Election Watch 2020 - Trump/Pence vs Biden/Harris

[Gelston]

Yes, it's the President's agenda that typically matters not the VP's.

Biden said he is running for Senate against George though.

[Tgo01]

Yes, it's the President's agenda that typically matters not the VP's.

Not when the presidential candidate is a senile old man then the VP’s agenda matters lots.

[drauz]

Biden said he is running for Senate against George though.

https://media.tenor.com/images/feea9c253d7f33dd893efbaf922ea2e2/tenor.gif

[drauz]

Not when the presidential candidate is a senile old man then the VP’s agenda matters lots.

So we should be worried about Trump's VP hating gays since he's also a senile old man.

[Parkbandit]

You're talking about the plan she floated as candidate, but you're very confused about it. It did not eliminate private insurance, though it did change the rules for it a bit. (And she is no longer floating that plan, though I suppose it's possible she might return to it in the future.) If you don't want to look like an "uneducated and uninformed hick," maybe you should stop frothing at the mouth and read past clickbait headlines.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/kamala-harris-wants-end-private-health-insurance-new-democratic-litmus-n964241

I guess NBC is just clickbait... I won't disagree.

[Tgo01]

So we should be worried about Trump's VP hating gays since he's also a senile old man.

If Pence actually hated gays then absolutely. But since you're just falling for propaganda that time4fun would be proud to have made up in the first place then no.

[drauz]

If Pence actually hated gays then absolutely. But since you're just falling for propaganda that time4fun would be proud to have made up in the first place then no.

So you think he's a friend to gay people?

[Tgo01]

So you think he's a friend to gay people?

Are we off the “Pence hates the gays” and onto “Pence isn’t a friend of the gays?”

[Back]

Except the fact is, the positions, politicians and ideology you support along with your statements over the years suggest that you are lying because they do not support people before the system. They say they do but the system they espouse does not. Socialism does not, in any way, assure anyone but the very highest of the leadership, prosperity, for the rest it assures misery, poverty and death, none of which is at the benefit of “the people at the expense of capital”.

Here we are again with you saying I'm lying. Either you cannot understand the words I am typing here or you are using your words wrong. It is no lie that I fully believe that socialist policies are good for society and that I want to see society thrive into the next millennium.

You claim that socialism does exactly the opposite of what it should be doing. You are saying socialism benefits the few while everyone else suffers. If you show me a system like that then you aren't showing me a true socialist system. What you describe, the few benefiting at the expense of the many, sounds exactly like capitalism. And if you agree with that, fine, you agree with it. But quit trying to turn this around to how you want it to be.

If you show me examples of failed socialism I'll say you are showing me how corruption ruins anything. Corruption will ruin capitalism. In fact I would go so far as to say capitalism encourages corruption. When you can cut corners to save a dollar you win. If you pay a lobbyist $5 million to get them to convince congress not to enact a regulation that will cost your company $10 million you win. You may think that is not an example of corruption since its within the rules but to me it stinks.

You seem to have it all backwards.


No bonehead, I suggest that Socialism leads to totalitarianism in every case known to man. Sooner or later the economic system and philosophy must, by it’s nature, lead to government control, force to take what it deems needed and violence to quell disagreement. Period. No one cares what you feel, the facts are different and that is the problem. There is no more fair economic policy than capitalism, period.

If you want to argue that totalitarianism is bad, I'll agree with you. Totalitarianism is a method of control by an authoritarian counter to the democratic will of the people. An authority enacting its will or the will of the minority on the majority. Whatever it is they push on the people its not right. It could be socialism, it could be Buddhism, it could be orthodox Christianity. It would not be right because its forced on the people.

I will say that socialism needs to be democratic. It cannot and should not be forced.

You state that there is no more fair economic policy than capitalism. I say that capitalism has to be made fair through regulation. We've been trying but still here we are where the real people in power are the ultra rich who were not elected to represent the will of the people. You want to celebrate and encourage a system that has no regard for fairness, no regard for justice, only Darwinist top of the food chain domination of the unelected few over yourself and everyone else.


Gods, do you read history books? How many people were sent to the camps in Germany? Over 11 million and yes, Germany preWWII was a Socialist economy. How many dissidents went to the gulag in the USSR, conservative guesses are 20 million. How many were killed in the purges in China under Mao? Again, conservative estimates are around 50 million. Two million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, a million in Armenia and Rowanda all because totalitarian Socialist/Communist governments can’t stand dissent. How many artists in the USSR were silenced, how many were only published after they escaped? Take a history class. When the people are considered property of the state, which is a final outcome of Socialism and the totalitarianism that comes from it, then the individual becomes meaningless and has no rights. This is all well documented and described in countless books and movies but all you Leftist shills continue to excuse it by “That’s not real Socialism”. It is the real Socialism and it is what will happen to every country and economy that goes down that path. You and the Left are supremely arrogant to think that somehow you know better and things will turn out differently because you are somehow smarter and wiser than all the others that have tried this shit.

All of the things you are pointing to are about the persona running those governments. I can prove this by pointing to successful socialist countries that exist today and are kicking our ass in literacy, health, lifespan, and standards of living for the average population.

I agree with you that all your examples are horrible examples of us fighting in the dirt on this little mudball. But I refute your assertion that socialism was the cause of these tragedies. We can't attribute any one cause to all of those ultimately unique situations in unique locations.

You say some absurd things here. It is not arrogant to want to succeed. It is not arrogant to think you can do better. I'd argue that capitalism supports those thoughts. If we see something that works we most certainly can and should think we can do even better and believe that we can succeed at it. If you stop doing that you are dead in the water.

Is human intelligence evolving? Are we smarter now than 1000 years ago? 10,000? 100,000? I'd say so. Through our ability to collect, record, and share information, we are more advance than we were. Guess what. Its because of our species collectivism. So I believe we will make an economic system that is more fair and operate it properly to achieve that goal. Socialism is actually a point on an evolutionary timeline of economic systems. Read some Marx. Its really interesting stuff.


You can disagree all you want, you are wrong. And just because the majority wants it doesn’t make it moral, ethical or right. The majority voted for Hitler as well as the Bolshivick revolution and Mao. If the majority voted to murder you just because you exist, would that make it right? No. Same principle stands.

Democracy is the best thing we've got. Yes, if a majority want a total idiotic dickhead for president then they should get that president. But here you are again tying socialism with other things completely unrelated in an attempt to bolster your point. You are failing to convince me that socialism, as a system, is the cause of corruption or genocide.


I bolded the parts that simply negates everything you said and is you arguing that people should have no choice and be forced to do what the state says. This is you agreeing with and supporting totalitarianism. Period. You are deluded to think otherwise.

I said if you are arguing that the individual should have a choice on if they participate in a socialist system or not I said they should not not at the expense of anyone else or if they don't prevent everyone else from achieving that goal. This seems to me to be the most respectful approach. If you participate in a democracy you follow the will of the majority. The majority elects representatives to do the will of the people. If the will of the people is socialism then thats what the representatives should work for. If you don't like the democratic system I don't know what to tell you. Its pretty popular and the alternatives aren't so great.

If the majority decides they want socialism I believe we should be sensitive to those who do not want it but we should not discard the idea because a few people don't. Can a happy medium be found? I think we could work it out. If you wanted to live off the grid, do your own thing, I don't see why not if it does not infringe on the will of the majority. You just don't get to go to the hospital for free.


History says you are wrong in every case known to man.



Everything you said here is completely and totally wrong. Please read a book.


Wrong again.


Wrong again.

Please provide some examples so that I may enlighten myself to your level. It does not help me understand your point if you do not.


When you look at what others have and you want it and you are unwilling to do what is necessary to obtain it, you want to take from other to give it to you, then it is theft and the epitome of envy, jealousy and covetousness. Every welfare program on the planet is done this way because everything that has been provided above food, clothing and shelter is not a need. Before welfare, people provided for the poor far better than are provided now, and they paid less taxes so they could afford to be more generous. If people are unwilling to do what is needed to feed themselves then what is just and humane about stealing from others to “take care of” the unwilling. In addition, a government that can give a person everything they want can also take it away and the person, unwilling to overcome their addiction to comfort without labor is then a slave to the government.

You state that everything above food, clothing, and shelter is not a need. I'd argue that healthcare, transportation, and education are all needs. All things that are good for the individual and when the individual is better society is better.

I'd love to read about this magical time you are talking about when people provided for the poor far better than now while paying less taxes? Can you point me to some reading material?

Allowing a few to have more than everyone else else combined while there is poverty is the real inhumane thing.

And finally no one is a slave to a government that they elect in the first place.


No one cares what you believe, the fact is a massive body of literature and science supports the assertion that human survival is about adaptability. The rest is your own wishes and emotions spewed in verbal rubbish.

I just Googled "why are human beings successful?" and this came up. Its a quote from an interview by Yuval Hariri, a professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of the popular science bestsellers Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.


HARARI: The real difference between humans and all other animals is not on the individual level, it's on the collective level. Humans control the planet because they are the only animals that can cooperate both flexibly and in very large numbers. Now, there are other animals, like the social insects - the bees, the ants - that can cooperate in large numbers, but they don't do so flexibly. They're cooperation is very rigid. There is basically just one way in which a beehive can function, and if there is a new opportunity or a new danger, the bees cannot reinvent their social system overnight. They cannot, for example, execute the queen and establish a republic of bees or a communist dictatorship of worker bees. Other animals, like the social mammals - the wolves, the elephants, the dolphins, the chimpanzees - they can cooperate much more flexibly, but they do so only in small numbers because cooperation among chimpanzees is based on intimate knowledge, one of the other. The only animals that can combine the two abilities together and cooperate both flexibly and still do so in very large numbers is us, Homo sapiens.

You'll like this next quote. He also says this.


Money, in fact, is the most successful story ever invented and told by humans because it is the only story everybody believes.

You can read more here. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/468882620

So in the battle of adaptabilty vs collectivity, you have not convinced me that adaptability is anything more that a quality that all life shares, rather than what specifically about our species makes us top of the food chain. Did you know that we aren't even on the top of the food chain? There are animals that will eat the shit out of you one on one. It is our collective effort that keeps us safe from them.


Over 120 million dead since 1900 suggest otherwise. Keep in mind that number doesn’t count those who have died in Socialist/Communist countries from disease and starvation that would not have happened had they had capitalist economies to serve their needs better.

Source? I ask because its unclear what you are talking about specifically. And I'm going to have to call talking out of your ass about "all the dead that would not have happened" because you have no evidence to back that up. Thats not how reality works. You have an assertion, you provide evidence of the assertion, otherwise you are talking out of your ass.


What a nice emotional sentiment that in no way justifies Socialism/Communism.
In conclusion, read a history book written at least 30 years ago that isn’t replete with SJW changes and emotional garbage, read an economics book and maybe start to use some rational thinking as opposed to your feelings and then you might get somewhere.

Well, see, I have read some books here and there. We are lucky to have that collection of knowledge. Socialism is an evolutionary step, according to some, that we have not achieved yet. And its not the last stop. In our lifetimes at least. 100s of years from know who knows what we will evolve into. By some accounts it will be post-profit. Capitalism cannot be sustained indefinitely. We will eventually move to a society that is motivated more by mutual progress rather than letting the few run the show.

Feelings are funny things. But they are nothing to be afraid of. I can see you have some very strong feelings about this topic.

[time4fun]

Biden said he is running for Senate against George though.

Shall we get into the abjectly insane, amoral, confused, and fascist things Trump has said?

Do you really want to get into a game of "Who said the craziest thing"?

[Ashlander]

Shall we get into the abjectly insane, amoral, confused, and fascist things Trump has said?

Do you really want to get into a game of "Who said the craziest thing"?

Still pretty sure Biden would win.

[Tgo01]

Shall we get into the abjectly insane, amoral, confused, and fascist things Trump has said?

Sure let's do that. Has Trump ever confused his opponent with someone who ran for president over 12 years ago?

[BriarFox]

Biden said he is running for Senate against George though.
That was a doctored video purposefully released. Biden was taking a question from George Lopez, who’s the George in question. He does misspeak a little, but not because he’s confused about whom he’s running against. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/video/politics/some-of-the-biggest-pinocchios-of-the-election/2020/10/29/149fcd7c-4b42-4cc8-8377-daa097b2573d_video.html?

[Tgo01]

That was a doctored video purposefully released. Biden was taking a question from George Lopez, who’s the George in question. He does misspeak a little, but not because he’s confused about whom he’s running against. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/video/politics/some-of-the-biggest-pinocchios-of-the-election/2020/10/29/149fcd7c-4b42-4cc8-8377-daa097b2573d_video.html?

"What kind of country are we going to be? Four more years of George, uh, George uh."

Washington Post: Clearly Biden was referring to George Lopez.

Of all the wannabe liberal elites on the PC you must have your head shoved up the farthest up your own ass.

[drauz]

Are we off the “Pence hates the gays” and onto “Pence isn’t a friend of the gays?”

I'll rephrase, how do you think Pence feels about gay people?

[BriarFox]

"What kind of country are we going to be? Four more years of George, uh, George uh."

Washington Post: Clearly Biden was referring to George Lopez.

Of all the wannabe liberal elites on the PC you must have your head shoved up the farthest up your own ass.

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

[Tgo01]

I'll rephrase, how do you think Pence feels about gay people?

I don't think he has any special feelings for them one way or another.

[Tgo01]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency

Just like Hillary had a 99% chance of winning in 2016 right?

[drauz]

I don't think he has any special feelings for them one way or another.

So not living in reality on this one then, understood. Carry on.

[BriarFox]

Just like Hillary had a 99% chance of winning in 2016 right?

No. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/522827-bidens-polling-lead-over-trump-looks-more-comfortable-than-clintons

[Parkbandit]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

https://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2016/10/18/presidential-forecast-updates/newsletter.html

[Parkbandit]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/clinton-has-90-percent-chance-of-winning-reuters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1

[Parkbandit]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html

[Parkbandit]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/the-worst-political-predictions-of-2016-214555

[Tgo01]

So not living in reality on this one then, understood. Carry on.

M'kay. You speak in a lot of vague generalities without really saying much. Is that part of your mystique?

[Parkbandit]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_n_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94

[Parkbandit]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/11/08/hillary-clinton-has-got-this-probably-very-probably

[Candor]

Current polls have Biden with a 90% chance of winning the presidency, Democrats with a 98% chance of maintaining control of the House, and Democrats with a 78% chance of taking the Senate. Whose head is where now?

If Trump wins will you promise not to quote any more polls in the future?

[beldannon5]

which polls has 90 percent for biden stripper poles?

[time4fun]

which polls has 90 percent for biden stripper poles?

Nate Silver's model. But honestly, every model has Trump in really bad shape.

[Tgo01]

Nate Silver's model. But honestly, every model has Trump in really bad shape.

Didn't 538 have Hillary at like 90% chance of winning this close to the election? I think even the day of the election he had Hillary at like 70+%.

[beldannon5]

Having seen how stupid with country has been the last 4 years with all the riots because President Trump hurt people, i do hope there are enough smart people left to not make Harris President

[Parkbandit]

Didn't 538 have Hillary at like 90% chance of winning this close to the election? I think even the day of the election he had Hillary at like 70+%.

He had Trump's chances of winning at 51%

After all the polls were closed, Trump had already taken FL, OH, PA, MI and WI.

[Parkbandit]

If Trump wins will you promise not to quote any more polls in the future?

If Trump wins, I just want him to come here the day after election day and have another epic meltdown.

His 2016 one still ranks as one of my favorite posts on these forums.

[Methais]

Dude, get on some meds. You're clearly going to have an aneurism when Biden wins.

Other than "He's not Trump!" can you tell me 3 things about Biden that makes you believe he would be a good president?

[drauz]

After last year I don't have a lot of trust in polls. Biden has to win some key states and they won't be easy.

[time4fun]

Having seen how stupid with country has been the last 4 years with all the riots because President Trump hurt people, i do hope there are enough smart people left to not make Harris President

Well there are about 230,000 fewer people now than there were 6 months ago. I'm not really sure how that factors into your math here.

Though I get the impression it doesn't at all. Which is stunning.

[time4fun]

After last year I don't have a lot of trust in polls. Biden has to win some key states and they won't be easy.

Honestly at this point Trump is the one who has key states to win.

In fact, he could win every single tossup state- totally run the board- and he'd still be short.

Having said that, there are apparently particularly large postal delays in swing states right now (Gee- how odd), and the postal service is currently ignoring several court orders.

And there are a lot of Republicans who haven't yet voted in what is on track to be a record breaking year for number of votes cast.

Both of these things add a significant degree of uncertainty in this election.

[BriarFox]

Other than "He's not Trump!" can you tell me 3 things about Biden that makes you believe he would be a good president?

Only three? The first ten that come to mind are:

1) He'll work toward mitigating climate change and rejoin the Paris Accord
2) He'll work for a single-payer healthcare option that will help millions of people afford or gain healthcare
3) He'll actually get bipartisan support for an infrastructure bill
4) He'll work for national background checks on gun purchases
5) He'll try to mitigate racism and won't dog whistle up the white supremacists
6) He believes women are people
7) He'll actually penalize Russia for putting bounties on our soldiers
8) He'll reinforce the EPA and remove the lobbyist cronies Trump put into office, protecting our environment
9) He'll put in place a rational immigration policy that creates strong borders while still accepting immigrants and refugees, rather than wasting money on a useless wall
10) He'll raise our international profile and work for international cooperation rather than an isolationist and alienating agenda

Those were the first 10. That took me less than 2 min. If you really want more, I'm happy to oblige.

[BriarFox]

If Trump wins, I just want him to come here the day after election day and have another epic meltdown.

His 2016 one still ranks as one of my favorite posts on these forums.

Uh, this one? If you think this is a meltdown, you're more cracked than you seem.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?105582-Winners-and-Losers-of-the-2016-Presidential-Election&p=1897308&highlight=#post1897308


Decency, self-respect, and tolerance lost. America's international image lost. And most of all, the voters who backed Trump lost, because he's going to sit back, congratulate himself, and do absolutely nothing but jerk off in the White House bathrooms while admiring his hair for the next four years. He has no idea how to preside over the US, no idea how to get by in Washington, and no team in place to help him. The Republican establishment will use him when it's convenient and do an end run around him otherwise.

Most of what I said came true, except that it was just wishful thinking on my part to think his incompetence would paralyze him instead of lead him to make a series of ill-considered decisions, or that the GOP had enough decency to work around him rather than kowtow.

[Parkbandit]

Dude, get on some meds. You're clearly going to have an aneurism when Biden wins.

Bro.. you're projecting your emotional unstableness onto others.

You know what I'm going to do if Biden wins? I'm going to wake up, take a shower and get back to work.

I won't need a day of screaming to get it all out. I won't need 4 years of bitching/moaning/groaning/crying.

Most people have better control over their emotions than you... and I know you won't understand how that's possible.

[BriarFox]

Bro.. you're projecting your emotional unstableness onto others.

You know what I'm going to do if Biden wins? I'm going to wake up, take a shower and get back to work.

I won't need a day of screaming to get it all out. I won't need 4 years of bitching/moaning/groaning/crying.

Most people have better control over their emotions than you... and I know you won't understand how that's possible.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc4MTE3NzIwNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDQ5MDI0._V1_S X150_CR0,0,150,150_.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Uh, this one? If you think this is a meltdown, you're more cracked than you seem.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?105582-Winners-and-Losers-of-the-2016-Presidential-Election&p=1897308&highlight=#post1897308

Most of what I said came true, except that it was just wishful thinking on my part to think his incompetence would paralyze him instead of lead him to make a series of ill-considered decisions, or that the GOP had enough decency to work around him rather than kowtow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA

And even 4 years later, you honestly believe you are the party of tolerance, decency and self-respect.

Too fucking funny.

Bro... get some help.

[BriarFox]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA

And even 4 years later, you honestly believe you are the party of tolerance, decency and self-respect.

Too fucking funny.

Bro... get some help.

https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-baffle.jpg

[Back]

Bro.. you're projecting your emotional unstableness onto others.

You know what I'm going to do if Biden wins? I'm going to wake up, take a shower and get back to work.

I won't need a day of screaming to get it all out. I won't need 4 years of bitching/moaning/groaning/crying.

Most people have better control over their emotions than you... and I know you won't understand how that's possible.

9661

Get ready for 4-8 years of b-b-b-Biden!

[Blazar]

9661

Get ready for 4-8 years of b-b-b-Biden!

No. 4 years tops. Surely we can get someone better than either of these two shitheads in there next time...

[Parkbandit]

https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-baffle.jpg

It would probably be easier to write a list of things that don't baffle you at this point.

[Parkbandit]

9661

Get ready for 4-8 years of b-b-b-Biden!

It'll still be far more mature than the past 4 of you and your ilk.

[~Rocktar~]

9661

Get ready for 4-8 years of b-b-b-Biden!

If he wins you will be lucky for 4 weeks of creepy joe.

[time4fun]

Bro.. you're projecting your emotional unstableness onto others.

Most people have better control over their emotions than you... and I know you won't understand how that's possible.

First, I really want to thank you for one of the best laughs I've had in a while.

You know, I just went back and checked. Over the last 3 months you've left obscenity-laced negative rep for me 24 times. Including on non-political posts, and my favorite- several times on 4+ year old posts.

Which means that on average, twice a week, you've been sitting around in your basement looking up old posts from months to years ago from a total stranger on an internet game forum (for a game you haven't played in years) and leaving obscenity-laced anonymous negative rep comments to make yourself feel better :comp:

And in fact, every single break I've taken- ranging from months to a about a year- I've come back to these hilarious strings of obscenity-laced, negative reps you've left on old posts that you've continued to go back and dig up regularly- even when I was no longer around to see them.

Tell us more about emotional control Captain Man Child :banghead:

[Back]

First, I really want to thank you for one of the best laughs I've had in a while.

You know, I just went back and checked. Over the last 3 months you've left obscenity-laced negative rep for me 24 times. Including on non-political posts, and my favorite- several times on 4+ year old posts.

Which means that on average, twice a week, you've been sitting around in your basement looking up old posts from months to years ago from a total stranger on an internet game forum (for a game you haven't played in years) and leaving obscenity-laced anonymous negative rep comments to make yourself feel better :comp:

And in fact, every single break I've taken- ranging from months to a about a year- I've come back to these hilarious strings of obscenity-laced, negative reps you've left on old posts that you've continued to go back and dig up regularly- even when I was no longer around to see them.

Tell us more about emotional control Captain Man Child :banghead:

You aren't the only one. Multiply that 10x at the very least.

[Tgo01]

In fact, he could win every single tossup state- totally run the board- and he'd still be short.

Didn't you say almost the exact same thing in 2016?

[BriarFox]

You aren't the only one. Multiply that 10x at the very least.

I honestly hope he's different in real life, but based on his posts Parkbandit is the sort of guy who lacks all true principles and merely mocks and shouts from the sidelines. He believes this makes him superior, since people who believe in things are weak and foolish. One day, his tombstone will read, "He believed in nothing but was angry about everything."

[Tgo01]

Didn't you say almost the exact same thing in 2016?


Trump has already effectively lost Nevada. Clark County- which is where 2/3 of the vote comes from- has already had record turnout with a 13-14 point Dem advantage. Obama had a 6-7 point advantage in early voting and won by 6-7 points in 2012. Nevada's early voting numbers tend to mirror the final tallies. Trump doesn't have much hope, if any, of taking NV at this point, which also means the GOP has very little chance of grabbing the empty Senate seat.

Barring any huge upsets in the traditionally blue states- of which there's really no evidence- this election is over for Trump.

Meh, close enough.

[Bhaalizmo]

I honestly hope he's different in real life, but based on his posts Parkbandit is the sort of guy who lacks all true principles and merely mocks and shouts from the sidelines. He believes this makes him superior, since people who believe in things are weak and foolish. One day, his tombstone will read, "He believed in nothing but was angry about everything."

This is true.

[Parkbandit]

First, I really want to thank you for one of the best laughs I've had in a while.

You know, I just went back and checked. Over the last 3 months you've left obscenity-laced negative rep for me 24 times. Including on non-political posts, and my favorite- several times on 4+ year old posts.

Which means that on average, twice a week, you've been sitting around in your basement looking up old posts from months to years ago from a total stranger on an internet game forum (for a game you haven't played in years) and leaving obscenity-laced anonymous negative rep comments to make yourself feel better :comp:

And in fact, every single break I've taken- ranging from months to a about a year- I've come back to these hilarious strings of obscenity-laced, negative reps you've left on old posts that you've continued to go back and dig up regularly- even when I was no longer around to see them.

Tell us more about emotional control Captain Man Child :banghead:

Wait.. you believe me leaving you red rep comments has anything to do with my emotions about you?

You poor thing.

No. I simply don't like liars or stupid people. Some people call it a character flaw of mine.

You just happen to tick both boxes with a gigantic red check mark.

I think you are one of the most pathetic people on this message board. You come here, pretending to be something you are not and when that gets outted, you come up with another persona.

Maybe try just being you?

[Parkbandit]

I honestly hope he's different in real life, but based on his posts Parkbandit is the sort of guy who lacks all true principles and merely mocks and shouts from the sidelines. He believes this makes him superior, since people who believe in things are weak and foolish. One day, his tombstone will read, "He believed in nothing but was angry about everything."

This is me.. both here and in RL... and I imagine this is you in real life as well: An emotional pseudo-intellect who has very few friends because they see through your transparency. He has a very high sense of self-worth that is not based in reality at all.

But it's ok.. because you like yourself and that's all that matters.

[time4fun]

I honestly hope he's different in real life, but based on his posts Parkbandit is the sort of guy who lacks all true principles and merely mocks and shouts from the sidelines. He believes this makes him superior, since people who believe in things are weak and foolish. One day, his tombstone will read, "He believed in nothing but was angry about everything."

No. I think the truth is quite a bit sadder. Is he an angry, resentful, self-entitled white guy who feels like he hasn't gotten his due, and it's all someone else's fault? (Read: Gays, Muslims, Immigrants, Women, whomever he has decided to hate that day) He does appear to fit that mold very comfortably.

But it's just as clear that he's a person who doesn't have much else going on in his life. And I genuinely don't mean that in a taunting way. It's just the truth.

[time4fun]

Wait.. you believe me leaving you red rep comments has anything to do with my emotions about you?


Oh no, I don't. I don't think your adolescent ranting has anything to do with anyone on this forum.

I think the people on this forum are just proxies for the things that really make you angry, and this is a safe way for you to vent your impotent rage either because you have no one left around you who is willing to listen to you, or because you just don't have the courage to vent to real people.

[Parkbandit]

No. I think the truth is quite a bit sadder. Is he an angry, resentful, self-entitled white guy who feels like he hasn't gotten his due, and it's all someone else's fault? (Read: Gays, Muslims, Immigrants, Women, whomever he has decided to hate that day) He does appear to fit that mold very comfortably.

But it's just as clear that he's a person who doesn't have much else going on in his life. And I genuinely don't mean that in a taunting way. It's just the truth.

LOL.

You are about as right as you have been about most political topics... which is close to zero.

I'm a white guy... and I'm a person. That's the only thing you've gotten right.

But enough about me, Andraste... let's talk about you...

Why not come clean today... make it a fresh break.. and just come out and tell us all about you today.

The truth can set you free.

[caelric]

white guy

Nice little bit of racism there, andraste.

[time4fun]

Calling out his white racial resentment isn't racist, Laura.

[caelric]

Calling out his white racial resentment isn't racist, Laura.

Oh, okay. It's not racism if the target is white. I got it now. Glad I understand the right group-think. Wouldn't want to be double plus ungood.

[time4fun]

Oh, okay. It's not racism if the target is white. I got it now. Glad I understand the right group-think. Wouldn't want to be double plus ungood.

Actually it seems like you really don't understand.

[BriarFox]

The PB meltdown continues!

[Blazar]

It would appear that the conservatives here think that racism means color. If anything at all is said about color, it's racist. Like holy shit, how dumb can people really be? I'm shocked and astonished at the stupidity here.

[Tgo01]

It would appear that the conservatives here think that racism means color. If anything at all is said about color, it's racist. Like holy shit, how dumb can people really be? I'm shocked and astonished at the stupidity here.

You are like the most dramatic drama queen in the history of the PC.

Let me save you the trouble here:

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/49244652/i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i.jpg

[Fierna]

Vish, you gotta admit though if this insane once in a century pandemic didn’t happen Trump would be destroying Biden, it would’ve been a full blown Red wave.

[Neveragain]

Actually it seems like you really don't understand.

What's it like knowing that either way a rich old white guy will be president?

Knowing you're going to vote for an old white racist guy that destroyed the black community with his crime bill.

I would imagine it must feel like being a dog going back to eat it's own vomit?

[Bhaalizmo]

The PB meltdown continues!

Truism.

[Seran]

What's it like knowing that either way a rich old white guy will be president?

Knowing you're going to vote for an old white racist guy that destroyed the black community with his crime bill.

I would imagine it must feel like being a dog going back to eat it's own vomit?

Tougher sentencing laws didn't destroy anything, it was the violators of the law that destroyed their own lives. Stop trying to blame others for poor life choices

[Neveragain]

Tougher sentencing laws didn't destroy anything, it was the violators of the law that destroyed their own lives. Stop trying to blame others for poor life choices

Oh my!

Remind the black community that they are to blame for doing crack cocaine instead of powder cocaine.

Didn't Joe just say that nobody should see prison time for drug charges?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/35/c9/b0/35c9b0701e5bfde034cf4e83f714d1dc.jpg


P.S. You are the Democrat that Malcom X was talking about.

[~Rocktar~]

Tougher sentencing laws didn't destroy anything, it was the violators of the law that destroyed their own lives. Stop trying to blame others for poor life choices

So personal responsibility is good when you are protecting Biden but bad when it's used by Conservatives to point out how say Brianna Taylor got what she deserved with a long history of hanging with drug dealers and then her BF using her as a shield to shoot at cops? Or perhaps when conservatives say something about women not getting abortions and taking responsibility? Maybe when conservatives say something about the personal responsibility involved in the mythical pay gap and the culture gap and so on? I got you, I understand your position, as hypocritical as it is. Right.

[Seran]

Oh my!

Remind the black community that they are to blame for doing crack cocaine instead of powder cocaine.

Didn't Joe just say that nobody should see prison time for drug charges?

P.S. You are the Democrat that Malcom X was talking about.

That's the sort of attempts at recriminations that make you a bad person. Individual drug violations should be equal and I look forward to that reform. That being said, people break laws, the laws don't break them. It only boils down to personal choice.

If you weren't such a woman hating, partisan hack I'm sure you'd be capable of logic.

[Seran]

So personal responsibility is good when you are protecting Biden but bad when it's used by Conservatives to point out how say Brianna Taylor got what she deserved with a long history of hanging with drug dealers and then her BF using her as a shield to shoot at cops? Or perhaps when conservatives say something about women not getting abortions and taking responsibility? Maybe when conservatives say something about the personal responsibility involved in the mythical pay gap and the culture gap and so on? I got you, I understand your position, as hypocritical as it is. Right.

My supporting Biden doesn't have anything to do with protecting him, nor do I give a damn about what conservatives queef about when they're talking on Fox News. People make choices, lawful or unlawful and they reap the benefits or consequences accordingly. Democrats will reform drug sentencing eventually. Until then, people should stop breaking the law

[Back]

Brianna Taylor got what she deserved

Can you explain why you think Brianna Taylor getting shot to death in her own home is justified?

[Neveragain]

That's the sort of attempts at recriminations that make you a bad person. Individual drug violations should be equal and I look forward to that reform. That being said, people break laws, the laws don't break them. It only boils down to personal choice.

If you weren't such a woman hating, partisan hack I'm sure you'd be capable of logic.

So as I was saying. Joe's racist crime bill (which you just admitted was racist or you would not be looking forward to that reform) destroyed black communities and families. I guess those black men that were given unfair prison sentences (or the ones Kamala kept behind bars even when she knew they were innocent) aren't black if they don't vote for Joe.

Tell us more about logic?

It's also interesting that a black man goes to prison for cocaine and Joe's son get's a million dollar job working for Ukraine oil companies.

[~Rocktar~]

Can you explain why you think Brianna Taylor getting shot to death in her own home is justified?

I already have, sorry you are too lazy to have read it or remembered it.

[Back]

I already have, sorry you are too lazy to have read it or remembered it.

Despite her committing no crime you think she deserved to be shot and killed in her own home because of who she associated with?

What laws are you thinking of to justify this?

[Seran]

So as I was saying. Joe's racist crime bill (which you just admitted was racist or you would not be looking forward to that reform) destroyed black communities and families. I guess those black men that were given unfair prison sentences (or the ones Kamala kept behind bars even when she knew they were innocent) aren't black if they don't vote for Joe.

Tell us more about logic?

It's also interesting that a black man goes to prison for cocaine and Joe's son get's a million dollar job working for Ukraine oil companies.

If your opinion is they're racist, good for you. Personally I think the Republican interest in Biden's voting record is moreso about black voter suppression than anything else, which /is/ racist

The sentencing laws are unequal, but I personally don't think they're racist. Certainly they're unfair for treating one drug easier of harder than another.

[Blazar]

So as I was saying. Joe's racist crime bill (which you just admitted was racist or you would not be looking forward to that reform) destroyed black communities and families. I guess those black men that were given unfair prison sentences (or the ones Kamala kept behind bars even when she knew they were innocent) aren't black if they don't vote for Joe.

Tell us more about logic?

It's also interesting that a black man goes to prison for cocaine and Joe's son get's a million dollar job working for Ukraine oil companies.

You're such a fucking moron. "Joe's crime bill"... how dumb can you be? You really think one lone senator was entirely responsible for an entire bill?


the bill passed with bipartisan support, including the votes of more than two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and with the backing of other black leaders beyond Capitol Hill.

Can you seriously please quit being dumb, and skewing everything to represent exactly what you want it to represent? That simply isn't how government works. Thinking he could have gotten anything else passed at the time is the alternative no one talks about when they bring this up, and good fucking luck on that. Times have changed quire a bit since then but that's how it was... 20 and 30 years ago recreational marijuana was still illegal everywhere. Legal medical facilities were still being raided by the DEA under George Bush. Seriously, quit being a piece of shit. Your problem is you miss those times, when it was okay to pass crime bills like that and no one batted an eye. No, no one should go to jail for drugs any more than they do for drinking, which means if you drive impaired or consume in public (though usually that's a ticket). It has taken a long time to swing public mindset in regards to drugs thanks to all of the conservative propaganda for the last 80 years or so (cue Reefer Madness someone, I bet PB still thinks that's what stoners are like, dumb old fuck), over a personal fucking choice. It's pathetic. How many conservative states have legalized recreational marijuana? 1. Fucking Alaska. Meanwhile, 8 liberal states and 1 split have legalized it. So, who is the problem with keeping drugs illegal you fucking moron?

Conservatives are the ones that are against personal liberty and against choosing what you do in your own time, not liberals. We have Reagan to thank for the drug war. Bush then revived it, and Clinton did continue it because again, those were the times and people always want to blame something. It's a failed policy, and you can't stop drug use. I'd think it's pretty obvious, or after almost 50 years maybe we'd have eradicated it, or even made a dent in it (lol)? Even if drugs weren't available ever again, those addicts would drink instead, since it's a legal drug. Or they'd use pain killers/opioids. The drug doesn't matter, the addiction and the addictive personality are what matters. The shitty system that keeps poor people right where they are is what matters. People don't go looking for the drug, they do looking for the escape.

The mindset of a conservative is "If I don't like it, nobody should do it, and I want to control people". Whereas a liberal tends to be like "Hey, do your thing, just treat other people equally and with respect, and don't hurt anyone". It's a night and day difference. Doing drugs doesn't make someone a bad person. Now if they steal to support their habit, don't take care of their kids, etc. and generally be a shit bag of a person, that's on them, not the drugs. It's possible to be morally liberal, and fiscally conservative, but you have to be okay with letting people make their own choices. My experience is that conservatives definitely aren't capable of that unless it comes to businesses so they can turn more profits. It's fucking whacko.




Also, Rocktar, her name is Breonna, not Brianna. You could at least show a little respect either way, although I get that isn't your strong suit when it comes to people different than you.

[Tgo01]

You're such a fucking moron. "Joe's crime bill"... how dumb can you be? You really think one lone senator was entirely responsible for an entire bill?

New PC drinking game: take a drink every time Blazar says "How dumb can you be?" or some variation thereof, and anytime he acts surprised by something someone said.

[Bhaalizmo]

New PC drinking game: take a drink every time Blazar says "How dumb can you be?" or some variation thereof, and anytime he acts surprised by something someone said.

I like it, at it's survivable. Unlike if you had to take a drink every time Tg01 pushes a political narrative.

[Neveragain]

You're such a fucking moron. "Joe's crime bill"... how dumb can you be? You really think one lone senator was entirely responsible for an entire bill?



Can you seriously please quit being dumb, and skewing everything to represent exactly what you want it to represent? That simply isn't how government works. Thinking he could have gotten anything else passed at the time is the alternative no one talks about when they bring this up, and good fucking luck on that. Times have changed quire a bit since then but that's how it was... 20 and 30 years ago recreational marijuana was still illegal everywhere. Legal medical facilities were still being raided by the DEA under George Bush. Seriously, quit being a piece of shit. Your problem is you miss those times, when it was okay to pass crime bills like that and no one batted an eye. No, no one should go to jail for drugs any more than they do for drinking, which means if you drive impaired or consume in public (though usually that's a ticket). It has taken a long time to swing public mindset in regards to drugs thanks to all of the conservative propaganda for the last 80 years or so (cue Reefer Madness someone, I bet PB still thinks that's what stoners are like, dumb old fuck), over a personal fucking choice. It's pathetic. How many conservative states have legalized recreational marijuana? 1. Fucking Alaska. Meanwhile, 8 liberal states and 1 split have legalized it. So, who is the problem with keeping drugs illegal you fucking moron?

Conservatives are the ones that are against personal liberty and against choosing what you do in your own time, not liberals. We have Reagan to thank for the drug war. Bush then revived it, and Clinton did continue it because again, those were the times and people always want to blame something. It's a failed policy, and you can't stop drug use. I'd think it's pretty obvious, or after almost 50 years maybe we'd have eradicated it, or even made a dent in it (lol)? Even if drugs weren't available ever again, those addicts would drink instead, since it's a legal drug. Or they'd use pain killers/opioids. The drug doesn't matter, the addiction and the addictive personality are what matters. The shitty system that keeps poor people right where they are is what matters. People don't go looking for the drug, they do looking for the escape.

The mindset of a conservative is "If I don't like it, nobody should do it, and I want to control people". Whereas a liberal tends to be like "Hey, do your thing, just treat other people equally and with respect, and don't hurt anyone". It's a night and day difference. Doing drugs doesn't make someone a bad person. Now if they steal to support their habit, don't take care of their kids, etc. and generally be a shit bag of a person, that's on them, not the drugs. It's possible to be morally liberal, and fiscally conservative, but you have to be okay with letting people make their own choices. My experience is that conservatives definitely aren't capable of that unless it comes to businesses so they can turn more profits. It's fucking whacko.




Also, Rocktar, her name is Breonna, not Brianna. You could at least show a little respect either way, although I get that isn't your strong suit when it comes to people different than you.

Biden was VP for 8 fucking years and did dick about the drug war. Hell, Biden gave us more war in those 8 years.

Personal freedoms like....the right to life? or self defense? or freedom of speech? or private land ownership?

'ponders'

Am I black if I vote for Joe?

Speaking of reefer madness:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wr6190xGwE

[Seran]

Biden was VP for 8 fucking years and did dick about the drug war. Hell, Biden gave us more war in those 8 years.

Personal freedoms like....the right to life? or self defense? or freedom of speech? or private land ownership?

'ponders'

Am I black if I vote for Joe?

Speaking of reefer madness:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wr6190xGwE

God that is the biggest load of bullshit served up to date. Pardons, asking that Congress reclassify marijuana as no worse than cigarettes or alcohol, the Obama administration did plenty. What you're conveniently overlooking is that the Whitehouse can't rewrite drug law. The Obama administration had two years of Democratic control of Congress in order to accomplish its objectives and correctly chose Healthcare reform as its legacy. Which includes drug treatment. Republicans then did Jack shit for the next 6 years of his presidency. So fuck you and misdirection

[Parkbandit]

Calling out his white racial resentment isn't racist, Laura.

So.. we're not coming out today?

[Parkbandit]

The PB meltdown continues!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/01ee2cdd37daee536aabe753b2ac064b/tenor.gif?itemid=11552678

[Neveragain]

God that is the biggest load of bullshit served up to date. Pardons, asking that Congress reclassify marijuana as no worse than cigarettes or alcohol, the Obama administration did plenty. What you're conveniently overlooking is that the Whitehouse can't rewrite drug law. The Obama administration had two years of Democratic control of Congress in order to accomplish its objectives and correctly chose Healthcare reform as its legacy. Which includes drug treatment. Republicans then did Jack shit for the next 6 years of his presidency. So fuck you and misdirection

There is no misdirection. You're the one voting for him, it's Democrats that spent the last 16 years demonizing old rich white guys and here you are letting an old rich white guy go balls deep on you. It's spectacular to watch.

Healthcare reform? Is that another one of those personal freedoms you were talking about where, if you don't buy a product the government punishes you?

[drauz]

It's also interesting that a black man goes to prison for cocaine and Joe's son get's a million dollar job working for Ukraine oil companies.

Black men go to prison for testing positive for cocaine?

[Neveragain]

Black men go to prison for testing positive for cocaine?

So there's no systematic racism?

Because I think that's a pretty damn good example of systematic racism.

[Blazar]

So there's no systematic racism?

Because I think that's a pretty damn good example of systematic racism.

I think you mean systemic, not systematic. Damn man, you're so fucking dumb you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. No wonder you don't believe systemic racism exists, because you don't even know what the fuck it means or how it's pronounced. Oh wait, I know why you believe that... you don't want to, so you choose not to. Pathetic piece of shit. But what do you even mean here? There are white and black people in jail for cocaine, and crack. What the fuck are you trying to say you fucking twat? Your statement makes absolutely zero sense.

And again, I dislike Biden, a lot actually. I don't think he's the right man for the job. Do I think he's 100x better than the fucking narcissist we have now? Abso-fucking-lutely. Why? Because I'm not an ignorant and racist person like you. You people actually think there's no wage gap for women and minorities. What a bunch of fucking assholes you are... especially since the statistics prove it very clearly. I'm sure you just think white men are more qualified for every position that isn't taking care of babies, cooking, and cleaning... right? You are the poster child for why abortion should stay legal, as I'm sure your parents would have been better off without you.

[Seran]

There is no misdirection. You're the one voting for him, it's Democrats that spent the last 16 years demonizing old rich white guys and here you are letting an old rich white guy go balls deep on you. It's spectacular to watch.

Healthcare reform? Is that another one of those personal freedoms you were talking about where, if you don't buy a product the government punishes you?

If you don't purchase Healthcare insurance when you can afford it, you pay a penalty. If you cannot afford it then you're eligible for free or massively subsidized medicaid's state equivalent to make sure you're covered. Medical bankruptcies have dropped by more than half since the ACA was signed into law, people with preexisting conditions are no longer denied coverage and dependents are covered well into their twenties. That's reform on a massive scale, something the Republicans are trying desperately to destroy through the courts.

[Tgo01]

I like it, at it's survivable. Unlike if you had to take a drink every time Tg01 pushes a political narrative.

Gosh you're boring.

[Tgo01]

New PC drinking game: take a drink every time Blazar says "How dumb can you be?" or some variation thereof, and anytime he acts surprised by something someone said.


Damn man, you're so fucking dumb you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

DRINK!

[drauz]

So there's no systematic racism?

Because I think that's a pretty damn good example of systematic racism.

Someone testing positive for cocaine and being caught with cocaine is night and day in the eyes of the law. One is a crime and one isn't, well except when driving.

[Candor]

From 1987...yes 1987...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGXRvDT2k8I

[time4fun]

And Texas Republicans are trying to get over 100,000 ballots (https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEPHN-tS8pJNSVhzEWxAz1yEqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMLnhAg? hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen) invalidated. And they won the Judge assignment lottery.

This party needs to go. The onslaught of attacks against basic principles of Democracy are chilling and nauseating. How anyone could support this kind of behavior and call it "protecting our rights" is beyond comprehension.

At this point in time, voter suppression is one of the few concrete policy positions the GOP actually has.

[Neveragain]

I think you mean systemic, not systematic. Damn man, you're so fucking dumb you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. No wonder you don't believe systemic racism exists, because you don't even know what the fuck it means or how it's pronounced. Oh wait, I know why you believe that... you don't want to, so you choose not to. Pathetic piece of shit. But what do you even mean here? There are white and black people in jail for cocaine, and crack. What the fuck are you trying to say you fucking twat? Your statement makes absolutely zero sense.

And again, I dislike Biden, a lot actually. I don't think he's the right man for the job. Do I think he's 100x better than the fucking narcissist we have now? Abso-fucking-lutely. Why? Because I'm not an ignorant and racist person like you. You people actually think there's no wage gap for women and minorities. What a bunch of fucking assholes you are... especially since the statistics prove it very clearly. I'm sure you just think white men are more qualified for every position that isn't taking care of babies, cooking, and cleaning... right? You are the poster child for why abortion should stay legal, as I'm sure your parents would have been better off without you.

I have never seen someone get so angry at the voice to chat program I have to use because of Parkinson's.

But, as I was saying, forcing individuals to purchase a product from a private entity under the threat of punishment is not only illegal under our constitution, anyone else would be charged with coercion.


You are the poster child for why abortion should stay legal, as I'm sure your parents would have been better off without you.

Wow, the need for killing innocent children is strong in you. I can only imagine the breakdown that's going to take place if Trump wins.

P.S. There is no gender wage gap.

[Neveragain]

And Texas Republicans are trying to get over 100,000 ballots (https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEPHN-tS8pJNSVhzEWxAz1yEqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMLnhAg? hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen) invalidated. And they won the Judge assignment lottery.

This party needs to go. The onslaught of attacks against basic principles of Democracy are chilling and nauseating. How anyone could support this kind of behavior and call it "protecting our rights" is beyond comprehension.

At this point in time, voter suppression is one of the few concrete policy positions the GOP actually has.

Slate.

/dismiss

[Neveragain]

How a Democrat doctor performs surgery:

Patient: What are the results doc?

Democrat Doctor: You have a bad heart.

Patient: What can you do to fix it?

Democrat doctor: I will administer more insurance.

[Neveragain]

From 1987...yes 1987...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGXRvDT2k8I

Joe Biden: Winter is coming!

https://i.gifer.com/JSjG.gif

Joe Biden: Light in the darkness.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-22-2017/ufeeRW.gif


If we we're voting based on favorite genres, Joe would have my vote.

[drauz]

You people actually think there's no wage gap for women and minorities. What a bunch of fucking assholes you are... especially since the statistics prove it very clearly. I'm sure you just think white men are more qualified for every position that isn't taking care of babies, cooking, and cleaning... right?

I don't think the gender pay gap, at the level you are thinking of, is real. You can't just add up the incomes and divide by number of people, that's how all this started. Hours worked, profession, and time off taken must also be taken into account. It's just not backed up by the evidence, I would suggest you do a little more digging on the subject.

Sure sexism is a thing, we just had Neveragain give us a wonderful example of that not long ago, but it's not borne out by the evidence in regards to the wage gap. It may play some small reason in why women generally have less income but it's not anywhere near the main reason.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think the gender pay gap, at the level you are thinking of, is real. You can't just add up the incomes and divide by number of people, that's how all this started. Hours worked, profession, and time off taken must also be taken into account. It's just not backed up by the evidence, I would suggest you do a little more digger on the subject.

Sure sexism is a thing, we just had Neveragain give us a wonderful example of that not long ago, but it's not borne out by the evidence in regards to the wage gap. It may play some small reason in why women generally have less income but it's not anywhere near the main reason.

I can't wait for you to get roasted by Andraste for this post... and Soyfox.

You sound like a misogynist.

Foreshame.

I guess you don't believe Hillary lost because of sexists like you now too...

https://media0.giphy.com/media/vX9WcCiWwUF7G/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

I don't think the gender pay gap, at the level you are thinking of, is real. You can't just add up the incomes and divide by number of people, that's how all this started. Hours worked, profession, and time off taken must also be taken into account. It's just not backed up by the evidence, I would suggest you do a little more digging on the subject.

Sure sexism is a thing, we just had Neveragain give us a wonderful example of that not long ago, but it's not borne out by the evidence in regards to the wage gap. It may play some small reason in why women generally have less income but it's not anywhere near the main reason.

Actually, the pay gap is worse than the numbers you typically see. There are, VERY roughly speaking, two ways to calculate the pay gap, the most common of which specifically controls for all of those things you just listed. Hours worked, education background, region, etc. In the US the gap as measured in that way is about 20% (better for white women, worse for women of color). That means a women in the US will earn about 80% of what a man would earn for the same exact job, in the same region, with the same qualifications.

But that's not an accurate representation of the lived realities of women in the workplace. Occupational sex segregation, for example, has massive implications for the kind of work women go into to begin with. The traditional means of calculating the gender pay gap doesn't factor in that women doctors are far more likely to be (relatively) low paying general internists than the highly paid specialist fields dominated by men. Women are actually more likely to attend law school, and are hired into law firms at roughly the same rate as men, but women are far less likely to be promoted to partner than men are. In fact, in general, women are far less likely to receive managerial positions than men regardless of the occupation.

As more women enter a particular occupation, it often begins to pay less and begins to provide less job mobility. Bank tellers are a very famous example of this phenomenon.

The traditional way of calculating the gender pay gap also doesn't control for the fact that heterosexual woman end up doing disproportionately more childcare work that can interrupt their work day and give them competitive disadvantages when it comes to determining their "commitment to work" when compared to men for performance reviews. Women are far more likely to take lower paying jobs or tracks in their careers that allow more flexibility (at the expense of compensation and career mobility) to handle childcare and housekeeping than men. Many law firms have, for example, created less time intensive tracks that allow lawyers more work flexibility in exchange for lower pay and foregoing any chance of becoming a partner: these are often "affectionately" termed "Mommy tracks" for a reason.

The traditional way of calculating the gender pay gap doesn't actually factor any of this in. It compares male and female "mommy track" lawyers to each other. It doesn't compare mommy track vs partner track. It compares male and female managers to each other but doesn't factor in the women who were overlooked for management positions because they weren't deemed "serious enough" or didn't fit gendered work stereotypes. (A man who is aggressive is assertive and gets things done, a woman who is aggressive is a bitch who needs to smile more).

[time4fun]

How a Democrat doctor performs surgery:

Patient: What are the results doc?

Democrat Doctor: You have a bad heart.


Democrat doctor: I will administer more insurance.


Republican Doctors and Democratic Doctors do their jobs exactly the same.

Republican and Democratic *legislators* do not. For example:

Citizens: There's a massive pandemic going around killing hundreds of thousands of people, and the people who survive are often facing long term health problems! Help!

Democratic legislators: Let's expand health care coverage to include everyone regardless of their ability to pay, ensure pre-existing conditions are covered, fund public awareness campaigns, make sure hospitals have the funding and equipment they need to handle the situation, and encourage people to minimize their risk of exposure to the virus.

Republican legislators: Let's try to take health coverage away from tens of millions of people, let's try to get pre-existing conditions coverage taken away, let's refuse to pass any funding measures that try to give money to states and hospitals fighting the virus, let's tell everyone the virus is a hoax, and then let's make sure that Republican Governors do absolutely nothing to protect their people while also passing EOs that invalidate anything local cities and towns try to do to protect people. Meanwhile let's attack Democratic Governors who are trying to protect their people and literally call them to arms in some cases. And let's spread tons of misinformation about the virus, attack medical experts, attack the WHO, and tell everyone there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Then when things get REALLY bad- let's blame the Democrats.

LITERALLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.

My god the GALL it takes for you to say something so incredibly stupid given what has been going on in this country may actually qualify you as having so little brain activity that you could be declared legally dead.

You people are so fucking incompetent that we need a new word for incompetent.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, the pay gap is worse than the numbers you typically see. There are, VERY roughly speaking, two ways to calculate the pay gap, the most common of which specifically controls for all of those things you just listed. Hours worked, education background, region, etc. In the US the gap as measured in that way is about 20% (better for white women, worse for women of color). That means a women in the US will earn about 80% of what a man would earn for the same exact job, in the same region, with the same qualifications.

But that's not an accurate representation of the lived realities of women in the workplace. Occupational sex segregation, for example, has massive implications for the kind of work women go into to begin with. The traditional means of calculating the gender pay gap doesn't factor in that women doctors are far more likely to be (relatively) low paying general internists than the highly paid specialist fields dominated by men. Women are actually more likely to attend law school, and are hired into law firms at roughly the same rate as men, but women are far less likely to be promoted to partner than men are. In fact, in general, women are far less likely to receive managerial positions than men regardless of the occupation.

As more women enter a particular occupation, it often begins to pay less and begins to provide less job mobility. Bank tellers are a very famous example of this phenomenon.

The traditional way of calculating the gender pay gap also doesn't control for the fact that heterosexual woman end up doing disproportionately more childcare work that can interrupt their work day and give them competitive disadvantages when it comes to determining their "commitment to work" when compared to men for performance reviews. Women are far more likely to take lower paying jobs or tracks in their careers that allow more flexibility (at the expense of compensation and career mobility) to handle childcare and housekeeping than men. Many law firms have, for example, created less time intensive tracks that allow lawyers more work flexibility in exchange for lower pay and foregoing any chance of becoming a partner: these are often "affectionately" termed "Mommy tracks" for a reason.

The traditional way of calculating the gender pay gap doesn't actually factor any of this in. It compares male and female "mommy track" lawyers to each other. It doesn't compare mommy track vs partner track. It compares male and female managers to each other but doesn't factor in the women who were overlooked for management positions because they weren't deemed "serious enough" or didn't fit gendered work stereotypes. (A man who is aggressive is assertive and gets things done, a woman who is aggressive is a bitch who needs to smile more).

https://media1.tenor.com/images/2cb73b009008dcd3de2a6093234cb5a6/tenor.gif?itemid=11652687https://media1.tenor.com/images/2cb73b009008dcd3de2a6093234cb5a6/tenor.gif?itemid=11652687https://media1.tenor.com/images/2cb73b009008dcd3de2a6093234cb5a6/tenor.gif?itemid=11652687

[Parkbandit]

You people are so fucking incompetent that we need a new word for incompetent.

How about "MCAD DROPOUT"?

[Neveragain]

Republican Doctors and Democratic Doctors do their jobs exactly the same.

Republican and Democratic *legislators* do not. For example:

Citizens: There's a massive pandemic going around killing hundreds of thousands of people, and the people who survive are often facing long term health problems! Help!

Democratic legislators: Let's expand health care coverage to include everyone regardless of their ability to pay, ensure pre-existing conditions are covered, fund public awareness campaigns, make sure hospitals have the funding and equipment they need to handle the situation, and encourage people to minimize their risk of exposure to the virus.

Republican legislators: Let's try to take health coverage away from tens of millions of people, let's try to get pre-existing conditions coverage taken away, let's refuse to pass any funding measures that try to give money to states and hospitals fighting the virus, let's tell everyone the virus is a hoax, and then let's make sure that Republican Governors do absolutely nothing to protect their people while also passing EOs that invalidate anything local cities and towns try to do to protect people. And let's spread tons of misinformation about the virus, attack medical experts, attack the WHO, and tell everyone there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Then when things get REALLY bad- let's blame the Democrats.

LITERALLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.

My god the GALL it takes for you to say something so incredibly stupid given what has been going on in this country may actually qualify you as having so little brain activity d that you could be declared legally dead.

That's nice.

Anyhow as I was saying. The government creating a law that punishes the individual for not purchasing a product is unconstitutional and anyone else would be put in prison for coercion.

Now if you want to actually improve healthcare I'm totally on board, that has nothing to do with bailing out or doing business with private insurance companies though.

[drauz]

Actually, the pay gap is worse than the numbers you typically see. There are, VERY roughly speaking, two ways to calculate the pay gap, the most common of which specifically controls for all of those things you just listed. Hours worked, education background, region, etc. In the US the gap as measured in that way is about 20% (better for white women, worse for women of color). That means a women in the US will earn about 80% of what a man would earn for the same exact job, in the same region, with the same qualifications.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

While it's true that generally a women will make less than a man overall, it matters why. When properly controlled for the reasons become clear. Men are more likely to take unscheduled overtime on short notice.


But that's not an accurate representation of the lived realities of women in the workplace. Occupational sex segregation, for example, has massive implications for the kind of work women go into to begin with. The traditional means of calculating the gender pay gap doesn't factor in that women doctors are far more likely to be (relatively) low paying general internists than the highly paid specialist fields dominated by men. Women are actually more likely to attend law school, and are hired into law firms at roughly the same rate as men, but women are far less likely to be promoted to partner than men are. In fact, in general, women are far less likely to receive managerial positions than men regardless of the occupation.

Women generally choose fields that pay less. There are two reasons that woman and men differ, cultural and biological. On the whole men and women are mostly the same, but at the extremes men tend to go for fields that involve "things" and women tend to go for fields that involve "people". As you minimize the cultural differences you maximize the biological differences. So when you maximize choice women are even more likely to go into lower paying fields such as nursing compared to engineering.



As more women enter a particular occupation, it often begins to pay less and begins to provide less job mobility. Bank tellers are a very famous example of this phenomenon.

This is just common sense, with more competition for a particular job the need to pay more to secure a good employee lowers. Also leaps in technology that makes less qualified people able to complete the tasks of the job.



The traditional way of calculating the gender pay gap also doesn't control for the fact that heterosexual woman end up doing disproportionately more childcare work that can interrupt their work day and give them competitive disadvantages when it comes to determining their "commitment to work" when compared to men for performance reviews. Women are far more likely to take lower paying jobs or tracks in their careers that allow more flexibility (at the expense of compensation and career mobility) to handle childcare and housekeeping than men. Many law firms have, for example, created less time intensive tracks that allow lawyers more work flexibility in exchange for lower pay and foregoing any chance of becoming a partner: these are often "affectionately" termed "Mommy tracks" for a reason.

Yes, women will tend to choose more flexibility to less. You either want women to have this choice or you don't. I don't see a problem with allowing women a choice in this. You want more flexibility but it will come at a price.

[time4fun]

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

While it's true that generally a women will make less than a man overall, it matters why. When properly controlled for the reasons become clear. Men are more likely to take unscheduled overtime on short notice.



Women generally choose fields that pay less. There are two reasons that woman and men differ, cultural and biological. On the whole men and women are mostly the same, but at the extremes men tend to go for fields that involve "things" and women tend to go for fields that involve "people". As you minimize the cultural differences you maximize the biological differences. So when you maximize choice women are even more likely to go into lower paying fields such as nursing compared to engineering.




This is just common sense, with more competition for a particular job the need to pay more to secure a good employee lowers. Also leaps in technology that makes less qualified people able to complete the tasks of the job.




Yes, women will tend to choose more flexibility to less. You either want women to have this choice or you don't. I don't see a problem with allowing women a choice in this. You want more flexibility but it will come at a price.

I'm struggling a bit here with whether you're misunderstanding my argument or you're misunderstanding the argument the authors of the Harvard piece are making. The paper and I are arguing more or less the same thing. But they're not providing evidence of most of what you're trying to say.

First, the authors *never* argued that women were choosing "people" professions over "things" professions- that's abjectly false. There is no research, to my knowledge, that supports that because "People vs things" is an inaccurate way to demarcate jobs. And the notion that women "Just happen" to be choosing fields that pay less than men is actually rather offensive and- more importantly- completely outside the scope of the research.

The authors are actually very careful to point out that they're not trying to address occupational sex segregation. In fact, they specifically chose to look at men and women in the same, highly unionized position (which makes it far more difficult for employers to directly pay women less than men) so they could control for that variable as much as possible

Ultimately, the authors are making two very important points (both of which are ones I made):
1) Even if you try to control for same job, same theoretical pay, etc. women are still being paid less (which is not captured in studies of the gender pay gap typically)
2) At least one of the significant reasons for this is that women are constrained by their outsized responsibility for housework and childcare and have to make different workplace decisions than men, decisions which hamper their careers.


So this is one of those uncomfortable moments where it turns out you googled a little too fast, and you ended up citing a paper that directly supported my point but refuted part of your argument and simply didn't provide any support for the rest.

Given this is very off topic though, feel free to make a new thread. I'll reply to subsequent posts there if you want to continue the conversation.

[time4fun]

Some warning signs for democrats in the early voting numbers: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/01/we-have-data-who-voted-early-key-battleground-states-who-they-may-be-voting/?fbclid=IwAR1y1Iqb3-bD4u3c5el69PA2C4_0XrxPO1fc9GZ3RL8t-E2iqvfz8uC2BM0)


As early voting kicked off, it looked like more Democrats were turning out than Republicans. But in most key battleground states, that trend has now shifted to favor Republicans, even as a newly mobilized, more diverse electorate is making an impact.


In the 11 battlegrounds, the number of early voters who were likely to support Democrats was 54 percent, versus 45 percent who were predicted to vote for Republicans. In some states Democrats had an even larger advantage, the data show. In Iowa and Michigan, likely Democrats made up 58 percent of early voters, while in Pennsylvania, 70 percent of the early vote before Oct. 20 was from voters Catalist predicted would support Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Texas stands out as the one battleground state where likely Republican voters turned out at higher rates than likely Democrats in the first week of early voting: Republicans were 52 percent of early voters.


What about early voting in the past 10 days? Overall and in each battleground state, Republicans started to make gains on Democrats. In fact, in the 11 battleground states we examine, likely Republicans made up 50 percent of these more recent votes vs. 49 percent for voters predicted to support the Democrats.


In Iowa, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin, Republicans make up more than 50 percent of recent mail ballots received and early in-person voters. About half of the early vote has come in since Oct. 20, so it appears that Republicans are catching up with Democrats even before Election Day when — thanks in part to President Trump’s rhetoric attacking mail ballots — the vote should skew disproportionately Republican.


Again, it’s important to interpret early voting data with caution. Given the polarization regarding early voting, it’s possible that the population voting early has more Biden voters than Catalist’s models suggest, and that the Election Day turnout will tilt even more heavily toward Trump. However, the data on the votes that are in so far indicate that the election is far from a foregone conclusion.


I don't really know enough about how Catalist is determining political/demographic correlations to have much to add, but there are certainly some concerning numbers here. This along with the tightening in Iowa certainly generate some concern.

[Neveragain]

I'm struggling a bit here with whether you're misunderstanding my argument or you're misunderstanding the argument the authors of the Harvard piece are making. The paper and I are arguing more or less the same thing. But they're not providing evidence of most of what you're trying to say.

First, the authors *never* argued that women were choosing "people" professions over "things" professions- that's abjectly false. There is no research, to my knowledge, that supports that because "People vs things" is an inaccurate way to demarcate jobs. And the notion that women "Just happen" to be choosing fields that pay less than men is actually rather offensive and- more importantly- completely outside the scope of the research.

The authors are actually very careful to point out that they're not trying to address occupational sex segregation. In fact, they specifically chose to look at men and women in the same, highly unionized position (which makes it far more difficult for employers to directly pay women less than men) so they could control for that variable as much as possible

Ultimately, the authors are making two very important points (both of which are ones I made):
1) Even if you try to control for same job, same theoretical pay, etc. women are still being paid less (which is not captured in studies of the gender pay gap typically)
2) At least one of the significant reasons for this is that women are constrained by their outsized responsibility for housework and childcare and have to make different workplace decisions than men, decisions which hamper their careers.


So this is one of those uncomfortable moments where it turns out you googled a little too fast, and you ended up citing a paper that directly supported my point but refuted part of your argument and simply didn't provide any support for the rest.

Given this is very off topic though, feel free to make a new thread. I'll reply to subsequent posts there if you want to continue the conversation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGH2d1jBJu8

[Neveragain]

Some warning signs for democrats in the early voting numbers: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/01/we-have-data-who-voted-early-key-battleground-states-who-they-may-be-voting/?fbclid=IwAR1y1Iqb3-bD4u3c5el69PA2C4_0XrxPO1fc9GZ3RL8t-E2iqvfz8uC2BM0)












I don't really know enough about how Catalist is determining political/demographic correlations to have much to add, but there are certainly some concerning numbers here. This along with the tightening in Iowa certainly generate some concern.

More like widening in Iowa. I would be more concerned with losing Minnesota at this point. Iowa is going red, again, it was never going to go blue in the first place. The elderly here love Trump.

[time4fun]

More like widening in Iowa. I would be more concerned with losing Minnesota at this point. Iowa is going red, again, it was never going to go blue in the first place. The elderly here love Trump.

Minnesota? Of all the rust belt states, Pennsylvania is the one most likely to go Red this year. Biden is up about 5 points, which is also about the margin of error.

For Minnesota to be in play right now, there would need to be a systemic polling error about three times the size of 2016. Not impossible, but hardly something to count on

[time4fun]

That's nice.

Anyhow as I was saying. The government creating a law that punishes the individual for not purchasing a product is unconstitutional and anyone else would be put in prison for coercion.

Now if you want to actually improve healthcare I'm totally on board, that has nothing to do with bailing out or doing business with private insurance companies though.

Actually it's not unconstitutional because Congress has the authority to levy taxes. And if you had any knowledge of the subject, you would know that.

But, more to the point, the individual mandate is there to lower premiums. It's not the core of the law. But I'm guessing Tucker Carlson never told you that.

[Tgo01]

Actually it's not unconstitutional because Congress has the authority to levy taxes.

Taxing people and forcing people to buy a product from a private company are two entirely different things. You would realize this if you would stop making up stories about teaching classes at college and actually learned a thing or two about the English fucking language.

[Seran]

Taxing people and forcing people to buy a product from a private company are two entirely different things. You would realize this if you would stop making up stories about teaching classes at college and actually learned a thing or two about the English fucking language.

This is absolutely no different than being forced to buy tags for your car or being required to maintain homeowners insurance when buying a home.

In this case stupid people were driving themselves into bankruptcy and/or causing massive charity write off losses to hospitals due to people not purchasing health insurance when they could afford it. Now people are forced to choose one of dozens of plans available to their state on the private market of public exchange or face penalties.

[Tgo01]

This is absolutely no different than being forced to buy tags for your car or being required to maintain homeowners insurance when buying a home.

There is a big fucking difference: don't want to buy tags? Don't own a car. Don't want to buy homeowner's insurance? Don't own a house.

Not to mention tags are from the government so it's a form of tax anyways so that's a bad example.

[Neveragain]

Actually it's not unconstitutional because Congress has the authority to levy taxes. And if you had any knowledge of the subject, you would know that.

But, more to the point, the individual mandate is there to lower premiums. It's not the core of the law. But I'm guessing Tucker Carlson never told you that.

As I was saying. It's unconstitutional to force the individual to purchase a product.

How are you so constitutionally illiterate?

[Neveragain]

This is absolutely no different than being forced to buy tags for your car or being required to maintain homeowners insurance when buying a home.

In this case stupid people were driving themselves into bankruptcy and/or causing massive charity write off losses to hospitals due to people not purchasing health insurance when they could afford it. Now people are forced to choose one of dozens of plans available to their state on the private market of public exchange or face penalties.

I won't even bother with your first retort because it's stupid. It's cute though that you want to use the government like the mafia.

That's a sad story, it does not change the fact that the government can not legally force you to purchase a product.

[Sighisoara]

That's a sad story, it does not change the fact that the government can not legally force you to purchase a product.

Since when? The government has forced people to buy products for decades with little to no objection (eg. car insurance, seat belts, and life jackets immediately come to mind). I’m curious, specifically which part of the constitution do you think this violates?

[Menos]

Since when? The government has forced people to buy products for decades with little to no objection (eg. car insurance, seat belts, and life jackets immediately come to mind). I’m curious, specifically which part of the constitution do you think this violates?

Some might also find those takings offensive, but I would point out that using a vehicle on public property (roads, navigable water ways) is considered a privilege and not a right. That is the basis under which the means that you enjoy those privileges have been regulated. That is also why they can revoke your licence to drive without a conviction of a crime, if for instance you simply refuse a breathalyzer test. You would probably have had a stronger argument going with government enforced monopolies on things like power/water/internet.

I would simply modify Neveragain's argument to this. "The government cannot constitutionally force you to purchase a product." But, of course, they do unconstitutional things from time to time with differing levels of pushback. The bigger the infringement, the stronger that pushback in general.

[Sighisoara]

Some might also find those takings offensive, but I would point out that using a vehicle on public property (roads, navigable water ways) is considered a privilege and not a right. That is the basis under which the means that you enjoy those privileges have been regulated. That is also why they can revoke your licence to drive without a conviction of a crime, if for instance you simply refuse a breathalyzer test. You would probably have had a stronger argument going with government enforced monopolies on things like power/water/internet.

I would simply modify Neveragain's argument to this. "The government cannot constitutionally force you to purchase a product." But, of course, they do unconstitutional things from time to time with differing levels of pushback. The bigger the infringement, the stronger that pushback in general.

That’s an interesting point, right v privilege, but I don’t think it addresses the underlying point of whether the government can constitutionally force an individual to purchase a specific product. Moreover, I think your argument is problematic in that there’s no right to enter into the marketplace, it is also a privilege. Wouldn’t the individual mandate fall under this exception you carved out?

[Neveragain]

Since when? The government has forced people to buy products for decades with little to no objection (eg. car insurance, seat belts, and life jackets immediately come to mind). I’m curious, specifically which part of the constitution do you think this violates?

It's very simple. Rights are "things" you are born with, it requires no outside entity to deliver those rights. This is why healthcare is not a right, it requires the labor of another individual. You or I have no right to another persons services.

[time4fun]

As I was saying. It's unconstitutional to force the individual to purchase a product.

How are you so constitutionally illiterate?

Because it's not forcing you to buy something. It's taxing you if you don't. Those are VERY different things. It's not even a particularly large tax.

And SCOTUS specifically addressed this issue and said you're wrong.

Guessing Tucker didn't tell you that either.

[Parkbandit]

Since when? The government has forced people to buy products for decades with little to no objection (eg. car insurance, seat belts, and life jackets immediately come to mind). I’m curious, specifically which part of the constitution do you think this violates?

You don't have to own car insurance if you don't own a car.

You don't buy seat belts.

You don't have to buy a life jacket if you don't own a boat.

[Parkbandit]

Because it's not forcing you to buy something. It's taxing you if you don't. Those are VERY different things. It's not even a particularly large tax.

And SCOTUS specifically addressed this issue and said you're wrong.

Guessing Tucker didn't tell you that either.

"It's not forcing you to buy something, it's taxing you if you don't"

THAT is your argument? Remember when President Obama said that the mandate is NOT a tax... right up until the lawyers figured out the only way they can get it through the courts is to make it into a tax... so that's when they did?

So I guess when SCOTUS specifically addresses this again and say the government cannot force an individual to purchase a product... you will be ok with the decision?

[Neveragain]

Because it's not forcing you to buy something. It's taxing you if you don't. Those are VERY different things. It's not even a particularly large tax.

And SCOTUS specifically addressed this issue and said you're wrong.

Guessing Tucker didn't tell you that either.

That's why the mandate went bye, bye.

That's why the SCOTUS just flipped conservative.

But I'm more than happy to watch Democrats break knees and pick pockets for the private insurance companies, it's only further strengthened conservative support.

[~Rocktar~]

Because it's not forcing you to buy something. It's taxing you if you don't. Those are VERY different things. It's not even a particularly large tax.

And SCOTUS specifically addressed this issue and said you're wrong.

Guessing Tucker didn't tell you that either.

Ummm, the law was written as a "force you to buy" and not as a tax, specifically to avoid the lies about "not a health care tax". The arguments put forth and the writing in the law were specifically framed as to not describe or label a tax. The law also had a provision to be an all or nothing law so the SCOTUS had to decide in total the constitutionality of the law. At the time, the commentary of the justices involved describes the argument going back and forth about it being a tax. The majority decision of the SCOTUS decided that they would just view it as a tax in order to pass it because they were afraid of the outcome if they didn't pass it because of the mass of idiots like you that bought into the lie of lower costs and because it assuages your little feelers. They were afraid of mass civil unrest if they decided against it. So, no it was not a tax until they decided it was so they could cop out and not do their job and protect the citizens of the US against unconstitutional laws and an unprecedented expansion of government power. Just like in many cases, they went weak because of judicial activism and concern over public opinion instead of the constitution.

Hopefully with this new court, they will grow some spine and uphold the constitution rather than continue to cow to popular opinion and protect the citizens. Perhaps the weak kneed Roberts will grow a pair or retire. It could also be the case, as rumored, that he and others on the court could be compromised based on evidence from the Epstine case but that is just a rumor. If Trump wins, I really hope that we can see someone retire and perhaps put an end to this huge spat of activism we have had over the past couple of decades and see some real limits to the power of government.

[Ashlander]

So I guess when SCOTUS specifically addresses this again and say the government cannot force an individual to purchase a product... you will be ok with the decision?

Of course she won't. She'll say that's why Biden/Harris needs to raise the number of judges on the supreme court because Trump "forced" in his pick when he wasn't supposed to.

[~Rocktar~]

Of course she won't. She'll say that's why Biden/Harris needs to raise the number of judges on the supreme court because Trump "forced" in his pick when he wasn't supposed to.

^^ This

[Ashliana]

Because it's not forcing you to buy something. It's taxing you if you don't. Those are VERY different things. It's not even a particularly large tax.

And SCOTUS specifically addressed this issue and said you're wrong.

Guessing Tucker didn't tell you that either."It's not forcing you to buy something, it's taxing you if you don't"

THAT is your argument? Remember when President Obama said that the mandate is NOT a tax... right up until the lawyers figured out the only way they can get it through the courts is to make it into a tax... so that's when they did?

So I guess when SCOTUS specifically addresses this again and say the government cannot force an individual to purchase a product... you will be ok with the decision?

You do realize that the individual mandate flowed from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, to Newt Gingrich, to Romney while he was GOP governor of Massachusetts, right? And is to prevent so-called moochers -- sorry, "takers" versus "makers" -- from not having health insurance until the instant they get sick, then taking advantage of everyone else who had paid premiums all along?

Just checking if you were aware that Obama implementing the right-wing version of healthcare broke your brain, or if you're just clueless as ever. The right-wing idea was just so gosh-darned unfair! ... until a liberal listened to a conservative and implemented it, thus becoming the nasty, nefarious Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation now strongly claims that it wasn't all their idea... right after laying out exactly how it was their idea.. only they now admit they were mistaken, and that ...



"health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.

Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s."

[Neveragain]

You do realize that the individual mandate flowed from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, to Newt Gingrich, to Romney while he was GOP governor of Massachusetts, right? And is to prevent so-called moochers -- sorry, "takers" versus "makers" -- from not having health insurance until the instant they get sick, then taking advantage of everyone else who had paid premiums all along?

Just checking if you were aware that Obama implementing the right-wing version of healthcare broke your brain, or if you're just clueless as ever. The right-wing idea was just so gosh-darned unfair! ... until a liberal listened to a conservative and implemented it, thus becoming the nasty, nefarious Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation now strongly claims that it wasn't all their idea... right after laying out exactly how it was their idea.. only they now admit they were mistaken, and that ...

I don't care if Jesus came up with the mandate, it's illegal.


And is to prevent so-called moochers -- sorry, "takers" versus "makers" -- from not having health insurance until the instant they get sick, then taking advantage of everyone else who had paid premiums all along?

How dare the consumer be able to use the same statistics the insurance companies use for their financial planning. Only the insurance companies can do that!

PCMarxist's: Corporations are the devil!

Also PCMarxist's: Insurance companies are the shit!

[Ashliana]

I don't care if Jesus came up with the mandate, it's illegal.

How dare the consumer be able to use the same statistics the insurance companies use for their financial planning. Only the insurance companies can do that!

PCMarxist's: Corporations are the devil!

Also PCMarxist's: Insurance companies are the shit!

"PCMarxists" don't want private insurance companies to exist at all. A middleman with a profit motive doesn't increase the quality of healthcare.

[time4fun]

I don't care if Jesus came up with the mandate, it's illegal.



How dare the consumer be able to use the same statistics the insurance companies use for their financial planning. Only the insurance companies can do that!
PCMarxist's: Corporations are the devil!

Also PCMarxist's: Insurance companies are the shit!

So a few things:

1) It's not illegal. SCOTUS says it's not illegal. So it's not. By definition.

2) The mandate does not force anyone to do anything. FORCING people to buy insurance would be to give it to them no matter what and take money away or to threaten imprisonment or excessive fines for failing to do so. The mandate is there to incentivize people to buy insurance because when they don't, they literally make it more expensive for everyone else- especially since the ones who would refuse would generally be people needed to keep the risk pool low. You people didn't want single payer, so this is what you get. A market-based solution.

And once again, I am in the exasperated position of not quite knowing how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

3) You still have absolutely no idea what a Marxist is. None. Zero. Zilch. You have clearly never read Marx. You've clearly never read an honest academic piece that analyzes Marx. You clearly don't even understand what Marx had to say conceptually. And it would be wildly hilarious- just how embarrassing it is to run around screaming "MARXIST!" at things that are other objectively unrelated to Marx or- as is VERY often the case- things that are actually the opposite of Marxist.

But go ahead and prove me wrong- what would Marx say about the ACA and why?

[Neveragain]

"PCMarxists" don't want private insurance companies to exist at all. A middleman with a profit motive doesn't increase the quality of healthcare.

I didn't say I don't want insurance companies to exist. I do have a problem with private insurance profiting off government backed extortion though.

[Neveragain]

So a few things:

1) It's not illegal. SCOTUS says it's not illegal. So it's not. By definition.

2) The mandate does not force anyone to do anything. FORCING people to buy insurance would be to give it to them no matter what and take money away or to threaten imprisonment or excessive fines for failing to do so. The mandate is there to incentivize people to buy insurance because when they don't, they literally make it more expensive for everyone else- especially since the ones who would refuse would generally be people needed to keep the risk pool low. You people didn't want single payer, so this is what you get. A market-based solution.

And once again, I am in the exasperated position of not quite knowing how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

3) You still have absolutely no idea what a Marxist is. None. Zero. Zilch. You have clearly never read Marx. You've clearly never read an honest academic piece that analyzes Marx. You clearly don't even understand what Marx had to say conceptually. And it would be wildly hilarious- just how embarrassing it is to run around screaming "MARXIST!" at things that are other objectively unrelated to Marx or- as is VERY often the case- things that are actually the opposite of Marxist.

But go ahead and prove me wrong- what would Marx say about the ACA and why?

1) The SCOTUS is wrong.

2) If you don't carry insurance the government was fining you. And how is it that laws are ultimately enforced, Time4Marxism?

3) You're a Marxist.

Marx would say "Yup, that's the path from capitalism to communism."

[Methais]

Greenland is now Redland

https://i.imgur.com/mKhTbLl.jpg

[Parkbandit]

You do realize that the individual mandate flowed from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, to Newt Gingrich, to Romney while he was GOP governor of Massachusetts, right? And is to prevent so-called moochers -- sorry, "takers" versus "makers" -- from not having health insurance until the instant they get sick, then taking advantage of everyone else who had paid premiums all along?

Just checking if you were aware that Obama implementing the right-wing version of healthcare broke your brain, or if you're just clueless as ever. The right-wing idea was just so gosh-darned unfair! ... until a liberal listened to a conservative and implemented it, thus becoming the nasty, nefarious Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation now strongly claims that it wasn't all their idea... right after laying out exactly how it was their idea.. only they now admit they were mistaken, and that ...

Wait.. was I saying something about the Heritage Foundation not making up Obamacare somewhere and I forgot?

Damn, It... you came back (you never really left) to post this? You're straw"man"ing something and really believed you had an intelligent point to make?

Good job at trying I suppose.

[Seran]

I didn't say I don't want insurance companies to exist. I do have a problem private insurance profiting off government backed extortion though.

Hating companies for making a profit is a pretty Lefty move. Now before you go into quoting Ayn Rand about government passing laws benefit well connected corporations, I'll point out that health insurance coverage mandates benefit subscribers, providers, insurers and most of all taxpayers. This isn't government overreach, this is common sense.

[Neveragain]

Hating companies for making a profit is a pretty Lefty move. Now before you go into quoting Ayn Rand about government passing laws benefit well connected corporations, I'll point out that health insurance coverage mandates benefit subscribers, providers, insurers and most of all taxpayers. This isn't government overreach, this is common sense.

"Hating companies for making a profit is a pretty Lefty move."

So we can just go back to the way things were before ACA. Fixed.

"Now before you go into quoting Ayn Rand about government passing laws benefit well connected corporations, I'll point out that health insurance coverage mandates benefit subscribers, providers, insurers and most of all taxpayers. This isn't government overreach, this is common sense."

Me picking your pocket would benefit me greatly as well, that doesn't make it right or legal.

[Sighisoara]

It's very simple. Rights are "things" you are born with, it requires no outside entity to deliver those rights. This is why healthcare is not a right, it requires the labor of another individual. You or I have no right to another persons services.

That's not simple at all. In fact, it's as clear as mud. You previously stated that it was unconstitutional for the government to require the purchase of a product. The question I posed was, which part of the constitution do you think that is violating?

[Sighisoara]

You don't have to own car insurance if you don't own a car.

You don't buy seat belts.

You don't have to buy a life jacket if you don't own a boat.

While there may not be a specific line item charge on your invoice, you most certainly do buy seat belts. They are required to be installed, and they aren't giving them away for free. However, your argument about not being mandated to own a car is noted and applicable.

Frankly, I think that's what it all boils down to, do you choose to do these things for which there is a required price for admission. As I mentioned to Menos earlier, there is no right to enter the marketplace, it is also a choice. If you don't enter the marketplace, the individual mandate isn't going to be applicable to you as the enforcement of it is through an income tax return. However, if you choose to enter the marketplace, this is the cost of admission. Same as owning a car, or a boat, or a bicycle (assuming you want to ride it on a government road).

[Blazar]

You don't have to own car insurance if you don't own a car.

You don't buy seat belts.

You don't have to buy a life jacket if you don't own a boat.

Okay, so if you don't have a car, you don't have to have insurance. Agreed.

So does that mean that if you don't have health insurance, you simply don't get to go to the doctor anymore? Same thing right?

[Tgo01]

So does that mean that if you don't have health insurance, you simply don't get to go to the doctor anymore? Same thing right?

How is that the same thing? Plenty of people pay out of pocket.

[Sighisoara]

How is that the same thing? Plenty of people pay out of pocket.

I wish. I tried that when my youngest was born, but due to having (really shitty) insurance, I wasn't allowed. It would've been cheaper to pay out of pocket. Go figure that shit.

[Blazar]

How is that the same thing? Plenty of people pay out of pocket.

Same for auto insurance if you can prove you have the liquid to satisfy the requirements. So how is one different from the other?

[Neveragain]

That's not simple at all. In fact, it's as clear as mud. You previously stated that it was unconstitutional for the government to require the purchase of a product. The question I posed was, which part of the constitution do you think that is violating?

Commerce clause, for one.

[Tgo01]

Same for auto insurance if can prove you have the liquid to satisfy the requirements. So how is one different from the other?

I'm not understanding your point. Many states allow you to purchase a bond in lieu of having auto insurance.

[Sighisoara]

Commerce clause, for one.

Huh? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

[~Rocktar~]

That's not simple at all. In fact, it's as clear as mud. You previously stated that it was unconstitutional for the government to require the purchase of a product. The question I posed was, which part of the constitution do you think that is violating?

Thirteenth Amendment. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Since money is a medium of exchange for labor generated by the person, forcing someone to spend money they don't want to amounts to making them work against their will.

[~Rocktar~]

Huh? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Commerce clause says the Federal Government can regulate commerce between the country and other countries and commerce between states, not individual commerce of people.

[Blazar]

I'm not understanding your point. Many states allow you to purchase a bond in lieu of having auto insurance.

Okay dummy, follow along.

We require people who use public roads to either A) have insurance or B) prove they are liquid enough to satisfy the requirements. The argument is that this isn't a product that is mandated to be purchased because you can opt out by not driving a car. The regulations are there to save everyone money, and make them safer, as a whole.

Now, the argument is also that the ACA and its insurance requirement is not okay because it mandates everyone buy a product (insurance) or face a fine. So in your argument, if the ACA had a clause that said "If you can prove you are liquid enough, you do not need to carry the insurance"? Failure to do either would result in inability to get medical care under any circumstances. Would that not make it the exact same as the car insurance requirement?

[Neveragain]

Okay, so if you don't have a car, you don't have to have insurance. Agreed.

So does that mean that if you don't have health insurance, you simply don't get to go to the doctor anymore? Same thing right?

So now you want the government to be able to tell medical professionals they can only perform services for those that pay for insurance?

Careful, your parties love of slavery is showing.

[Neveragain]

Okay dummy, follow along.

We require people who use public roads to either A) have insurance or B) prove they are liquid enough to satisfy the requirements. The argument is that this isn't a product that is mandated to be purchased because you can opt out. The regulations are there to save everyone money, and make them safer, as a whole.

Now, the argument is also that the ACA and its insurance requirement is not okay because it mandates everyone buy a product (insurance). So in your argument, if the ACA had a clause that said "If you can prove you are liquid enough, you do not need to carry the insurance"? Failure to do either would result in inability to get medical care under any circumstances. Would that not make it the exact same as the car insurance requirement?

You want to tax people for simply existing, holy fuck.

[Blazar]

You want to tax people for simply existing, holy fuck.

HAHAHA. You mean, you know, basically all taxes? And this would be a tax for health care. You're welcome to treat yourself as much as you like.

And from what I saw from my ex wife, if you're low income the ACA fees are very low for not being covered. I think she wasn't covered for like 6 months of the year and it was like $10/month or something. Not sure why you all cry about this.

[Sighisoara]

Commerce clause says the Federal Government can regulate commerce between the country and other countries and commerce between states, not individual commerce of people.

That's a very poor reading of the Commerce clause. Congress is given authority to "regulate interstate commerce." Interstate commerce has been defined incredibly broadly by the Supreme Court over the centuries such that anything that affects interstate commerce can be legislated over by Congress. The broadest example being that growing wheat in your backyard for personal use affects interstate commerce. It most certainly does affect the actual commerce of people, and it is specifically intended to because all commerce is between people and/or entities. The only way you can possibly argue that Congress over reached on interstate commerce is if every single bit of the commerce occurs intra-state (good luck). There's a case where the hammers used by a roofer were made in a different state and that was declared to be enough to "affect interstate commerce."

Simply stating Commerce clause doesn't begin to address how the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

[Neveragain]

Huh? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

It makes absolute sense.


United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the law unconstitutional in an action brought by 26 states, on the grounds that the individual mandate to purchase insurance exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

[Neveragain]

That's a very poor reading of the Commerce clause. Congress is given authority to "regulate interstate commerce." Interstate commerce has been defined incredibly broadly by the Supreme Court over the centuries such that anything that affects interstate commerce can be legislated over by Congress. The broadest example being that growing wheat in your backyard for personal use affects interstate commerce. It most certainly does affect the actual commerce of people, and it is specifically intended to because all commerce is between people and/or entities. The only way you can possibly argue that Congress over reached on interstate commerce is if every single bit of the commerce occurs intra-state (good luck). There's a case where the hammers used by a roofer were made in a different state and that was declared to be enough to "affect interstate commerce."

Simply stating Commerce clause doesn't begin to address how the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Broccoli is really good for you, you must eat and purchase Broccoli or pay a $700 annual penalty to the federal government because we really want you to be healthy.

[Sighisoara]

Thirteenth Amendment. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Since money is a medium of exchange for labor generated by the person, forcing someone to spend money they don't want to amounts to making them work against their will.

Wow, that is something there. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s something.

[Sighisoara]

It makes absolute sense.

I hate to tell you, but the Executive branch doesn’t have the authority to declare when congress oversteps its authority. That’s up to the Judicial branch...

[Tgo01]

Okay dummy, follow along.

DRINK!


We require people who use public roads to either A) have insurance or B) prove they are liquid enough to satisfy the requirements. The argument is that this isn't a product that is mandated to be purchased because you can opt out by not driving a car. The regulations are there to save everyone money, and make them safer, as a whole.

Now you're getting it. Also note that having a bond isn't purchasing a product.


Now, the argument is also that the ACA and its insurance requirement is not okay because it mandates everyone buy a product (insurance) or face a fine. So in your argument, if the ACA had a clause that said "If you can prove you are liquid enough, you do not need to carry the insurance"? Failure to do either would result in inability to get medical care under any circumstances. Would that not make it the exact same as the car insurance requirement?

I know you didn't argue it but Obamacare doesn't allow you to opt for a bond instead of buying insurance.

Not only that but hospitals are private organizations. How is forbidding people from doing business with a private business unless they purchase a product from a third party the same as the government saying "Hey if you want to use PUBLIC ROADS then you must buy insurance."

You don't need registration, insurance, or even a license to drive on private property, those are all regulations the government implements if you want to use their roads. Just like I can tell anyone, even the government, that they aren't allowed to drive on my private property unless they give me a million dollars. If no one likes it they can choose to not drive on my private property.

[Parkbandit]

While there may not be a specific line item charge on your invoice, you most certainly do buy seat belts. They are required to be installed, and they aren't giving them away for free. However, your argument about not being mandated to own a car is noted and applicable.

You don't have to buy a car.. therefore you don't have to buy a seatbelt.


Frankly, I think that's what it all boils down to, do you choose to do these things for which there is a required price for admission. As I mentioned to Menos earlier, there is no right to enter the marketplace, it is also a choice. If you don't enter the marketplace, the individual mandate isn't going to be applicable to you as the enforcement of it is through an income tax return. However, if you choose to enter the marketplace, this is the cost of admission. Same as owning a car, or a boat, or a bicycle (assuming you want to ride it on a government road).

What? If you choose not to purchase insurance, they will "tax" you as a penalty, so there is no choice. You had to prove to the IRS that you had insurance for the tax year you are preparing your return for.. if you can't do that, then you are penalized.

[Parkbandit]

Okay, so if you don't have a car, you don't have to have insurance. Agreed.

So does that mean that if you don't have health insurance, you simply don't get to go to the doctor anymore? Same thing right?

What? It's literally not the same thing.

Like at all.

[Neveragain]

HAHAHA. You mean, you know, basically all taxes? And this would be a tax for health care. You're welcome to treat yourself as much as you like.

And from what I saw from my ex wife, if you're low income the ACA fees are very low for not being covered. I think she wasn't covered for like 6 months of the year and it was like $10/month or something. Not sure why you all cry about this.


You're welcome to treat yourself as much as you like.

You're living in a fantasy bud.

Like I previously said. It would greatly benefit me to pick your pocket, that doesn't make it right or legal. It would only be a few bucks that I steal, I'm not sure why you would cry about it.

[Neveragain]

I hate to tell you, but the Executive branch doesn’t have the authority to declare when congress oversteps its authority. That’s up to the Judicial branch...

And the US government doesn't have the authority to punish individuals for not purchasing a product. That's why the 5th circuit struck down the mandate using the commerce clause.

You don't have a right to medical care as it requires another individuals labors. We abolished slavery when we defeated the Democrats in the Civil war and freed their slaves.

[Ardwen]

Using that logic we don't have the right to Police protection or Fire departments. But please continue.

[Neveragain]

Using that logic we don't have the right to Police protection or Fire departments. But please continue.

And you don't have a right to police or a fire department.

You do have the right to defend yourself and your property though.

(Wow Ardwin, that was lame)

[Tgo01]

Using that logic we don't have the right to Police protection or Fire departments. But please continue.

You actually don't. Many people lose their homes in massive California wild fires each year because the fire department decides it's too dangerous to fight the blaze so they just let homes burn, none of those people have the right to sue the state or the fire department arguing their rights were violated.

[Ardwen]

Yes but many more are saved, and last time I checked lots of criminals are actually captured.

[Seran]

And the US government doesn't have the authority to punish individuals for not purchasing a product. That's why the 5th circuit struck down the mandate using the commerce clause.

You don't have a right to medical care as it requires another individuals labors. We abolished slavery when we defeated the Democrats in the Civil war and freed their slaves.

You don't have a right to medical care? What the fuck have you been smoking. Healthcare is a basic human right and it's against the law for a medical care provider or hospital to fail to treat someone in an emergency situation.

The 5th Circuit over reached and their ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court the upheld the individual mandate as Congress's constitutional right to tax. Obviously you overlooked this because it invalidated your weak ass argument.

[drauz]

Yes but many more are saved, and last time I checked lots of criminals are actually captured.

DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

[Neveragain]

You don't have a right to medical care? What the fuck have you been smoking. Healthcare is a basic human right and it's against the law for a medical care provider or hospital to fail to treat someone in an emergency situation.

The 5th Circuit over reached and their ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court the upheld the individual mandate as Congress's constitutional right to tax. Obviously you overlooked this because it invalidated your weak ass argument.


You don't have a right to medical care. You can scream at the top of your lungs, hold your breath till you turn blue and medical care will still not be a right.


You don't have a right to other peoples labor, we ended that debate and it cost us over 400,000 lives to come to that decision.

"It's against the law for a medical care provider or hospital to fail to treat someone in an emergency situation."

And that has to do with insurance how?

Not every medical need is an emergency situation.

You and the Marxist seem to have a really hard time separating medical care from insurance.

I don't have the right to medical care, just like I don't have a right to someone building me a home, or someone giving me food or someone giving clothing.


I have a right to self defense, where is my government issued AR-15?

[Sighisoara]

What? If you choose not to purchase insurance, they will "tax" you as a penalty, so there is no choice. You had to prove to the IRS that you had insurance for the tax year you are preparing your return for.. if you can't do that, then you are penalized.

I think you missed my point. It’s all choices, as you pointed out. I’ll explain it like you did:

You don’t have to buy a car, it’s a choice;
You don’t have have to buy a boat;
You don’t have to work for an employer who reports to the IRS; that is also a choice.
This can be taken a step further, you don’t have to work - again a choice.

However, if you choose to do those things, you have to buy the products that the government requires, or pay a penalty.

[Tgo01]

Yes but many more are saved, and last time I checked lots of criminals are actually captured.

Yes but no one has a right to those services.

[Neveragain]

I think you missed my point. It’s all choices, as you pointed out. I’ll explain it like you did:

You don’t have to buy a car, it’s a choice;
You don’t have have to buy a boat;
You don’t have to work for an employer who reports to the IRS; that is also a choice.
This can be taken a step further, you don’t have to work - again a choice.

However, if you choose to do those things, you have to buy the products that the government requires, or pay a penalty.

I can't do this anymore, at least not until humans are born with automobiles and boats attached their person.

I....just....can't.


...........................What product does the government make us buy if we don't work?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/072/888/425.gif

[Sighisoara]

The 5th Circuit over reached and their ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court the upheld the individual mandate as Congress's constitutional right to tax. Obviously you overlooked this because it invalidated your weak ass argument.

It wasn’t overturned, he’s talking about the case scheduled for oral arguments in a few weeks. It stands a fair chance to be affirmed this time around. It’s not the weak ass argument you think it is. Frankly, I think it’s a lot weaker than an Article V argument, though.

[Sighisoara]

I can't do this anymore, at least not until humans are born with automobiles and boats attached their person.

I....just....can't.


...........................What product does the government make us buy if we don't work?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/072/888/425.gif

You caught me without proofreading. You don’t buy a product in that circumstance.

[Neveragain]

You caught me without proofreading. You don’t buy a product in that circumstance.

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of making people carry auto insurance either. I really support no fault insurance laws, like Florida has (or used to, not sure if that has changed since I lived there).

This allows easier access to transportation for the poor and insurance coverage for those that can afford it.

[Ashliana]

Wait.. was I saying something about the Heritage Foundation not making up Obamacare somewhere and I forgot?

Damn, It... you came back (you never really left) to post this? You're straw"man"ing something and really believed you had an intelligent point to make?

Good job at trying I suppose.

Translation:

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/11097202.jpg

[Bhaalizmo]

Translation:

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/11097202.jpg

True facts.

[Parkbandit]

Translation:

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/11097202.jpg

Translation:

https://media1.tenor.com/images/91767c716f51a63a5408c87eb6919a59/tenor.gif?itemid=8035734

[Sighisoara]

To be honest I'm not a huge fan of making people carry auto insurance either. I really support no fault insurance laws, like Florida has (or used to, not sure if that has changed since I lived there).

This allows easier access to transportation for the poor and insurance coverage for those that can afford it.

I agree with you about the no fault insurance. In fairness, I’m not a fan of the ACA. In fact, I think I’m the poster child for the people who were totally fucked by the individual mandate. That being said, I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional under established Supreme Court precedents. I think the current court is going to effectively overrule a shit ton of cases that can’t be reconciled. I think that’s a problem.

[~Rocktar~]

And the left, including government employees apparently are already planning on causing mass riots and government obstruction/sedition if Trump wins. And yet the media keeps pointing to the right to talk about civil war and violence. Hummmmm

https://www.westernjournal.com/mike-huckabee-2-videos-reportedly-show-coming-coup-federal-takeover-leftists-plan-trump-wins/

[Neveragain]

I agree with you about the no fault insurance. In fairness, I’m not a fan of the ACA. In fact, I think I’m the poster child for the people who were totally fucked by the individual mandate. That being said, I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional under established Supreme Court precedents. I think the current court is going to effectively overrule a shit ton of cases that can’t be reconciled. I think that’s a problem.

I'm not against healthcare availability for everyone, I just don't believe insurance is the rout to go. Personally I would like to see a major expansion to our VA hospitals and open that system to the taxpayer. I would also like to see an investment into public neighborhood clinics that can be used for both minor medical treatment and education centers for future medical workers.

[Sighisoara]

I'm not against healthcare availability for everyone, I just don't believe insurance is the rout to go. Personally I would like to see a major expansion to our VA hospitals and open that system to the taxpayer. I would also like to see an investment into public neighborhood clinics that can be used for both minor medical treatment and education centers for future medical workers.

I’m not so sure of the expansion of the VA system for a few reasons, primarily what I think the cost of that would be. I think the neighborhood clinic idea has some real potential, though.

[time4fun]

Trump has spent the last few days trying to undermine democracy at every turn.

He has been attacking the democratic process for years, but he has gone absolutely insane with it. Telling people that if ballots come in after midnight, they're fraudulent. Telling people that there will be violence in the streets because PA isn't going to disqualify valid votes. Sending his approval to his followers who surrounded the Biden campaign bus in Texas and forces them to cancel a rally in Austin.

At what point in time did you all decide that this was okay? When did you decide that it's okay for a sitting US President to attack our voting system and to sow discord and confusion because he's afraid he's going to lose and wants to try to take advantage of the confusion to declare himself a winner tomorrow night prematurely. When did you decide it wasn't a big deal for the sitting President of the US to refuse to agree to leave office if he loses the vote?

HOW do you not understand how INCREDIBLY dangerous this is?

[Tgo01]

Trump has spent the last few days trying to undermine democracy at every turn.

He has been attacking the democratic process for years, but he has gone absolutely insane with it. Telling people that if ballots come in after midnight, they're fraudulent. Telling people that there will be violence in the streets because PA isn't going to disqualify valid votes. Sending his approval to his followers who surrounded the Biden campaign bus in Texas and forces them to cancel a rally in Austin.

At what point in time did you all decide that this was okay? When did you decide that it's okay for a sitting US President to attack our voting system and to sow discord and confusion because he's afraid he's going to lose and wants to try to take advantage of the confusion to declare himself a winner tomorrow night prematurely. When did you decide it wasn't a big deal for the sitting President of the US to refuse to agree to leave office if he loses the vote?

HOW do you not understand how INCREDIBLY dangerous this is?

Look at this bitch right here. Months of political violence carried out by leftist groups such as Antifa and BLM and she is worried because Trump supporters were following the Biden bus, which I might add the police said the Biden bus was at fault for causing an accident. What an absolute worthless bitch.

[Neveragain]

I’m not so sure of the expansion of the VA system for a few reasons, primarily what I think the cost of that would be. I think the neighborhood clinic idea has some real potential, though.

There's a lot that has to be taken into consideration moving forward in the future.

I'm not sure how much attention you or others have given to Neuralink. This technology ,in theory, could very easily change how we handle medical treatment. Why bother treating for cancer, major organ failure, etc when we can just transfer our conscious to a machine?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLUWDLKAF1M

Fucking around with healthcare insurance leaches is a waste of our time and money.

[beldannon5]

In the end it won't matter because it will be a win by a lot for trump in
My humble opinion. If I am wrong I will continue my life the way I do now
I will not spend the next 4 years crying and rioting and protesting and feeling I can't live my life. Which many democrats did after trump won. How many people left the country?

[time4fun]

In the end it won't matter because it will be a win by a lot for trump in
My humble opinion. If I am wrong I will continue my life the way I do now
I will not spend the next 4 years crying and rioting and protesting and feeling I can't live my life. Which many democrats did after trump won. How many people left the country?

Beld- it DOES matter. This man has been cozying up to dictators right in front of us for 4 years. He's now doing everything in his power to disenfranchise American votes. He is encouraging violence and harassment at the polls and on the streets to stop democratic voters from voting. He's encouraging voter intimidation. He's trying to confuse everyone and make people question their own democracy just in case he loses.

What the hell do you think he's going to do at the end of another 4 years? Do you think he's suddenly going to say "Well I know I was trying everything I could to undermine our democracy 4 years ago to stay in office, but now I'm over it. So I'm going to just leave quietly"? Really?

Meanwhile The GOP- which has been screaming about voter fraud for years- just tried to have over 100,000 Texas ballots thrown out (Democratic AND Republican) because they're in a heavily Democratic area. We're in the middle of a pandemic, and they've been fighting at every turn to force people to congregate and vote in person. LITERALLY willing to let people die- including their own voters- to help them win an election. They're trying to stop states from counting all of their ballots because they suspect that the later arriving ballots will be more heavily democratic. They're trying to stop states from having accurate counts of qualified votes. Do you really not see THAT'S the actual voter fraud we're dealing with?

Is this what happens in functional democracies? Is this the American dream?

The rest of this country and the rest of the world are watching what Trump and the Republican party are doing to our democracy in abject fucking horror. Why are you cheering this on?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

OMG if Trump wins again I can't wait to see the fucking meltdown.

[time4fun]

It looks like 6 Pennsylvania counties (who went for Trump in 2016) have decided they won't count mail in ballots **at all** tomorrow (even though they can legally start counting them at 7am).

They're doing it to help confuse the situation tomorrow night. They want to make it look like Trump got a bigger percentage of the votes than he did because they know the mail in ballots skew heavily democratic.

So here's what is going on right now:

The sitting President of the US is telling everyone that any votes counted after tomorrow are fraudulent and dangerous and can't be trusted and will lead to violence in the streets (which is very clearly him suggesting that people engage in violence), and the Republican party is intentionally trying to push off the counting of the votes to sow confusion and chaos.

Are you Republican voters really proud of this? Is this really what you think should be happening?

Do you think the Republican party is on the right side of history right now?

[Astray]

No matter what happens, be careful as fuck out there people.

Shit is looking bleak for a lack of violence.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No matter what happens, be careful as fuck out there people.

Shit is looking bleak for a lack of violence.

Urban areas, sure. Any major city without a major liberal population will be perfectly fine.

[Neveragain]

It looks like 6 Pennsylvania counties (who went for Trump in 2016) have decided they won't count mail in ballots **at all** tomorrow (even though they can legally start counting them at 7am).

They're doing it to help confuse the situation tomorrow night. They want to make it look like Trump got a bigger percentage of the votes than he did because they know the mail in ballots skew heavily democratic.

So here's what is going on right now:

The sitting President of the US is telling everyone that any votes counted after tomorrow are fraudulent and dangerous and can't be trusted and will lead to violence in the streets (which is very clearly him suggesting that people engage in violence), and the Republican party is intentionally trying to push off the counting of the votes to sow confusion and chaos.

Are you Republican voters really proud of this? Is this really what you think should be happening?

Do you think the Republican party is on the right side of history right now?

After the fraud impeachment, 4 years of Russian hoax, the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett............

Yes, I do believe the Republicans are on the right side of history. Now more than ever.

[drauz]

After the fraud impeachment, 4 years of Russian hoax, the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett............

Yes, I do believe the Republicans are on the right side of history. Now more than ever.

The Republican thinks Republicans are on the right side of history, stop the fucking presses!

[time4fun]

After the fraud impeachment, 4 years of Russian hoax, the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett............

Yes, I do believe the Republicans are on the right side of history. Now more than ever.

So it's okay to actively work to keep people from voting, to try to get qualified votes discounted (by the hundreds of thousands), to try to force people to vote in person during a pandemic, to undermine our country's faith in democracy, to encourage violence, to send thousands of people out to intimidate voters specifically in heavy minority districts? Because...what exactly?

You think it's okay for Presidents to blackmail our allies to try to force them to announce fake investigations into private US citizens who are trying to run in a democratic election against them? Literally trying to FORCE a foreign country to interfere with our election?

You think it's okay to invite foreign interference in our election by our greatest adversaries? And then to tell the American people that said adversary ISN'T trying to interfere with our election when the President knows for a fact it is?

You think that if someone is nominated for the Supreme Court and faces credible rape allegations we shouldn't investigate those?

And THOSE things are your justification for attacking the foundation of our democracy?


What the hell happened to you? Go fill in "Hillary Clinton" in EVERY one of those situations instead of Donald Trump.

Now tell everyone that you absolutely 100% think it's all okay when it's Clinton instead of Trump.

[Neveragain]

The Republican thinks Republicans are on the right side of history, stop the fucking presses!

Weird, right?

[Neveragain]

So it's okay to actively work to keep people from voting, to try to get qualified votes discounted (by the hundreds of thousands), to try to force people to vote in person during a pandemic, to undermine our country's faith in democracy, to encourage violence, to send thousands of people out to intimidate voters specifically in heavy minority districts? Because...what exactly?

You think it's okay for Presidents to blackmail our allies to try to force them to announce fake investigations into private US citizens who are trying to run in a democratic election against them? Literally trying to FORCE a foreign country to interfere with our election?

You think it's okay to invite foreign interference in our election by our greatest adversaries? And then to tell the American people that said adversary ISN'T trying to interfere with our election when the President knows for a fact it is?

You think that if someone is nominated for the Supreme Court and faces credible rape allegations we shouldn't investigate those?

And THOSE things are your justification for attacking the foundation of our democracy?


What the hell happened to you? Go fill in "Hillary Clinton" in EVERY one of those situations instead of Donald Trump.

Now tell everyone that you absolutely 100% think it's all okay when it's Clinton instead of Trump.

There, there, either way you will have another rich old white man running the country.

What the hell happened to me? People like you is what happened, I simply will not vote democrat as long as people of your ilk have any voice within the Democrat party.

Stop killing babies and I start voting Democrat again. I would literally elect Putin himself if it would end America's Black Holocaust.

[time4fun]

There, there, either way you will have another rich old white man running the country.

What the hell happened to me? People like you is what happened, I simply will not vote democrat as long as people of your ilk have any voice within the Democrat party.

Stop killing babies and I start voting Democrat again. I would literally elect Putin himself if it would end America's Black Holocaust.

As usual, you won't respond to anything of substance. Because you can't. You have no valid response, and you know it.

And you know what- over 230,000 *actual people* have died from this pandemic. And they died alone. Every one of them died alone. Because they weren't allowed to have visitors in the hospital.

Because Trump decided to lie to the American people about the severity of the pandemic, and he decided to actively discourage people from doing things to protect themselves and the people they love. He tried to attack Governors who tried to protect their own people.

And then to get votes, Trump has been holding super spreader events for months. It turns out, there are over 30,000 COVID infections from his political rallies from June through Sept. Not even counting what he's doing right now. Over 700 people are estimated to have died as a result. (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/31/coronavirus-trump-campaign-rallies-led-to-30000-cases-stanford-researchers-say.html)

Talk to us more about the sanctity of life.

[Neveragain]

In other news, Obama sinks 3 pointer at Flint, MI Biden rally!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1aUkPGhyuQ

LMFAO

[Neveragain]

As usual, you won't respond to anything of substance. Because you can't. You have no valid response, and you know it.

And you know what- over 230,000 *actual people* have died from this pandemic. And they died alone. Every one of them died alone. Because they weren't allowed to have visitors in the hospital.

Because Trump decided to lie to the American people about the severity of the pandemic, and he decided to actively discourage people from doing things to protect themselves and the people they love. He tried to attack Governors who tried to protect their own people.

And then to get votes, Trump has been holding super spreader events for months. It turns out, there are over 30,000 COVID infections from his political rallies from June through Sept. Not even counting what he's doing right now. Over 700 people are estimated to have died as a result. (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/31/coronavirus-trump-campaign-rallies-led-to-30000-cases-stanford-researchers-say.html)

Talk to us more about the sanctity of life.

Yea, that sucks how a virus from China has turned the world upside down. It sure didn't help having Corn Pop call Trump a racist for stopping flights in January and then Nancy "Ice Cream" Pelosi telling everyone that everything was OK and to come on down to China town to celebrate. Trump did as good as anyone could do under the circumstances, Navy Medical ships, military temp hospitals.

Hell, it's a godsend that Hillary wasn't elected, we would have had open borders and people coming and going completely unchecked for illness's. Talk about dodging a bullet.

Of course rioting and looting makes you immune to the China virus.

"As usual, you won't respond to anything of substance. Because you can't. You have no valid response, and you know it."

That's because I don't respond to emotion based bullshit.

[Tgo01]

Sending his approval to his followers who surrounded the Biden campaign bus in Texas and forces them to cancel a rally in Austin.

It really doesn't surprise me at all that the piece of shit known as time4fun is the only far leftist pushing this dumb ass shit. The police have concluded that a Biden staffer in an SUV is the one who caused the accident you are talking about here, and yet the leftwing media and Democrats are STILL saying the Trump supporters are at fault. Honest question, do you have a single, solitary thought of your own? I have never seen you express one. You merely wait eagerly by your Twitter feed to see what dumb ass leftist rages about and then rush to the PC to repeat it verbatim. You're pathetic, but then again you have like 50 different identities on the PC so that's painfully obvious.

[time4fun]

And the left, including government employees apparently are already planning on causing mass riots and government obstruction/sedition if Trump wins. And yet the media keeps pointing to the right to talk about civil war and violence. Hummmmm

https://www.westernjournal.com/mike-huckabee-2-videos-reportedly-show-coming-coup-federal-takeover-leftists-plan-trump-wins/

The reason why you are always so wildly ignorant of the issues and are constantly running around shrieking about things that don't exist is precisely because you read fake news. Like actual fake news. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Western_Journal)


Western Journalism previously stated it featured "conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters"[8] and seeks to provide "God-honoring" content.[4] In practice, according to the New York Times, this philosophy, in which "tradition-minded patriots face ceaseless assault by anti-Christian bigots, diseased migrants and race hustlers concocting hate crimes," results in "a torrent of sensationalized, misleading, or entirely made-up stories, often aimed at Muslims and immigrants."[6] Because of negative rulings by fact-checking sites and user trust surveys, Western Journalism was blacklisted by Google and Apple News, and by 2017 its Facebook traffic declined to near zero.[6]

In a 2016 story on how fake news spreads on social media, The Intercept reported that: "Thanks to views sourced largely to referrals from Facebook, Brown's websites now outrank web traffic going to news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and NPR, according to data compiled by Alexa".[9]

In February 2019, The Western Journal published an article which alleged "Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation." Scientists criticized the article, saying it was deceptive and that it


Seriously- what is wrong with you? You keep going back to these junk sources again and again when they are CLEARLY lying to you

[time4fun]

Yea, that sucks how a virus from China has turned the world upside down. It sure didn't help having Corn Pop call Trump a racist for stopping flights in January and then Nancy "Ice Cream" Pelosi telling everyone that everything was OK and to come on down to China town to celebrate. Trump did as good as anyone could do under the circumstances, Navy Medical ships, military temp hospitals.

Hell, it's a godsend that Hillary wasn't elected, we would have had open borders and people coming and going completely unchecked for illness's. Talk about dodging a bullet.


Of course rioting and looting makes you immune to the China virus.

You're just talking in circles. Why does it matter where the virus comes from? What possible bearing does that have on the way Trump completely screwed up the response to COVID? Why does it matter where Pelosi was?

Do you even think about these garbage conservative talking points before you parrot them out like a mindless drone?

[Neveragain]

You're just talking in circles. Why does it matter where the virus comes from? What possible bearing does that have on the way Trump completely screwed up the response to COVID? Why does it matter where Pelosi was?

Do you even think about these garbage conservative talking points before you parrot them out like a mindless drone?


Why does it matter where the virus comes from?


What possible bearing does that have on the way Trump completely screwed up the response to COVID?

And this right here is why the current Democrat party can't be allowed any power.


Why does it matter where Pelosi was?

Because she was literally telling people that the President was lying about the virus and told them to go celebrate in public. Just like in NY they didn't shut the filthy fucking subways down and put covid infected patients back into the nursing homes.

[Neveragain]

Seriously- what is wrong with you?

When everyone else around you has something wrong with them and you believe men can breast feed..........it's probably not everyone around you that has a problem.

[drauz]

When everyone else around you has something wrong with them and you believe men can breast feed..........it's probably not everyone around you that has a problem.

Oh the irony. "women aren't as capable to be in leadership roles". No one else agrees.

https://e.lvme.me/omcamyp.jpg

[Candor]

If the election results tomorrow point to a possible Trump win, may I suggest staying home for a few evenings if possible. If the election resolves in Trump's favor, stay home for a few nights after the determination, especially if you live in a large city or anywhere near a Trump building.

Be safe out there.

[caelric]

You have no valid response, and you know it.



.

Once again, how ironic.

[Parkbandit]

In the end it won't matter because it will be a win by a lot for trump in
My humble opinion. If I am wrong I will continue my life the way I do now
I will not spend the next 4 years crying and rioting and protesting and feeling I can't live my life. Which many democrats did after trump won. How many people left the country?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/31/5e/bc315e2cc9a3225d3e123c37f328f117.gif

[Parkbandit]

The Republican thinks Republicans are on the right side of history, stop the fucking presses!

He was responding to the liberal believing the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, stop the fucking presses!

What happened to your ability to use logic these past 4 years?

[Parkbandit]

I haven't seen time4Andraste this upset in 4 years.. when the election results became final.

LOLOL.

Take a Xanax and get your emotions under control. Remember when you proclaimed armageddon for your pretend family because Trump was elected? Remember how, 4 years later, everything was fine with your pretend family and even your gay, bi-racial, illegal, diabetes half brother became a citizen? Even in your imagination, it wasn't as bad as you said it would be.

Your imagination survived 4 years of President Trump... it's going to be ok no matter who wins.

[Bhaalizmo]

Bla bla bla bla bla.

Bla.

Bla bla.

Dumb stuff. Stupid shit. Same shit I say all the time.

Bla bla bla.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a6bdb04019dc933fb1e96e6699d4446e/tenor.gif?itemid=15588900

[caelric]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a6bdb04019dc933fb1e96e6699d4446e/tenor.gif?itemid=15588900

andrastewsayswhat?

[Bhaalizmo]

Stupid shit.

Dumb stuff

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7834945ba805e851e2ee261f6cdcdb66/tenor.gif?itemid=16509867

[Neveragain]

He was responding to the liberal believing the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, stop the fucking presses!

What happened to your ability to use logic these past 4 years?

He went to SIMUCON.

[Neveragain]

Oh the irony. "women aren't as capable to be in leadership roles". No one else agrees.

https://e.lvme.me/omcamyp.jpg

No one else agrees but 98% of the worlds countries and the women that continue to elect men into leadership roles.

But do tell how your lactation is coming, Drauz. Those man tits a little tender, do you need some privacy to pump?

[time4fun]

If the election results tomorrow point to a possible Trump win, may I suggest staying home for a few evenings if possible. If the election resolves in Trump's favor, stay home for a few nights after the determination, especially if you live in a large city or anywhere near a Trump building.

Be safe out there.

Biden supporters aren't the ones who have been out harassing people the last few days. Blocking traffic, terrifying staffers of the opposition's campaign. Trying to abduct Governors of the opposing party and taking over government buildings...

[caelric]

Biden supporters aren't the ones who have been out harassing people the last few days. Blocking traffic, terrifying staffers of the opposition's campaign. Trying to abduct Governors of the opposing party and taking over government buildings...

I guarantee you that business owners in urban areas are not boarding up their businesses because they are afraid of trump supporters rioting.

[time4fun]

When everyone else around you has something wrong with them and you believe men can breast feed..........it's probably not everyone around you that has a problem.

You can argue with the evidence all you want, it's still a cultural practice that exists. Not sure why that's so incredibly upsetting to you.

Then again, I'm not sure why people having health care, reducing income inequality, trans people being treated like human beings, and criticizing migrant children being separated from their parents and being put in cages is so upsetting to you either.

The real world just really seems to upset you in general.

[Neveragain]

Biden supporters aren't the ones who have been out harassing people the last few days. Blocking traffic, terrifying staffers of the opposition's campaign. Trying to abduct Governors of the opposing party and taking over government buildings...

Democrats have been doing that for the past 4 years. Now the Trump supporters push back and Andraste calls foul.

Such a tool.

[drauz]

He was responding to the liberal believing the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, stop the fucking presses!

What happened to your ability to use logic these past 4 years?

I'll be honest I didn't read her full post so I never got to that last line.

[Neveragain]

You can argue with the evidence all you want, it's still a cultural practice that exists. Not sure why that's so incredibly upsetting to you.

Then again, I'm not sure why people having health care, reducing income inequality, trans people being treated like human beings, and criticizing migrant children being separated from their parents and being put in cages is so upsetting to you either.

The real world just really seems to upset you in general.

Men don't lactate you fucking idiot.

The only one upset by the real world is you, sweetheart.

[drauz]

You can argue with the evidence all you want, it's still a cultural practice that exists. Not sure why that's so incredibly upsetting to you.

Then again, I'm not sure why people having health care, reducing income inequality, trans people being treated like human beings, and criticizing migrant children being separated from their parents and being put in cages is so upsetting to you either.

The real world just really seems to upset you in general.

In regards to income equality, it's because you do it in a dishonest way.

[beldannon5]

I won't Say how i voted but I love strawberries.

[drauz]

No one else agrees but 98% of the worlds countries and the women that continue to elect men into leadership roles.

But do tell how your lactation is coming, Drauz. Those man tits a little tender, do you need some privacy to pump?

I guess you don't count House and Senate as leadership roles? Did you forget the last Presidential election where more people voted to elect a woman over a man? Should probably get your head out of your ass.

You are continually conflating women's lesser interest in these roles with not being capable.

[Gelston]

I guess you don't count House and Senate as leadership roles? Did you forget the last Presidential election where more people voted to elect a woman over a man? Should probably get your head out of your ass.

You are continually conflating women's lesser interest in these roles with not being capable.

He isn't worth the time.

[Back]

People saying there will be violence need to relax. There will not be violence. That kind of talk is how you get Rittenhouses going to the polls with itchy trigger fingers. Don't believe the hype.

[Gelston]

People saying there will be violence need to relax. There will not be violence. That kind of talk is how you get Rittenhouses going to the polls with itchy trigger fingers. Don't believe the hype.

Shut up retard.

[Back]

Shut up retard.

Happy election day fellow American.

[Gelston]

Happy election day fellow American.

Jo Jorgenson is going to win and end the war on drugs, so you can go legally get blitzed and fuck off.

[Back]

Jo Jorgenson is going to win and end the war on drugs, so you can go legally get blitzed and fuck off.

Sounds like you could use a drink. So much hate today.

[Gelston]

Sounds like you could use a drink. So much hate today.

I don't get smashed during the day you goddamn welfare commie.

[caelric]

People saying there will be violence need to relax. There will not be violence. That kind of talk is how you get Rittenhouses going to the polls with itchy trigger fingers. Don't believe the hype.

We've been watching nightly riots (oh, wait, I mean 'peaceful protests') in Portland, Seattle, and some other major cities for months now. There have been many, multiple reports of leftist groups wanting to 'shutdown DC' today. if you think there won't be significant violence and riots across the US, especially if trump wins, you are a complete and utter fucktard.

[Gelston]

We've been watching nightly riots (oh, wait, I mean 'peaceful protests') in Portland, Seattle, and some other major cities for months now. There have been many, multiple reports of leftist groups wanting to 'shutdown DC' today. if you think there won't be significant violence and riots across the US, especially if trump wins, you are a complete and utter fucktard.

You're only allowed to sling obscenities at Back.

[Back]

I don't get smashed during the day you goddamn welfare commie.

There you go again going to extremes. Just a little nip to calm your ass down. You're heated.

[Gelston]

There you go again going to extremes. Just a little nip to calm your ass down. You're heated.

I'm actually not, it gives me jollies to unload on your dumb ass every time you post. I don't know why, I suppose the face I imagine you having is just very punchable. Also, you post the dumbest shit on the planet.

[Back]

We've been watching nightly riots (oh, wait, I mean 'peaceful protests') in Portland, Seattle, and some other major cities for months now. There have been many, multiple reports of leftist groups wanting to 'shutdown DC' today. if you think there won't be significant violence and riots across the US, especially if trump wins, you are a complete and utter fucktard.

Stop conflating illegal rioting with peaceful protests. Stop thinking anyone condones illegal rioting. No one does. You're being lied to in an effort to control you.

[caelric]

Ok, you are complete and utter fucktard.

[Methais]

Ok, you are complete and utter fucktard.

I skipped to the last page because I'm too lazy to catch up, saw this post and assumed the last post on the previous page was from Backlash.

I was not disappointed. :lol:

[Voldemort]

I skipped to the last page because I'm too lazy to catch up, saw this post and assumed the last post on the previous page was from Backlash.

I was not disappointed. :lol:

Hello Methais, what do you think of me today? My entire psyche and ego is teetering on your affirmation of me. Should I...?

[RichardCranium]

Hello Methais, what do you think of me today? My entire psyche and ego is teetering on your affirmation of me. Should I...?

Methais did you dick this dude down or what? Time to come clean.

[Taernath]

Jo Jorgenson is going to win and end the war on drugs, so you can go legally get blitzed and fuck off.

With her memelord brony vp? Hahahaha

[Gelston]

With her memelord brony vp? Hahahaha

Better than the Birthday Party.

[Methais]

Methais did you dick this dude down or what? Time to come clean.

He's been begging for me to for years for some reason, and gets really mad over it not happening.

[~Rocktar~]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/all-voting-machines-temporarily-went-down-in-georgia-county-that-trump-won-in-2016

[Blazar]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/all-voting-machines-temporarily-went-down-in-georgia-county-that-trump-won-in-2016

Are you implying, as are the commenters on that site, that a human error is somehow a conspiracy to screw Trump voters out of their votes? As if you are 100% certain only Biden supporters are helping to run the election machines? Those comments are hilarious, as are you.

[Parkbandit]

Biden supporters aren't the ones who have been out harassing people the last few days. Blocking traffic, terrifying staffers of the opposition's campaign. Trying to abduct Governors of the opposing party and taking over government buildings...

Let's see..

If Biden wins.. there will be no riots in the street.

If Trump wins.. there will be riots in the street.

time4Andraste: "It's the Trump supporters who are doing it all!"

You're really fucking retarded.