• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Trump's Presidency

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wrathe said:
Actually, the assumption of corruption of government is why it's so important to have reliable free press. Power corrupts, it's an age old fact. The problem is, the ones who are supposed to be the truth-bearers aren't even doing journalism anymore. They're not doing much more than participating in an internet flame war. It's embarrassing for all parties involved.

Don't get it twisted, it's not Left vs Right, Progressive vs Conservative. It's We The People vs. The Government. We're supposed to keep them in check and the press is supposed to be our sword.
Click to expand...

Glad you said this! The media must be the "watch-dog" of the Government. That's not to say that the President shouldn't be held to a higher standard himself, even when looking at things he said prior to being the Republican candidate. Still, dishonest media is very insidious in what seems like a goal of dividing the people further.
 
Wrathe said:
So, I disputed your analogy and why has been well discussed. I also disagreed with your nomenclature. It doesn't have anything to do w/ my liking, you have no obligation to please me.

I shared above my opinion on the actual plan aspect of it and we're not really far from each other there, man. So it's not like I'm using semantics to discredit your political position, though it seems that's how you're taking it.

It's all good though, I hate political correctness as I believe it's arguing over the words and not the idea behind them so I won't keep doing it w/ you here in that spirit. I can just update my "Tornicode" table and know you're referring to the tax when you use other words.
Click to expand...
Its only a tax if you don't pay it.
Why would I refer to it as a tax if people are paying into insurance. The insurance itself isn't a tax its a premium.

It is only a tax if you don't have insurance I was talking about people having insurance and the more healthy people with insurance the lower the cost per insured


there is no code there. I used my wording in a concise and accurate way. Ill say it again. The reason there is a tax/penalty for not opting in is as an incentive.

Change the words and it changes the meaing of my actual post. sorry it didn't fit your narrative


Tornicade said:
High deductible insurance didn't come about because of Obama care and a result of that was huge profits for the Health insurance providers as people were more reluctant to seek medical care.

In fact the Insurance industry as a whole did increase their insurance coverage cost dramatically before Obamacare forcing companies to take cheaper plans resulting in employees paying the same amounts for coverage but getting less in return.

Health care coverage for a long time has been a deterrent for people to open up their business or go on their way because the difference for an individual policy and group employer package of a thousand or more was relatively huge.

Young people in good health were reluctant to sign of for health insurance because they mostly did not need it. without their opt in the cost for insurance per insured is higher and Insurance companies see less profits.

That's why Obamacare included an incentive for everyone to optin.
it isn't any different than everyone who drives be required to have car insurance.

The goal of every American being insured for health care and having health care insurance providers compete for individuals as opposed to companies should be the goal of every elected member of the senate and congress.

Just a few decades ago Hopistals and clinics were losing money due to unpaid medical bills by the uninsured and under insured.

These hospitals along with other reforms that have taken place are now seeing profits as the amount of unpaid medical bills and uninsured drops.

on the other end. providers not accepting third party insurance was a trend that began with managed insurance programs . These Health care providers were opting out anyways it was just accelerated not introduced by Obamacare.

Typically the providers lose in volume and toal revenue but gain in margins and lower processing cost. some are in the middle reviwing what the insurance will pay before deciding to accept it while others just opt out of insrance claims altogether.


I have no problems with making changes to the current healthcare system as long as the goal is the same.. Universal Health care coverage.

and not one that allows insurance companies to charge more to Smokers, Drinkers or obesity.
Click to expand...
 
Notorious said:
I'm way more interested in finding out more about how you can claim to be an evironmentalist while also litering for "politcal speech."
Click to expand...

If you're more interested in protest signs on the ground then a UN exit that would drastically change not only our foreign policy, but the current structure of world alliances, then you may want to re-evaluate your political priorities. It's a huge deal.
 
Wrathe said:
Is this an alternative fact? :D
Click to expand...

1st Trump made up alternative facts. So using it against anti-trump stuff is laughable.

2nd it isn't a fact. It is still my opinion. People are painting that scene of signs all over the ground like it is protestors being lazy and hypocritical. It was calculated. I'm happy to entertain the idea that it sucks for the minimum wage guys who have to clean it up.

Also littering sucks, but paper on the ground is not the same degree of damage as dismantling the EPA and removing climate change as an important issue.

Do you realize how childish it is to be like, "Climate change ain't real, but these signs is destroying the earth. Thus women are the real hypocritical polluters!"

Every argument is couched in false equivalencies.
 
AZ_ said:
Click to expand...

JB-DIG002-1.jpg
 
Tornicade said:
Its only a tax if you don't pay it.
Why would I refer to it as a tax if people are paying into insurance. The insurance itself isn't a tax its a premium.

It is only a tax if you don't have insurance I was talking about people having insurance and the more healthy people with insurance the lower the cost per insured


there is no code there. I used my wording in a concise and accurate way. Ill say it again. The reason there is a tax/penalty for not opting in is as an incentive.

Change the words and it changes the meaing of my actual post. sorry it didn't fit your narrative
Click to expand...

You keep making it about me. I'm saying the Supreme Court.

Look, it's good man. I'm going to click the Disagree button to illustrate my disagreement to this conversation string and drop it. I'm telling you (and anyone else I may click disagree to in the future) it's not an attack, it's just a way to say, "I disagree" without having to put up a bunch more words into a dead horse conversation. Feel free to disagree me, no offense taken.
 
Cavatt said:
Do you realize how childish it is to be like, "Climate change ain't real, but these signs is destroying the earth. Thus women are the real hypocritical polluters!"

Every argument is couched in false equivalencies.
Click to expand...

Climate change is not in doubt, step outside to see. What is in doubt is how much is man made. It is much farther from conclusive than you have been lead to believe. Look at some of the actual studies. Literally if we went 100% green tomorrow in this country we would have little impact over the next 100 years.

Again, climate change is not in doubt, despite what your propaganda is telling you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...hange-donald-trump-believes-in/?client=safari

Trump: ‘I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.’


You've had some alternative facts in here as well, like the one where you claimed in god we trust wasn't on money until 1957. You ducked the issue once a bunch of people proved you wrong. No apology or acceptance that you were wrong.

Seems kind of dishonest to me to throw out a blatant falsehood and then disappear when it's proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
cavman said:
But how do you Know what he supports? I've heard him say it's law and he is fine with that, and I've heard him say he is considering appointing a judge to overturn the law and leave it up to the states.
Click to expand...
That's actually what he said about abortion. He wants to appoint pro life judges to over turn Roe v Wade. He said that the gay marriage issue was "settled" because of Obergefell vs Hodges.

It's weird because it seems he's implying that SCOTUS can overturn RvW but not OvH, which is obviously not true. If he appoints judges who will overturn RvW, decent chance they would also overturn OvH.
 
Notorious said:
I'm way more interested in finding out more about how you can claim to be an evironmentalist while also litering for "politcal speech."
Click to expand...

Isn't "litering" something Trump did with whores in Russia? At least those signs are spelled right
 
Cavatt said:
Isn't "litering" something Trump did with whores in Russia? At least those signs are spelled right
Click to expand...

So you're citing fake news now?

Was it an alternative fact when you claimed in god we trust wasn't on US money until 1957?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top