anyone with a disability preventing them from working deserves help and should get it.)

A profoundly valid point. 

[dvv]

maybe someone should start a new thread for political arguments, I was fine with this thread being about shitting on trump

[stl_ben]

What reality tv star will be his VP? I'm hoping for The Situation. 

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

30 minutes ago, stl_ben said:

What reality tv star will be his VP? I'm hoping for The Situation. 

Hulk Hogan.

[harryq]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

Why should my quality of life suffer to provide to other what they won't provide for themselves? (Disabled folks excluded, of course. Anyone with a disability preventing them from working deserves help and should get it.)

Who is going to pay for the disabled folks' medical bills?  And who gets to decide what constitutes a "disability"?  And do we also help children of disabled folks, or should we force them to provide for themselves?  I suppose we could just let the free market decide, right?  I don't see how that could possibly go wrong.

 

And my response to your question: Because it's the right thing to do.  That said, it's certainly up for debate how to go about helping people who can't/won't provide for themselves.  Maybe if we (as a nation) would elect more rational people into public office, we'd be able to come up with more rational solutions.

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

3 hours ago, harryq said:

Who is going to pay for the disabled folks' medical bills?  And who gets to decide what constitutes a "disability"?  And do we also help children of disabled folks, or should we force them to provide for themselves?  I suppose we could just let the free market decide, right?  I don't see how that could possibly go wrong.

 

And my response to your question: Because it's the right thing to do.  That said, it's certainly up for debate how to go about helping people who can't/won't provide for themselves.  Maybe if we (as a nation) would elect more rational people into public office, we'd be able to come up with more rational solutions.

My quality of life going down so others' can go up is the right thing to do? So you're comfortable going from wherever you are, to a lesser level of comfort out of the goodness of your heart to make other people who won't take care of themselves more comfortable? This makes me assume (and of course I could be wrong) that you're either significantly better, or worse off financially than I am.

 

I've never claimed to have all the answers, and anyone who tells you that they do is a liar. I do know that I already make less money than I could because I've chosen a job that is hard, pays...ok, but is emotionally rewarding, so to have to give more of that money away under threat of jail isn't something I'm interested in doing.

 

Obviously the money to pay for disabled people's bills/treatment has to come from taxes if the government is handling it, but it's the difference between every single person in the US, and a very small portion of the people in the US. I'd imagine we can find some other places to cut funding to make up the difference there at any rate and not have to raise tax levels. As for the children of disabled people, well, that sure is a tough question isn't it? I'm going to really sound like an asshole here, but I think if you have a child you're unable to take care of, that's on you. You made that decision/mistake on your own. It's a very different situation if someone becomes disabled after having children of course. Again, I don't have all the answers, but this one is especially hard. I do think children deserve separate consideration from adults, but again, it's not something I've given a lot of consideration to and would need to think about for a while to form a better response.

There are already government entities who work with people who have disabilities. While I'd rather see those privatized so that we don't have to pay for them, I know that's a tough hill to climb. And as for who will diagnose these disabilities...we just so happen to have these people... they're called doctors. Their entire job is to tell people what is going on with their minds and bodies. I'd imagine they are able to say whether someone is capable of working and taking care of themselves.

 

In days past, a family would take care of people with disabilities who couldn't provide for themselves. It's tough for people these days to swallow that for whatever reason. It's sad that we've come to a point where that isn't even a consideration any more. Everyone wants someone else to take care of their parents/children/siblings who are unable to care for themselves. It's a real shame.

 

The bolded portion is where I have the worst of my problem. I absolutely refuse to take care of people who won't take care of themselves. Your argument that we need to elect more rational people fits in line with what rambo, new guy and I have been saying this whole time, so I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. Maybe I'm just perceiving something that isn't even there.

 

Sorry if this is rambling. It's hot here today, I was woken up last night a number of times (on-call weekend) and I'm having a tough time concentrating.

[daegor]

2 hours ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

My quality of life going down so others' can go up is the right thing to do? So you're comfortable going from wherever you are, to a lesser level of comfort out of the goodness of your heart to make other people who won't take care of themselves more comfortable? This makes me assume (and of course I could be wrong) that you're either significantly better, or worse off financially than I am.

I'm interjecting here into a conversation I was not a part of, and I'm Canadian so the situation is different, AND I don't know anyone on disibility

 

BUT.  I personally spent the majority of my 20s living below the poverty line.  In Canada you can live relatively comfortably below the poverty line due to a lot of social programs, free medical, low taxes, cheap education, social assisted income scaled housing, etc.  Well, depending on how far below the line you live.

 

I had the good fortune of being able to move my way up to what I guess might be 'upper middle class', and now I don't qualify for social programs, I pay full medical (yes, much cheaper than the US still), high taxes, cheap education (that's just universal), I don't qualify for cheap housing. Basically, I pay the government a lot more now that I'm not poor.

 

The rich pay for the poor.

 

I have the relatively unique perspective of being both sides at different points in my life.  I have no problem paying my dues so I that someone else has a chance to elevate themselves.

 

even with the realization that for every person who is willing and able to put in the effort to elevate themselves, there is another person who is either unable or unwilling to do so.

Edited June 6, 2016 by daegor

[boops_popmarket]

Bitching about your taxes going to other people in need and completely leapfrogging the fact that this is just a small portion of what our taxes go toward is an American pastime.

[heyimdb]

California has a larger population than the country of Canada... just saying. 

 

And bitching about taxes has been our favorite past time since before we decided to dump the king's tea in the fucking harbor. 

[daegor]

5 hours ago, heyimdb said:

California has a larger population than the country of Canada... just saying. 

Yes?

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

9 hours ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

I'm going to really sound like an asshole here, but I think if you have a child you're unable to take care of, that's on you. You made that decision/mistake on your own. It's a very different situation if someone becomes disabled after having children of course. Again, I don't have all the answers, but this one is especially hard. I do think children deserve separate consideration from adults, but again, it's not something I've given a lot of consideration to and would need to think about for a while to form a better response.

yeah, you are an asshole.  but fuck them, right?  they decided to have a child, they should have known better.

people don't CHOOSE to have disabled children, and people don't CHOOSE to have outrageous medical bills because of those disabilities.  I'm sure you've got some neo-conservative bullshit bile you'll spew in response.

[SeeMoreGlass]

8 hours ago, daegor said:

I'm interjecting here into a conversation I was not a part of, and I'm Canadian so the situation is different, AND I don't know anyone on disibility

 

BUT.  I personally spent the majority of my 20s living below the poverty line.  In Canada you can live relatively comfortably below the poverty line due to a lot of social programs, free medical, low taxes, cheap education, social assisted income scaled housing, etc.  Well, depending on how far below the line you live.

 

I had the good fortune of being able to move my way up to what I guess might be 'upper middle class', and now I don't qualify for social programs, I pay full medical (yes, much cheaper than the US still), high taxes, cheap education (that's just universal), I don't qualify for cheap housing. Basically, I pay the government a lot more now that I'm not poor.

 

The rich pay for the poor.

 

I have the relatively unique perspective of being both sides at different points in my life.  I have no problem paying my dues so I that someone else has a chance to elevate themselves.

 

even with the realization that for every person who is willing and able to put in the effort to elevate themselves, there is another person who is either unable or unwilling to do so.

I love this response and I think the major problem in America is that we are victims of the capitalist mindset where its all about me and my dream and my money and fuck everyone else. Also, again the idea that all of our tax money is going to help people that are lazy is just ridiculous. Yes, there are some people who take advantage of the system but not all of them. If the system isn't working and people find the loopholes and take advantage of them should we blame them or should we blame the system. I choose to blame the system and the people who run it for not seeing the inherent problems and trying to fix them. 

 

 

[stl_ben]

11 hours ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

As for the children of disabled people, well, that sure is a tough question isn't it? I'm going to really sound like an asshole here, but I think if you have a child you're unable to take care of, that's on you. You made that decision/mistake on your own.

FUCK YOU!

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

2 hours ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:

yeah, you are an asshole.  but fuck them, right?  they decided to have a child, they should have known better.

people don't CHOOSE to have disabled children, and people don't CHOOSE to have outrageous medical bills because of those disabilities.  I'm sure you've got some neo-conservative bullshit bile you'll spew in response.

Whoa, pal. I didn't say anything about disabled children. I said if someone is disabled (as in this person is already at a point where they can't take care of themself financially due to a disability) and they have a child without considering that they won't be able to care for that child, that's on them. Maybe read what I said again.

[BuzzersonKillwell]

The problem I have is what is the endgame in that scenario? Obviously the well-being of both parties is intrinsically inked, so, how do we punish a bad decision in a way that doesn't impact the well-being of this theoretical child while also incentivizing better decisions in the future? Can you do both? Should we do either?

[heyimdb]

2 hours ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:

yeah, you are an asshole.  but fuck them, right?  they decided to have a child, they should have known better.

people don't CHOOSE to have disabled children, and people don't CHOOSE to have outrageous medical bills because of those disabilities.  I'm sure you've got some neo-conservative bullshit bile you'll spew in response.

Not saying that overpopulation in a society with one of the worst education systems (run by the federal government) is a bad thing... but overpopulation in a society with one of the worst education systems in the world is a bad thing. And it is irresponsible to have children you cannot and will not provide for. 

That was all that Ghost Of Randy Savage was saying. But you had to play the liberal card and call him a heartless asshole. 

That was so necessary. 

[Shitty Rambo]

"you're a fucking moron" 

"you're an asshole"

"fuck you"

 

Behaving like this doesn't embarrass any of you? This is why Liberals are stereotyped as people who are incapable of forming opinions based around logic and reason and are seen as slaves to their emotions and feelings. No one is stopping any of you from going the extra mile and donating money or time to charities. Simply backing a good guy candidate doesn't mean you did anything, so knock this, "it's the right thing to do," nonsense off.

 

 

See, it's possible to be mean without calling people names

[stl_ben]

26 minutes ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

Whoa, pal. I didn't say anything about disabled children. I said if someone is disabled (as in this person is already at a point where they can't take care of themself financially due to a disability) and they have a child without considering that they won't be able to care for that child, that's on them. Maybe read what I said again.

So let's just castrate anyone on that has down's syndrome or that is on some spot on the spectrum because they may not fully understand the consequences of sex?

Right?  That's what you are getting at?  Silly them for having a mental disability and now having a child, let's make sure no one in the government assists them because they made the decision themselves.  

[stl_ben]

Can this thread just go back to what it was an intended as? A thread to make fun of Donald Trump?

Make different thread for this ayn rand nonsense.

[boops_popmarket]

Is there a way for us to opt out of paying taxes that go towards non-empathetic, solipsistic d-bags?