Trump insists he intends to strip millions of citizens from Health Care and revoke the ACA (Obamacare)

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Nor are you. 

I am obviously more qualified than your neanderthal understanding makes you.

You don't even know what you don't know and are apparently uninterested it educating YOURSELF.

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I only consider voices that contain the good, the bad and the ugly. I otherwise see it as indoctrination or propaganda. 

So you're "both sider"? Always has to be a pro and con? Typical of the very ignorant with no clue how to learn to distinguish.

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Much more so, if any other voices are firmly silenced.

Who has silenced ANY voices on the Internet?

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Again, like you said:

So, all posted here, may I remind you, are merely opinions. 

Nope. I pointed you to a documentary which proves my points. You just refuse to even consider it out of stubbornness.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

more qualified

Cite your qualifications.

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Always has to be a pro and con? 

No. I need the entirety of the available information to fully understand what it is am being informed about.

I sell apples to you  I will want to know a little about the apple. What does it taste like? Acidic? Sweet? Where is it grown? Where does the name of the apple originate from? 

You're calling me ignorant, when all you can do, is parrot to me that the apples are fresh, as you were told.

Its the engineer needing to understand physics. Limitations of materials. Load bearing, torsion strength. Compression strength. You just see a solid building.

You may feel that you "get" gender ideology, but that doesn't make you any more qualified than anyone else parroting what they are told. Certainly not more than someone providing their rational opinion, based on what they see.

Again, present your qualifications that state otherwise. You're otherwise not in much of a position to "educate me" about anything.

Especially not with a video that you saw. I couldn't care less about a video. I want to see sources, know an issue through and through. 

Any medical issue that is devoid of any body voicing concern and given a voice to, especially if its a medical specialist, is a worrisome one to me.

I make no apologies for that opinion, and to most, its a rather rational one.

You trying to "educate" people based on videos you saw, or what you were told, showcases to me, you have zero clue what you're talking about. You just get what you're told. 

A deep understanding, has you knowing when this movement came about, and like I said. The good, the bad the ugly, to form a balanced opinion that showcases a deep understanding, or in your words, qualifications on the matter.

My doctor can prescribe me medication, but is so knowledgeable about it, he warns me of the risks, so you guessed it--I can make an educated decision.

The current trans movement, isn't an educated decision, if you base it on that standard which should be the standard in any medical environment.

We both have no knowledge, and am the only one conceding to this.

I wouldn't be comfortable on my knowledge until I had devoured books on the history of gender ideology, risks, statistics that are objective, and so on.

So you lack self-awareness, to boot.

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. So essentially, the lack of complete idea of what is being presented.

Nobody who posts here, has shown a complete understanding.

Google knowledge  isn't qualification.

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is this a problem with today?

 

Because if so, MAGA isn't going to help with this problem.

Is it a problem? Do you ever speak with young adults?

"I can't afford a down-payment on a house."

"We can't afford to have kids."

Yes...it's a problem. 

What will make it better is much less immigration and much more house building. But to do that, leadership needs to change and regulations need to be stripped away.

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

Do you mean before Reagan and the supply-siders gutted unions and dismantled the middle class?

Reagan didn't dismantle the middle class and most unions need to be gutted. Starting with today's teachers' unions.

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Maybe you need to write more clearly or take on the burden clarifying your cryptic posts.

Lol...well at least you've perfected dullness.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Is it a problem? Do you ever speak with young adults?

"I can't afford a down-payment on a house."

"We can't afford to have kids."

Yes...it's a problem. 

What will make it better is much less immigration and much more house building. But to do that, leadership needs to change and regulations need to be stripped away.

Well, I think it's a problem. You this agree to it.

Was this a problem before? Like in the early Trudeau years or Harper years?

Do you think that wage stagnation is also a problem since we're talking about the problems of working people in Canada?

[Deluge]

On 12/19/2023 at 10:48 AM, robosmith said:

Thanks for your proclamation of your near complete IGNORANCE on the issue of gender identity.

Meanwhile Canada has their own controversial policies on trans competition.

There is no issue on gender identity. You're a male or a female or a hermaphrodite. With you I'm going to say hermaphrodite which might explain your constantly flowing hostility.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Deluge

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I think it's a problem. You this agree to it.

Was this a problem before? Like in the early Trudeau years or Harper years?

Do you think that wage stagnation is also a problem since we're talking about the problems of working people in Canada?

That's because it is a problem.

Raising the down payment for a home has always required effort and budgeting. But the combination of Pixie's immigration policies and the insane regulations for building permits, has driven house costs to dizzying heights.

Wages have risen some but not at the rate house costs have. And now I'm actually seeing contractor rates go down in my field.

Get off the neck of fuel, slash regulations and bureaucracies, close the Gawd Damn borders, and incentivise property investment. Shake well and enjoy.

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

1. Raising the down payment for a home has always required effort and budgeting. But the combination of Pixie's immigration policies and the insane regulations for building permits, has driven house costs to dizzying heights.

2. Wages have risen some but not at the rate house costs have. And now I'm actually seeing contractor rates go down in my field.

3. Get off the neck of fuel, slash regulations and bureaucracies, close the Gawd Damn borders, and incentivise property investment.  

1. So you think Poilievre might significantly lower immigration ?  What if he doesn't ?
2. Do you think wages will go up significantly under the Conservatives ?
3. I don't think that's going to do much.  You have monopolies and businesses lobbying to lower labour costs even as they make record profits.  I don't see them voluntarily lowering profit margins.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Reagan didn't dismantle the middle class and most unions need to be gutted. Starting with today's teachers' unions.

Of course they did. That's not really debatable, even. They shifted favor to capital over labor, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich while busting unions, deregulating, unwinding the "New Deal" and eliminating economic protections--again, to benefit the wealthy.

All of this was done based on the argument they the wealth would "trickle down" from the wealthy to everyone else. Of course, that was always a bogus idea. GHWB called it "Voodoo economics" and he was right.

What actually-and predictably-happened is that the wealth did not "trickle down." Instead, income inequality exploded as we turned millionaires into billionaires and the middle class into the working poor. 

Literally everything you complain about economically is traced back to those policy shifts. Instead of making things here, capital sought cheap labor abroad. Instead of building things, we consume things others built. Instead of one person being able to support a family with a manufacturing job, out takes two adults working at Wal Mart. 

That's the weirdest thing about modern conservativism. It's a near-religious belief in the Reagan dogma. Rather than looking at the actual effects of the supply-side experiment, they complain about the outcomes and propose to"fix" them by doing even more of the same things that caused them. 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Cite your qualifications.

I don't depend on MY qualifications like you do ON YOURS.

I cited a documentary BY EXPERTS, which you've IGNORED.

How many times do I need to repeat ^this before you understand?

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

No. I need the entirety of the available information to fully understand what it is am being informed about.

Then get to work and do the research YOU REQUIRE.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I sell apples to you  I will want to know a little about the apple. What does it taste like? Acidic? Sweet? Where is it grown? Where does the name of the apple originate from? 

You're calling me ignorant, when all you can do, is parrot to me that the apples are fresh, as you were told.

You're LYING.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Its the engineer needing to understand physics. Limitations of materials. Load bearing, torsion strength. Compression strength. You just see a solid building.

You don't know what I see. I actually took the Strength of Materials course in college. How about you?

I doubt you have an MS in engineering like I do.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You may feel that you "get" gender ideology, but that doesn't make you any more qualified than anyone else parroting what they are told. Certainly not more than someone providing their rational opinion, based on what they see.

You see very little. You've demonstrated that ignorance HERE.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Again, present your qualifications that state otherwise. You're otherwise not in much of a position to "educate me" about anything.

Watch the documentary, dummy.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Especially not with a video that you saw. I couldn't care less about a video. I want to see sources, know an issue through and through. 

Documentaries reference sources, which you would know if you actually looked at it.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Any medical issue that is devoid of any body voicing concern and given a voice to, especially if its a medical specialist, is a worrisome one to me.

Because you believe you're MORE EXPERT than the scientists? LMAO

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I make no apologies for that opinion, and to most, its a rather rational one.

It is rather ignorant. Logic is only powerful when combined with FACTS.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You trying to "educate" people based on videos you saw, or what you were told, showcases to me, you have zero clue what you're talking about. You just get what you're told. 

A deep understanding, has you knowing when this movement came about, and like I said. The good, the bad the ugly, to form a balanced opinion that showcases a deep understanding, or in your words, qualifications on the matter.

My doctor can prescribe me medication, but is so knowledgeable about it, he warns me of the risks, so you guessed it--I can make an educated decision.

The current trans movement, isn't an educated decision, if you base it on that standard which should be the standard in any medical environment.

We both have no knowledge, and am the only one conceding to this.

I wouldn't be comfortable on my knowledge until I had devoured books on the history of gender ideology, risks, statistics that are objective, and so on.

So do that. You obviously HAVE NOT.

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

So you lack self-awareness, to boot.

I am aware of what EXPERTS say. YOU obviously depend only on what you've determined is "rational."

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. So essentially, the lack of complete idea of what is being presented.

Nobody who posts here, has shown a complete understanding.

Google knowledge  isn't qualification.

But that is NOT the limit of what I've cited here. You haven't even cited that.

[robosmith]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Of course they did. That's not really debatable, even. They shifted favor to capital over labor, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich while busting unions, deregulating, unwinding the "New Deal" and eliminating economic protections--again, to benefit the wealthy.

All of this was done based on the argument they the wealth would "trickle down" from the wealthy to everyone else. Of course, that was always a bogus idea. GHWB called it "Voodoo economics" and he was right.

What actually-and predictably-happened is that the wealth did not "trickle down." Instead, income inequality exploded as we turned millionaires into billionaires and the middle class into the working poor. 

Literally everything you complain about economically is traced back to those policy shifts. Instead of making things here, capital sought cheap labor abroad. Instead of building things, we consume things others built. Instead of one person being able to support a family with a manufacturing job, out takes two adults working at Wal Mart. 

That's the weirdest thing about modern conservativism. It's a near-religious belief in the Reagan dogma. Rather than looking at the actual effects of the supply-side experiment, they complain about the outcomes and propose to"fix" them by doing even more of the same things that caused them. 

You know, I am continually amazed that CANADIAN right wingers here believe they are THE experts on US history.

Even gNat man who dropped out of college. And also stat man who believes all facts can be derived from random statistics.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

cited a documentary BY EXPERTS

So if I provide you links of video and novels by medical experts, that support my opinion, am now an expert? 

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

engineering

So you should like logic more than I do.

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You haven't even cited that.

You wouldn't accept my links, because the medical experts I listen to, call hogwash on the current trans fixation that has taken over western society.

[Nationalist]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So you think Poilievre might significantly lower immigration ?  What if he doesn't ?
2. Do you think wages will go up significantly under the Conservatives ?
3. I don't think that's going to do much.  You have monopolies and businesses lobbying to lower labour costs even as they make record profits.  I don't see them voluntarily lowering profit margins.

1. He is making that promise and I trust his word and judgment WAY more that I trust Pixie-Dust so...Polievre get my vote.

2. I doubt it. But I do think inflation will be controlled better and prices should come down as a result.

3. Its not so much labour costs Mike. Its fuel costs and the cost of endless bureaucratic bullshit. Lower fuel costs will ease inflationary forces and less dolts with rubber stamps will reduce the time to market of housing.

[Nationalist]

58 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Of course they did. That's not really debatable, even. They shifted favor to capital over labor, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich while busting unions, deregulating, unwinding the "New Deal" and eliminating economic protections--again, to benefit the wealthy.

All of this was done based on the argument they the wealth would "trickle down" from the wealthy to everyone else. Of course, that was always a bogus idea. GHWB called it "Voodoo economics" and he was right.

What actually-and predictably-happened is that the wealth did not "trickle down." Instead, income inequality exploded as we turned millionaires into billionaires and the middle class into the working poor. 

Literally everything you complain about economically is traced back to those policy shifts. Instead of making things here, capital sought cheap labor abroad. Instead of building things, we consume things others built. Instead of one person being able to support a family with a manufacturing job, out takes two adults working at Wal Mart. 

That's the weirdest thing about modern conservativism. It's a near-religious belief in the Reagan dogma. Rather than looking at the actual effects of the supply-side experiment, they complain about the outcomes and propose to"fix" them by doing even more of the same things that caused them. 

"from December 1982 to June 1990, Reaganomics created over 21 million jobs—more jobs than have been added since," wrote Arthur Laffer, whose work heavily influenced Reagan's tax cuts. The top marginal tax rate on individual income was slashed from 70% to 28% and the corporate tax rate was reduced from 48% to 34%. Inflation was reduced to 4%, and the unemployment rate fell below 6%.

Oh that sounds just dreadful...

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

So if I provide you links of video and novels by medical experts, that support my opinion, am now an expert? 

You don't even understand that it's the documentary made by EXPERTS which is the evidence, NOT MY expertise.

Novels mean nothing.

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

So you should like logic more than I do.

Logic means nothing when not combined with FACTS. I know BOTH the FACTS and the LOGIC cause I pay attention to scientific sources.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You wouldn't accept my links, because the medical experts I listen to, call hogwash on the current trans fixation that has taken over western society.

IF they're really experts in fetal development, they would likely agree with the science presented in the documentary I cited. 

If not, they're likely just pseudo experts and true partisan hacks like you.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. He is making that promise and I trust his word and judgment WAY more that I trust Pixie-Dust so...Polievre get my vote.

2. I doubt it. But I do think inflation will be controlled better and prices should come down as a result.

3. Its not so much labour costs Mike. Its fuel costs and the cost of endless bureaucratic bullshit. Lower fuel costs will ease inflationary forces ...

1. He is ?  Asking honestly here - are you sure ?  Because I have been following it and haven't heard that.  I Googled and this article said he sidestepped the question of cutting targets.  https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poilievre-says-canada-s-immigration-system-is-broken-sidesteps-target-cut-questions-1.6502699#:~:text=Appearing before reporters on Parliament,skilled in the building trades.

Not trying to undercut your point here but looking for a solid cite on what he has said he will do.

2. Ok.  Do you see a way to stop the erosion of wages ?

3. Ok, so you are saying that if those things are cut then at least cost of living will stop rising.  I can't argue that that doesn't make sense.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, robosmith said:

EXPERTS

Experts can be wrong. Experts can be biased. 

Experts can be motivated by financial means.

Activism, vs what genuinely is best for their patients.

You pointing to them being experts, is only relevant if their opinion is free of bias and fully objective, just like one should expect from medical experts.

56 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Novels mean nothing.

And you're questioning my IQ?

59 minutes ago, robosmith said:

NOT MY expertise.

At least you admit it, so at least there's that.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Logic means nothing when not combined with FACTS.

Why does the bulk of the planet still operate on there being two genders? Are you saying the bulk of the globes experts are wrong?

Medical experts throughout western history, are wrong?

That I need to educate myself on gender pronouns, yet nobody could quantify all of them? 

And my information is from hacks, and lacks facts?

If your knowledge was legit, you wouldn't need to constantly "educate" people about it.

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Experts can be wrong. Experts can be biased. 

Experts can be motivated by financial means.

Activism, vs what genuinely is best for their patients.

You pointing to them being experts, is only relevant if their opinion is free of bias and fully objective, just like one should expect from medical experts.

Experts are far more trustworthy than your "rational" conclusions. Esp those who have STUDIED fetal development processes.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

And you're questioning my IQ?

No, I'm rejecting your reference to Novels on scientific matters.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

At least you admit it, so at least there's that.

Now you need to admit you don't have the knowledge of experts on human development and the brain/body relationship to gender identity.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Why does the bulk of the planet still operate on there being two genders? Are you saying the bulk of the globes experts are wrong?

Of course the "bulk of the planet" can be behind in understanding the latest science. Like you are. 

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Medical experts throughout western history, are wrong?

Not much has been know about how the brain develops in the womb until recently with the advent of brain imaging technology.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That I need to educate myself on gender pronouns, yet nobody could quantify all of them? 

Not relevant to the functioning of the brain/body relationship.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

And my information is from hacks, and lacks facts?

Apparently. You've not cited ANYTHING yet, except your "rational" conclusions.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

If your knowledge was legit, you wouldn't need to constantly "educate" people about it.

You are completely ignorant about how widespread ignorance is. I've known about it for years. Esp by right wingers.

Are you still rejecting the documentary without even viewing it? That is willful ignorance.

[Hodad]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

"from December 1982 to June 1990, Reaganomics created over 21 million jobs—more jobs than have been added since," wrote Arthur Laffer, whose work heavily influenced Reagan's tax cuts. The top marginal tax rate on individual income was slashed from 70% to 28% and the corporate tax rate was reduced from 48% to 34%. Inflation was reduced to 4%, and the unemployment rate fell below 6%.

Oh that sounds just dreadful...

Laffer is largely discredited at this point. His theories were questionable to begin with, but when put into practice the experiment was objectively a failure. It failed again when W tried it. Like most religions, faith in the universal goodness of tax cuts went unrewarded.

Reagan didn't grow revenues with tax cuts, as Laffer proposed. Taxes were cut dramatically and net revenue fell. And the economic growth came from both natural recovery and from massive deficit spending and debt accumulation. 

But, yes, GDP was up. And yes, there were new jobs--which is important, since now every family needs two of them to make ends meet. 

The "middle class" isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. For the vast majority of history there was a small aristocracy, a slightly larger merchant/professional class, and everyone else peasants, paupers and serfs. 

America was the "land of opportunity" because it was untouched by European hands, a nation overflowing with land and resources. But in a property ownership society, how do you build and maintain a middle class after all the land and resources have been claimed? It doesn't take much--just some modest worker protections, a mildly defensive trade policy and a serious progressive tax scale. In the generation after the New Deal they had a good recipe to grow the middle class. The social policy sucked, but economically, that was the heyday of the white picket fence American dream. 

Reaganomics was a massive positive for China, but here at home income inequality has exploded and the middle class has become grist in the mill of economic pressures. Even the rise of the "knowledge worker" hasn't been enough to offset those changes (though it's critical to international competitiveness). 

Anyway, if you want a home for every family and a chicken in every pot, the 80s aren't your economic model. If you want a massive working class--struggling class--and a big lottery in which some will become unfathomably wealthy, Reagan's your guy.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Hodad

[Guest]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

You've not cited ANYTHING

You have literally stated that unless the voices sound like the ones in your video, that they are likely medical hacks.

Yet, mention if they are experts, then what they say is factual.

Unless, they don't say what the ones you like say.

You are telling me am not open minded, to boot o_O

Laughably, are questioning my intelligence level, when pointing to a video, to articulate your point.

That's like me pointing to my car, at you asking me about my knowledge on horsepower.

"What do you know about the nutritional value of Whiskas cat food?"

*points to cat*

The irony is your pointing to logic, through all of this.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You have literally stated that unless the voices sound like the ones in your video, that they are likely medical hacks.

Sound like? No. Not cite the science which is most recently known? Yes.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Yet, mention if they are experts, then what they say is factual.

It depends on whether they are up to date on the latest science. Pretty sure not everyone is.

But if they are true experts, they will know about it.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Unless, they don't say what the ones you like say.

It's not what "I like," it's how up to date it is on the latest knowledge.

Thing is, you have no idea cause you've not even reviewed the documentary I referenced.  

Maybe if they have a different opinion on fetal development that they cite, there could be a legitimate conflict.

But you not cited ANYTHING, so I have no idea what your imagined alternative source believes.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You are telling me am not open minded, to boot o_O

If you neither consult the cited reference, nor cite an alternative reference on fetal development, you've been proven to not be open minded.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Laughably, are questioning my intelligence level, when pointing to a video, to articulate your point.

Yes, i'm questioning your ability to review the scientific evidence because you've refused to do it.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That's like me pointing to my car, at you asking me about my knowledge on horsepower.

Only if you're bragging about how fast it can accelerate.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

"What do you know about the nutritional value of Whiskas cat food?"

*points to cat*

Not relevant. I've made no claims about cat food.

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The irony is your pointing to logic, through all of this.

You're the one "pointing to logic" as if it matters without FACTS. It don't.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

are up to date

On what they are told to believe?

Notice how people get shut down for asking questions?

Science and medicine is all about asking questions. Why is that? Because they aren't up to date? 

So is the entire globe out of date? The vast majority of the countries here, have gender as a binary. Many who treat gender dysphoria, understand that it is a mental disorder. Meaning, it is imperative as a medical practitioner that objective care is provided to patients.

I will side with those who objectively ask questions, as being far more knowledgeable, than people parroting what they are told.

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Thing is, you have no idea cause you've not even reviewed the documentary I referenced.  

You can't even briefly explain the point you're trying to make from the documentary (showcasing your total lack of understanding of its content), and want me to waste my time watching it because you told me to.

You have presented me with zero reason nor incentive to doing so. "Washing away ignorance", to me sounds like brainwashing. Meaning, I probably would turn it off the moment I felt the message was parroting BS.

*probably* the main reason you're afraid of elaborating on its content.

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

FACTS

Facts can't be facts only if you approve of them. Thats opinion. 

Many "specialists" feel there are unlimited genders and ideology should be taught to kids. 

True experts dispute that this is harmful, as kids of certain ages only see the world in black and white. There should be an age minimum.

Activists, silence any dissenting voices via bullying, which is why doctors who voice concern, are forced to do so anonymously.

This isn't progress, nor is it science. Certainly isn't medicine.

Where we will always fundamentally disagree, is the starting point. There are two genders. 

You have yet to articulate otherwise, other than pointing to a video which means you have no clue what you're talking about, or you would have refuted my point with your arguments. Not your Google or YouTube wisdom.