Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 305
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    96,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    You're a Brooklyn boy. You should be sharper than this.

    I'll explain (although you probably already know the point).

    Statehood for PR & DC has nothing to do with representation. The dems are not looking to create new states "out of fairness to the people." They are looking to create 4 more dem senators. If PR and DC were solidly republican, you would not hear a word about this from the dems.

    Making NYC and Chi (and other cities) states would actually create more repub sens since the super cities are already solidly dem and they control the states they are in.Make NYC a state and they would still have the 2 dem senators from NYC but upstate NY (and downstate IL) would most likely elect repubs to (can't have that) the senate. That is why you do not hear this idea.

    Make PR independent…who could argue with the fairness of that??? Self determination. How fair is that???
    Combine DC with VA and that would solve their representation problems.

    Finagling these changes (also packing the SC) opens up an unbelievable can of worms. What's to stop repubs from cutting up Texas into 4 state (8 senators)??? It would give better local representation, make campaigning easier, all 4 would still be larger than Rhode Island etc. If we ever get a repub Congress again, what stops them from nominating even more SC judges??? How many do we need………9 -11 - 13 - 15???

    I doubt if even dems are 100% this additional statehood and SC packing…that's why I would like to see a secret ballot if it ever gets that far.

    Politics is like a pendulum…it swings both ways eventually. Changing the structure of the government just because you can is a bad idea.
    No **** it's about more Democratic senators and representation. The same way the Republicans only like the convoluted *** electoral college because it protects them from the fact that they are making the rules for Americans despite not being anywhere near the majority of Americans. The fact that there has been no Republican who could get the majority of the country's voters to sign onto them since 2004 tells you all that you need to know. A person who is first time eligible to vote in the next election will have never been alive to see a Republican get more than half the voters available. Yet the rules he is expected to live by will be drastically shaped by their ideology.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,221
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    No **** it's about more Democratic senators and representation. The same way the Republicans only like the convoluted *** electoral college because it protects them from the fact that they are making the rules for Americans despite not being anywhere near the majority of Americans. The fact that there has been no Republican who could get the majority of the country's voters to sign onto them since 2004 tells you all that you need to know. A person who is first time eligible to vote in the next election will have never been alive to see a Republican get more than half the voters available. Yet the rules he is expected to live by will be drastically shaped by their ideology.
    It's really hard to believe that you are this dumb. This has been discussed numerous times here. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and was put in that way so as to allow all states to have a say regardless (or irregardless for those in NJ) of size. e.g. RI had as much say in the Senate as VA at the time.And it has worked out well.

    And once again…in states like NY and CA repubs don't vote at all since it is pointless. So we really don't know if the majority of Americans are lib/dems or conservative/repubs.

    If we were to have an amendment o the Constitution to eliminate the EC, make it mandatory to vote, eliminate gerrymandering and properly ID who votes…sign me up. Until then we have the EC.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    You're a Brooklyn boy. You should be sharper than this.

    I'll explain (although you probably already know the point).

    Statehood for PR & DC has nothing to do with representation. The dems are not looking to create new states "out of fairness to the people." They are looking to create 4 more dem senators. If PR and DC were solidly republican, you would not hear a word about this from the dems.

    Making NYC and Chi (and other cities) states would actually create more repub sens since the super cities are already solidly dem and they control the states they are in.Make NYC a state and they would still have the 2 dem senators from NYC but upstate NY (and downstate IL) would most likely elect repubs to (can't have that) the senate. That is why you do not hear this idea.

    Make PR independent…who could argue with the fairness of that??? Self determination. How fair is that???
    Combine DC with VA and that would solve their representation problems.

    Finagling these changes (also packing the SC) opens up an unbelievable can of worms. What's to stop repubs from cutting up Texas into 4 state (8 senators)??? It would give better local representation, make campaigning easier, all 4 would still be larger than Rhode Island etc. If we ever get a repub Congress again, what stops them from nominating even more SC judges??? How many do we need………9 -11 - 13 - 15???

    I doubt if even dems are 100% this additional statehood and SC packing…that's why I would like to see a secret ballot if it ever gets that far.

    Politics is like a pendulum…it swings both ways eventually. Changing the structure of the government just because you can is a bad idea.
    You're in no position to be commenting on other's sharpness.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    37,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Unfortunately green costs more and most of the world doesn't care to spend more for green so the companies that develop green tech will spend big money to do so then have their tech stolen when the time comes and the construction will quickly move to countries with cheaper labor and less care about the environment. And there is nothing we can do to change that unless the US suddenly goes all in on restricting deals with countries like that and that is not going to happen anytime soon.
    Well if that's the case why invest in any American companies at all? You dont just scrap it because someone might steal it.

    Most of the world understands global warming. Again, much like the anti masker movement, this is a stupidity almost exclusive to us.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The US healthcare system being a nightmare compared to other countries doesn't mean it's going to change. In my life every time the US government has said they were going to "fix" it or "make it better" it has had the opposite result, and now that that industry is the largest in the US it means they have the most power and sway over government so I expect them to talk a good game and eventually screw us over again anyhow.
    Then maybe we should try the one way that actually fixed all other industrial nation's healthcare systems...

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,051
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Well if that's the case why invest in any American companies at all? You dont just scrap it because someone might steal it.

    Most of the world understands global warming. Again, much like the anti masker movement, this is a stupidity almost exclusive to us.
    Our country runs on greed (not the people, but the leaders) and is short sighted. We need the government to protect industry internationally for the HUGE investment in bleeding edge technology to pay off. Right now green is not a global mass product. The VAST majority of new power plants planned worldwide are still coal plants.

    I think the vast majority of people in the US understand global warming, the distinction is how catastrophic they see it as in the short term.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,051
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Then maybe we should try the one way that actually fixed all other industrial nation's healthcare systems...
    I wasn't saying it was a bad idea, just supporting the position that it wasn't at all likely to happen effectively any time soon. I just don't believe the party has the political will to tear down the health care industry and replace it with something that actually works.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I wasn't saying it was a bad idea, just supporting the position that it wasn't at all likely to happen effectively any time soon. I just don't believe the party has the political will to tear down the health care industry and replace it with something that actually works.
    I agree.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I wasn't saying it was a bad idea, just supporting the position that it wasn't at all likely to happen effectively any time soon. I just don't believe the party has the political will to tear down the health care industry and replace it with something that actually works.
    And we should be able to see who's unwilling to fix our healthcare system so we know who specifically to primary.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,051
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerSL View Post
    And we should be able to see who's unwilling to fix our healthcare system so we know who specifically to primary.
    Unfortunately they will probably decide behind closed doors so they decide in advance who to sacrifice and we will actually learn nothing ... IF it ever comes to a vote at all.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Well if that's the case why invest in any American companies at all? You dont just scrap it because someone might steal it.

    Most of the world understands global warming. Again, much like the anti masker movement, this is a stupidity almost exclusive to us.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Really. YOu say "most of the world" understands global warming? Exactly WHO is that? Does the sheep shearer in Peru understand global warming? Think the goat herder in Pakistan understands it? How about the Computer help line guy in India understands what the green house gas readings in the atmosphere have been over the last several decades?

    I'll bet you, bub, that you could ask 1000 people in Navy Pier tomorrow what global warming is and you would get mostly blank faces stuttering for answers. Why do you think that is?

    Answer:

    Because the so-called "scientists" themselves cannot give scientific proof that global warming itself is man made but also give any explainable actions that mankind can do to reduce so-called carbon emissions to the point of reducing the temperature of the earth a fraction of one degree let alone what the real COST would be to do it let alone the time frame it would take to do.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerSL View Post
    And we should be able to see who's unwilling to fix our healthcare system so we know who specifically to primary.
    Lets see. How about a basic question? So far the United States has survived pretty damned well compared to the rest of the world. Our standard of living is among the highest in the world, our death rates have done pretty well and could be better if not for the fact that we consume way too many drugs, alcohol, and eat way too much and don't exercize enough, thereby getting way too obese. So, instead of maybe "fixing" someone's idea of a bad health care system, why don't all of the fat people quit eating so much and get off of their couches and burn some fat, that we volunteer to quit doing speed, coke, and opioids, cut down on the alcohol intake, and maybe eat healthier? Then let the so-called health care "industry" just get more efficient itself and knock down its inflated prices?

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Unfortunately they will probably decide behind closed doors so they decide in advance who to sacrifice and we will actually learn nothing ... IF it ever comes to a vote at all.
    We can start by allowing people not to be forced to sign up and pay for health care. Then maybe also not give free health care to non citizens that do not pay for anything. That's a start.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    Really. YOu say "most of the world" understands global warming? Exactly WHO is that? Does the sheep shearer in Peru understand global warming? Think the goat herder in Pakistan understands it? How about the Computer help line guy in India understands what the green house gas readings in the atmosphere have been over the last several decades?

    I'll bet you, bub, that you could ask 1000 people in Navy Pier tomorrow what global warming is and you would get mostly blank faces stuttering for answers. Why do you think that is?

    Answer:

    Because the so-called "scientists" themselves cannot give scientific proof that global warming itself is man made but also give any explainable actions that mankind can do to reduce so-called carbon emissions to the point of reducing the temperature of the earth a fraction of one degree let alone what the real COST would be to do it let alone the time frame it would take to do.
    Scientists are sure that the cause is man made. What is your explanation for the massive spike in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that magically started in the 1900's and exponentially grew?

    Is there a chance that we find out some external force caused this? Yeah sure. Should we roll the dice and do nothing because there's a small chance that there might be something that we don't know about? Obviously **** no.

    The cost of doing nothing will be far greater than the cost of reversing the trend now.

    And wtf do you mean "so-called" scientists lol. Do you think climatologists are all fake scientist? LOL.


    I don't think he's saying they "understand the intricacies of global warming, and the science behind it". I think he's saying most people understand that burning oil is bad for the environment. That the polar caps melting is a problem. That we need to move away from oil as an energy source and conserve our planet. Hell even before we knew about global warming, we knew this was a problem. There use to be conservative religious movements that put an emphasis on "taking care of Gods work". Now it's NO BUT MY MONEYSSSSSS!

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    We can start by allowing people not to be forced to sign up and pay for health care. Then maybe also not give free health care to non citizens that do not pay for anything. That's a start.
    Not much of a start. How about not subsidizing and validating the extreme overcharging the health care industry does with unchecked government money? The price of health care really started climbing when the government tried to "fix" it. Before medicare and medicaid and obamacare the price of health care in the US was MUCH lower. We can also have some long promised tort reform to stop making lawyers (and health industry malpractice insurance carriers) rich.

    The fundamental issue as I see it is that anybody reasonable would want to have care available for everyone. Nobody should be okay with old people dying on the street for lack of available care. And since anybody reasonable would see that we need SOME sort of government intervention in health care, and as soon as we get that we get the providers or the "insurance" providers trying to eke a little more profit here and there because they know the government will pay and the public can't stop them. The solution I had, which will never happen, was to have the government be the universal backstop, and everything else be a pay as you use it regular capitalist "free market". Everyone has a government managed health savings account. Everyone who gets a pay check has some nominal amount withheld from their pay check that goes into said account. If you get care it is paid from that account. If the account hits 0 the government covers it. If it hits say $20k the withholding stops until it's used. The providers will have to be transparent as to the price of their services. There will be online services that will spring up to help you find good doctors that don't try to cheat you (yelpmd, etc). That way everyone is covered 100%, the government gets to play with a bunch of free money, and the price of services is driven by as close to a free market as we are likely to get because people who make money are going to shop their own care around.

    Of course that system has the fundamental issue that some people will not shop their care around and will just be stuck at $0 forever, but there is no way to make health care anything but a net loser on government funds, at least this way everyone is covered and it's not managed by a bureaucracy that has no interest or means to control costs.

Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •