Trump Supporters in this Forum

[TrustTheProcess]

@Opo Blue is important. Blue can be healthy. It's just that the limitations of the blue can be highly ironic and funny as fuck. Especially in a world context where blue a bit behind. 

[Forestluv]

@Danioover9000 Thanks for clarifying. I misinterpreted what you meant by “cannot vote”. 

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Epikur said:

That is the reason why they are feared. This saying can be and sometimes are interpreted like we are all equal and must be treated equal even if one lives in USA and one in Afrika. 

Then it becomes suddenly "logical" not to have borders and national states. When reasonable people hear that they turn away in horror.
 

Yes, the phrase can be used in different contexts that have different intentions. 

The context I was using was in the sense that everyone in the U.S. should have access to healthcare and education. 

You bring up a good point about people getting scared if it is extended too far. For example, a majority of Americans support Medicare for All (for all U.S. citizens). Yet support plummets when Medicare for All is extended to include undocumented people in the U.S. 

[Epikur]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes, the phrase can be used in different contexts that have different intentions. 

The context I was using was in the sense that everyone in the U.S. should have access to healthcare and education. 

You bring up a good point about people getting scared if it is extended too far. For example, a majority of Americans support Medicare for All (for all U.S. citizens). Yet support plummets when Medicare for All is extended to include undocumented people in the U.S. 

But as far I can remember you talked about AOC and it seems like she said this:
"Latinos must be exempt from immigration laws because they are 'Native' to US."

Regarding Berny Sanders he calls himself Socialist. The classic definition of Socialism is when the people own the means of production. That is a horror idea for most reasonable people.

Regarding Medicare for All. I heard it depends on how you formulate the question. Everybody is for free Medicare. When you say how much it costs the acceptance rate goes much lower. 

I think some people think that it depends on the country if medicare for all works or not. USA is a difficult one because it is very diverse. 





 

[TrustTheProcess]

3 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Regarding Medicare for All. I heard it depends on how you formulate the question. Everybody is for free Medicare. When you say how much it costs the acceptance rate goes much lower. 

I think some people think that it depends on the country if medicare for all works or not. USA is a difficult one because it is very diverse. 

M4A saves money and improves public health outcomes. the us is the only developed nation on earth without socialized healthcare. We spend twice as much and are not even in the top 30 countries in terms of health outcomes. Of course, the us is diverse, socialized healthcare here prob won't look like how it looks in Denmark, but that isn't an excuse to continue to allow our current corrupt, dysfunctional system to exist as it does. 

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Epikur said:

But as far I can remember you talked about AOC and it seems like she said this:
"Latinos must be exempt from immigration laws because they are 'Native' to US."

I know AOC is very vocal about abolishing ICE. I’m not familiar with that quote. I did a quick google search and only saw it on obscure right-wing websites. I don’t know the validity or the context of it.

20 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Regarding Berny Sanders he calls himself Socialist. The classic definition of Socialism is when the people own the means of production.

No. Bernie is a democratic socialist. The classic definition of socialism does not apply.

If you are interested, you can learn more about democratic socialism here: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

20 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Regarding Medicare for All. I heard it depends on how you formulate the question. Everybody is for free Medicare. When you say how much it costs the acceptance rate goes much lower. 

Yes, support does depend on how the question is phrased.

Support actually goes up when people learn about the costs. M4A is less expensive than the current U.S. system. Out-of-pocket costs would go down for everyone except super rich people. Since most people like paying less money, support goes up when they hear learn about the costs. 

Here is a meta review of M4A costs from the journal PLOS. This is a top-level peer-reviewed journal that analyzed 22 different independent studies by government, businesses and academic researchers. The consensus was that M4A is significantly less expensive.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/new-study-says-medicare-for-all-will-save-u-s-money-lower-healthcare-costs

20 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I think some people think that it depends on the country if medicare for all works or not. USA is a difficult one because it is very diverse. 

That is not what the 22 studies found. They determined that M4A would be more efficient than the current system in the U.S.

The U.S.. currently has one of the most inefficient health care systems in the developed world, so it’s actually not that hard to make it more efficient. The problem is that there is immense pressure from the health insurance and pharmaceutical  industries to maintain the current system because they are making obscene profits. Yet these obscene profits come at the cost of providing inefficient healthcare and denying people healthcare. 

It boils down to who side are you on. . . Do you think people should have crappy healthcare and be overcharged so billionaire CEOs can buy their third yacht they don’t even use? If so, the current system is awesome. 

[Epikur]

7 minutes ago, louhad said:

M4A saves money and improves public health outcomes. the us is the only developed nation on earth without socialized healthcare. We spend twice as much and are not even in the top 30 countries in terms of health outcomes. 

Yes USA ranges in the low ranks in many other markers as well. It is though that the cost of medicare for all is roughly the same as the military budget. If one would eliminate the bigger part of the military budget it could work out. 

Though the USA is the police of the world. We had the luxury of "pax USA". Without the US miltary power we might be in the situation of pre World War 1. Every country is fighting for dominance. With China in the horizon that would mean it is a lost battle. Europe for example probably would surrender to China right now without the USA but that is just a possibility.




 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Dutch guy said:

People with Trump viewpoints are more open minded to other opinions.

Ahahahahha....

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Epikur said:

Though the USA is the police of the world. We had the luxury of "pax USA". Without the US miltary power we might be in the situation of pre World War 1. Every country is fighting for dominance. With China in the horizon that would mean it is a lost battle. Europe for example probably would surrender to China right now without the USA but that is just a possibility.

The U.S. spends an enormous amount on the military (more than the next 10 countries combined). I would say the main advantage is securing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the petro dollar. Yet this is starting to change.

There have also been enormous inefficiencies and bungled military interventions. For example, the Iraq war wasted and enormous amount of money. 

I see a couple problems with the U.S. military. First, there is a historical American identity associated with the military and being able to “kick their asses”. For many Americans, there is a deep sense of identity and patriotism with the military. This makes it very difficult for any politician to speak rationally about the military budget. Any politician that even suggested we should consider cutting back on the military is demonized as “weak on defense”. . . . The second problem is that the military has become an enormous powerful for-profit corporation. 

[w4read]

I think there are some aspects to consider that differs between united states and most countries with free health care..

For example the fact that doctors have to pay a lot for their education in the US. This is not the case in Denmark or any other Scandinavian country for instance. This would mean that they would expect higher salaries which again would mean more expensive health care.

It's also much easier to sue people in the states which means that doctors needs expensive insurances in order to avoid being sued, again pushing the cost of being a doctor up and thereby also the costs of going to the doctor. That is not the case in as far as I know in most other countries, but I could be wrong here.

It's also hard to compare what you get for the money. Is the quality of the health care the same? Most of the time private firms deliver better quality than state owned institutions, but in this case it would probably just be speculation and hard to compare the quality between countries.

And lastly, can the US actually afford it? And if so, what other things need to change in order to make free health care a good/possible solution?

 

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, w4read said:

I think there are some aspects to consider that differs between united states and most countries with free health care..

For example the fact that doctors have to pay a lot for their education in the US. This is not the case in Denmark or any other Scandinavian country for instance. This would mean that they would expect higher salaries which again would mean more expensive health care.

It's also much easier to sue people in the states which means that doctors needs expensive insurances in order to avoid being sued, again pushing the cost of being a doctor up and thereby also the costs of going to the doctor. That is not the case in as far as I know in most other countries, but I could be wrong here.

These costs were considered in the 22 studies I linked above.

4 minutes ago, w4read said:

It's also hard to compare what you get for the money. Is the quality of the health care the same? Most of the time private firms deliver better quality than state owned institutions, but in this case it would probably just be speculation and hard to compare the quality between countries.

M4A is single payer. It means there is only one payer (the U.S. government). There will still be the same private healthcare firms. Rather than getting paid by various health insurance companies, the private healthcare firms will be paid by the U.S. government.

6 minutes ago, w4read said:

And lastly, can the US actually afford it? 

Single Payer healthcare is significantly less expensive than the current system. I linked a meta review above that reviewed 22 independent studies of M4A in the U.S. The consensus is that M4A is cheaper than the current system.

One of the main misinformation tactics by health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists is that the costs are too high. It will cost 32 trillion dollars!!! The part they leave out is that we currently pay 34 trillion dollars. The health insure and pharmaceutical companies are making obscene profits and are trying to protect their profits by spreading misinformation. They are not on your side. Don’t fall for it. 

[Extreme Z7]

3 hours ago, Dutch guy said:

The democrats want to make Trumps positive story about hydochloroquine wacky. Lancet even had to retract a paper now. And more positive study has just come out. It's cleary attempt 100.000 to do as if Trump is an idiot. While medicine is about lives. Hydrochloroquine is being prescribed less just to try to make Trump look like an idiot in that way risking lives.

This is why I can't side with Trumpists like you in a nutshell.

Conspiracy theorizing against the media, Spreading dangerous misinformation, Basic Misunderstanding of Medicine.
Trump spreads an at-the-time unproven drug as a miracle cure for Covid-19 which could potentially have harmful side-effects, and you can't help but whine about people calling out Trump's dangerous incompetence.

Currently, the drug has already been proven to be utterly useless against the virus. To suggest otherwise, you would have to delve into conspiracies of partisan motivation of suppressing a supposed truth Trump tried to spread just to make him look bad.

And at least spell 'Hydroxychloroquine' properly, copy-paste exists you know.

[SerpaeTetra]

5 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

@Leo Gura  It's already demonstrated on this forum. Trump supporters don't need to see themselves are moral superior higher on a spiral. In my country I need to hide my opinion if I want to keep my job. Democrats are more hostile towards other opinions. This is demonstrated already in this thread. I got called deplorable and my voting preference person an idiot. Stage blue. On an earlier discussion I got called fundamentalist and some more stuff. Simply me having opinions is already difficult for democrats. On other fora the mess would even be much greater. This clearly demonstrates republicans are more open minded and tolerant.

I think if a democrat went on a forum dominated by republicans, he would be met with at least an equal amount of disagreement.  Talking  politics often leads to heated conversations.  

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, w4read said:

I think there are some aspects to consider that differs between united states and most countries with free health care..

For example the fact that doctors have to pay a lot for their education in the US. This is not the case in Denmark or any other Scandinavian country for instance. This would mean that they would expect higher salaries which again would mean more expensive health care.

It's also much easier to sue people in the states which means that doctors needs expensive insurances in order to avoid being sued, again pushing the cost of being a doctor up and thereby also the costs of going to the doctor. That is not the case in as far as I know in most other countries, but I could be wrong here.

These costs were considered in the 22 studies I linked above.

22 minutes ago, w4read said:

It's also hard to compare what you get for the money. Is the quality of the health care the same? Most of the time private firms deliver better quality than state owned institutions, but in this case it would probably just be speculation and hard to compare the quality between countries.

M4A is single payer. It means there is only one payer (the U.S. government). There will still be the same private healthcare firms. Rather than getting paid by various health insurance companies, the private healthcare firms will be paid by the U.S. government.

22 minutes ago, w4read said:

And lastly, can the US actually afford it? 

Single Payer healthcare is significantly less expensive than the current system. I linked a meta review above that reviewed 22 independent studies of M4A in the U.S. The consensus is that M4A is cheaper than the current system.

One of the main misinformation tactics by health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists is that the costs are too high. It will cost 32 trillion dollars!!! The part they leave out is that we currently pay 34 trillion dollars. The health insure and pharmaceutical companies are making obscene profits and are trying to protect their profits by spreading misinformation. They are not on your side. Don’t fall for it. 

[Consept]

I'm gonna be 100% honest, I really can't get my head around people being on this type of forum, being interested in things like Non-Duality and spiral dynamics and being a trump supporter. 

I get the thing of the state of politics being bullshit with people like Hilary, I don't think there's been an honest, transparent leader for a long time if ever. But surely Trump is not the answer. The whole campaign in 2016 was incredibly manipulative masterminded by someone who I think was arrested recently for fraud, Roger Stone. Its clear Trump just wanted power and wasn't too bothered how he got it, it just so happened that appealing to an alt-right base was the best way to do it. 

Even if you like his policies, do you really feel like this guys a competent leader? He's red on the spiral and literally in his meetings they have to say his name a certain amount of times otherwise he won't listen. He gets his news from fox. His handling of situations is terrible, look how he's handled the corona and this blm stuff, I can't think of a way it could've been worse. 

So how does it make sense that someone can be stage green or yellow or whatever and really side with someone who's red? 

That being said I think it was probably best for him to be elected because I think America is gonna have to get a lot worse before it gets better. Also the politicians really needed to sort themselves out and stop doing this fake stuff 

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

my voting preference person an idiot.

Correct. Idiotic examples for Trump:

1. Let’s drop a nuclear bomb into a hurricane to blow it up. 

2.  Let’s create a water-filled moat around The Wall that will be stocked with snakes and alligators (he ordered cost estimates for this).

3. Let’s try ingesting disinfectant to kill the coronavirus.

4. He repeatedly pushed advisors to look into buying Greenland

5. Windmills cause cancer

Trump prides himself in never reading books and knowing more than experts. This contributes to his idiocy. 

29 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

Stage blue.

Sorry to break the news to you, but Trump is even lower on the spiral. Trump is centered in Stage red. 

[Consept]

Even if you peg him at Blue, which is generous he's def at red, why would someone who claims to be yellow vote for someone who's blue? Unless it's some government disruption tactic, but in this case its not you genuinely believe in him. 

That's 3 levels higher its like someone green voting for someone at purple hahaha 

[Itsokimok]

I think it's shocking enough that there are people denying white privilege and saying "All lives matter" and wondering if America is "overreacting" to Floyd's murder on this forum. On this forum out of all forums. Reality is complex indeed.

[Extreme Z7]

@Dutch guy My dude, you literally just doubled-down on everything I said.

8 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

Here is not definite proof but yet another study that makes clear Hydroxychloroquine is the most promising. Even without zink and another thing.

http://www.ijmr.org.in/preprintarticle.asp?id=285520

 

Classic example of confirmation bias. There are way more studies that tell you that HCQ does not reduce the risk of death among coronavirus patients.

9 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

After so much deception, years and years, you still haven't woken up?

The only one trying to deceive you is yourself.

[Consept]

It is must be so frustrating for Dutch guy, he's literally never wrong and has to put up with all us idiots contradicting him.