The Only Patriotic Choice for President

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No. You wanna lookup all the various regulations, be my guest. The link I posted clearly explained the additional costs that hinder housing construction.

I'm certainly not arguing that the cost of housing isn't going up (like everything else) but there are many factors that cause this.

You spoke of regulations that hinder freedom, therefore the burden is on you to provide a regulation that fits that criteria, not just link to an News article that says shit is more expensive 

So if anyone needs to look up various regulations it's you. It's your argument.

[robosmith]

On 10/9/2024 at 6:54 AM, SkyHigh said:

Are you saying that the health care systems in the states are comparable to those in Canada ?

I just checked and 54% of Americans get employment based health care. So at least half of Americans can't leave their jobs if themselves or their family has any kind of health issues, not to mention some that couldn't even make lateral moves to other businesses if any of those health issues involve pre existing conditions, and honestly I feel you've not addressed my point.

I agree our government bureaucracy is bloated and the unions have way to much power, so that's not a point of contention between us at all 

I don't think freedom is an objective word but if you provide me with your  definition, I'm fine with using that as our working definition going forward 

I'm not a fan of Justin either, so we can agree on that as well, therefore using current liberals (and their policies) as some sort of counter point to any subjects I may bring up (well presented or if I need to clarify better) is really just a waste of time for both of us 

I'm not partisan, so I don't care about what any political party platform is, I evaluate each specific issue independently based on how I feel it will effect me and society as a hole

One thing you seem to be misinformed about, is that group plans generally accept coverage for pre-existing conditions in new members, so leaving one job for another is not as restrictive as you've alleged. 

[robosmith]

On 10/9/2024 at 7:13 AM, Deluge said:

Your problem is that you think meaningful discussions can be had about things like Marxism. I don't like Marxism; I want nothing to do with Marxism, or any other ism that turns government loose on the people. I want leadership, not a dictatorship. 

Discussing Marxism is pointless - unless you're devoted to it, which I am not. 

Then you should reject Trump's promise to be a dictator, but you still accept him in spite of that. 

Proly cause you apply your MAGA CULT filter. LMAO 

[Deluge]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Then you should reject Trump's promise to be a dictator, but you still accept him in spite of that. 

Proly cause you apply your MAGA CULT filter. LMAO 

Which medication will you turn to, robopills? 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3191062/mark-halperin-trump-win-result-national-mental-health-crisis-violence-divorce/

[SkyHigh]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

One thing you seem to be misinformed about, is that group plans generally accept coverage for pre-existing conditions in new members, so leaving one job for another is not as restrictive as you've alleged. 

That may very well be true, I'm not completely versed on the intricacies of their system, but in my understanding changing jobs and maintaining your level of health care ( doctors , hospitals, etc  as where and with whom you can get treatment is based on your plan) isn't that simple and a big part of my argument included starting a business and the expense of providing quality benefits to be able to attract people at the top of their field

Edited October 16, 2024 by SkyHigh

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Which medication will you turn to, robopills? 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3191062/mark-halperin-trump-win-result-national-mental-health-crisis-violence-divorce/

I have reduced my self-medication to near zero. How about you when Harris wins?

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I have reduced my self-medication to near zero. How about you when Harris wins?

I'll get high either way. Hahaha 

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

That may very well be true, I'm not completely versed on the intricacies of their system, but in my understanding changing jobs and maintaining your level of health care ( doctors , hospitals, etc  as where and with whom you can get treatment is based on your plan) isn't that simple and a big part of my argument included starting a business and the expense of providing quality benefits to be able to attract people at the top of their field

The smaller the group, the more restrictive and expensive it is to include high risk members. 

One big reason companies fastidiously try to limit older workers.

[Deluge]

30 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I have reduced my self-medication to near zero. How about you when Harris wins?

I'll keep doing what I've been doing for the last several years: rotate my food storage, and be ready for unhinged behavior from the left.  

Edited October 17, 2024 by Deluge

[robosmith]

On 10/14/2024 at 11:38 AM, Nationalist said:

I get your points. Hell our HC system got 2 stents installed in me within a couple weeks. You understand that we pay for that privilege...right?

You could pay a lot more if you didn't have it and couldn't afford it on your own.

[robosmith]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:15 AM, Deluge said:

That message is approved by the queen of word salads. 

You have a really bad problem with reading comprehension and that's why you see "word salad" in so many places.

I'm sure cognitive dissonance plays a large role in that.

[Deluge]

Just now, robosmith said:

You have a really bad problem with reading comprehension and that's why you see "word salad" in so many places.

I'm sure cognitive dissonance plays a large role in that.

A leftoid is trying to wax philosophical, and you buy into it. Do you not see how stupid you look? 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Then you should reject Trump's promise to be a dictator, but you still accept him in spite of that. 

Proly cause you apply your MAGA CULT filter. LMAO 

Hook

Line

And Sinker.

[Nationalist]

59 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You could pay a lot more if you didn't have it and couldn't afford it on your own.

I've been paying for it my entire professional life.

One of the Libbies' biggest blindnesses...you all seem to think social programs are free.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I'm certainly not arguing that the cost of housing isn't going up (like everything else) but there are many factors that cause this.

You spoke of regulations that hinder freedom, therefore the burden is on you to provide a regulation that fits that criteria, not just link to an News article that says shit is more expensive 

So if anyone needs to look up various regulations it's you. It's your argument.

Fine. We'll just take that article as correct and move on.

I would point out the fossil fuel restrictions but in all honesty, the US is just as bad on this count.

But are we more "free" in Canada...meh...not seein' it.

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The smaller the group, the more restrictive and expensive it is to include high risk members. 

One big reason companies fastidiously try to limit older workers.

I understand what an insurance pool is, that's why I used an electricians union when I wanted to provide good benefits at a lower cost for me, and my employees.

Again, I admit my ignorance to the particularities of the US system especially since it can vary so much from state to state. Which brings up another point, I originally made about mobility,in that you can move provinces and maintain health care, in the US some insurance companies don't operate in some states, and as I understand it even with the ACA (Obama care) they do not receive the coverage we do.

What I do know is for at minimum the over 50% of Americans to whom their health care is directly tied to their employment, it is measurably easier to change ones professional station without the fear of financial ruin that may arise if you or any dependants fall gravely ill.

I'm sure you're aware of the many that have been forced into bankruptcy because of treatments for things as "simple" as cancer.

[SkyHigh]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Fine. We'll just take that article as correct and move on.

With the understanding that it didn't contain any actual regulations and is simply describing that stuff costs more (which is not in debate), particularly when compared to other "less regulated economies" that were never mentioned, right?

 I also agree that it's most likely less expensive to build a house in Venezuela , they don't have winter either, much cheaper to insulate .

So can you name a regulation that pertains to the rising cost of housing that infringes on our freedoms?

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

But are we more "free" in Canada...meh...not seein it

Well other than how many guns I can own, .you haven't shown it to be false either Maybe you should look harder 

 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

With the understanding that it didn't contain any actual regulations and is simply describing that stuff costs more (which is not in debate), particularly when compared to other "less regulated economies" that were never mentioned, right?

 I also agree that it's most likely less expensive to build a house in Venezuela , they don't have winter either, much cheaper to insulate .

So can you name a regulation that pertains to the rising cost of housing that infringes on our freedoms?

Well other than how many guns I can own, .you haven't shown it to be false either Maybe you should look harder 

 

 

Why? Just the gun thing alone disproves your premise.

[SkyHigh]

15 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Why? Just the gun thing alone disproves your premise.

With greater gun ownership comes more death by guns , but if you want to hang your hat (it's the only real point you've raised) on the freedom to get shot.

Then ya , I guess you win? 

Personally I prefer the freedom to do things like, getting an education.and going to a movie or concert, without the fear of getting shot by someone expressing their second amendment "freedoms" and before you say that shooting random people is not in the law, I will simply mention.the stand your ground laws, which essentially let you do just that.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

With greater gun ownership comes more death by guns , but if you want to hang your hat (it's the only real point you've raised) on the freedom to get shot

Point of order, in the absence of guns very frequently the death rate by other sources such as knives and blood objects goes up accordingly.

In fact studies by Gary Mauser, Professor in emeritius at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, demonstrate pretty emphatically that whether we're talking about different countries or even different states there is no correlation between the number of firearms available or percent of people who own them and the Homicide rate.

So unless you're going to suggest that it is somehow Preferable to be stabbed to death then shot to death The relationship to firearms rights and "gun" killings is irrelevant. 

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by CdnFox

[SkyHigh]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Point of order, in the absence of guns very frequently the death rate by other sources such as knives and blood objects goes up accordingly.

In fact studies by John lott, Professor in emeritius at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, demonstrate pretty emphatically that whether we're talking about different countries or even different states there is no correlation between the number of firearms available or percent of people who own them and the Homicide rate.

So unless you're going to suggest that it is somehow Preferable to be stabbed to death then shot to death The relationship to firearms rights and "gun" killings is irrelevant. 

 

Disclaimer!This information comes from Wikipedia, so admittedly not the most credible source but as these numbers are readily available I am comfortable using it for this conversation.

I think the only reasonable comparison is with other western democratic (I almost put quotes around democratic but thought it might undermine my point. Hahaha) countries, and when you do that it seems to support my assertion.

The US leads western nations with 6.4 homicide victims 120.5 estimated civilian fire arms and 12.21 fire arm related death rate 

All per 100'000 inhabitants 

Compared to Canada with 2, 34.7 and 1.94

Or the U.K (big on stabbings) with 1.1 , just a ? but let's say a non zero number and 0.2

England and Wales was 1.2, 4.6 and "?"

All the same metrics of course.

Kind of a demonstrable example of my point

Though I invite counter evidence or an argument as to where my logic may be flawed.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

(I almost put quotes around democratic but thought it might undermine my point. Hahaha)

LOL you don't seem to be able to answer one topic without coming up with at least 3 other major topics to discuss later  

7 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

The US leads western nations with 6.4 homicide victims 120.5 estimated civilian fire arms and 12.21 fire arm related death rate 

All per 100'000 inhabitants 

Compared to Canada with 2, 34.7 and 1.94

Or the U.K (big on stabbings) with 1.1 , just a ? but let's say a non zero number and 0.2

England and Wales was 1.2, 4.6 and "?"

All the same metrics of course.

Kind of a demonstrable example of my point

It isn't and i know you well enough to know you should know better than to suppose that commonality is causality. You know?    

if that premise were true canada and the us should have a similar knife fatality rate given the similar number of knives, but the us is again about 80 percent more. 

Switerland has absolutely tonnes of guns, yet a much smaller murder rate than ausrailia which has brutally strict gun laws. Similar countries in many ways as far as your first world metric goes. Germany and Canada have similar gun laws yet germany's murder rate is MUCH lower. 

and there are radical differences between those three countries in metrics that you mentioned.  And further comparisons among other countries shows similar countries have very different homicide rates. 

The presence of one tool or another does not actually indicate what the homicide rate will be. 

 

So even when looking at 'like to like' there's no real match up.  And like to different the numbers don't really change. 

Only the most bias of reports indicate a difference. The rest cherry pick nations that they feel make their point but that's dishonest. 

Like i said, this has been researched by pros. And the ones that show their wok tend to all say there's no real correlation.

btw - MAJOR Correction - the professors' name Is Gary Mauser.  I said john lott who's also done some interesting work but is not who i meant.  I've gone back and corrected that. 

 

[SkyHigh]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

.

 

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL you don't seem to be able to answer one topic without coming up with at least 3 other major topics to discuss later  

It isn't and i know you well enough to know you should know better than to suppose that commonality is causality. You know?    

if that premise were true canada and the us should have a similar knife fatality rate given the similar number of knives, but the us is again about 80 percent more. 

Switerland has absolutely tonnes of guns, yet a much smaller murder rate than ausrailia which has brutally strict gun laws. Similar countries in many ways as far as your first world metric goes. Germany and Canada have similar gun laws yet germany's murder rate is MUCH lower. 

and there are radical differences between those three countries in metrics that you mentioned.  And further comparisons among other countries shows similar countries have very different homicide rates. 

The presence of one tool or another does not actually indicate what the homicide rate will be. 

 

So even when looking at 'like to like' there's no real match up.  And like to different the numbers don't really change. 

Only the most bias of reports indicate a difference. The rest cherry pick nations that they feel make their point but that's dishonest. 

Like i said, this has been researched by pros. And the ones that show their wok tend to all say there's no real correlation.

btw - MAJOR Correction - the professors' name Is Gary Mauser.  I said john lott who's also done some interesting work but is not who i meant.  I've gone back and corrected that. 

 

I'll read that, when I can find the time a get back to you when I know the specifics.

For the rest this is a comparison between Canada and the US they have more guns and a higher homicide rate by fire arms. That's undisputable 

They also have a higher homicide rate in general, but I agree there are many other factors that contribute to this to simply say it's because of guns, but negating that things like stand your ground laws  aren't contributing factors would also be dishonest I'm sure you'd agree 

I would also note that according to the New England journal of medicine the leading cause of death in children in the US is fire arm related injury. A pretty credible publication.

To me all that shows more evidence supporting causation than just correlation 

Edited October 17, 2024 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL you don't seem to be able to answer one topic without coming up with at least 3 other major topics to discuss later

I'm actually a master of the "weave" when I can speak, but sometimes on paper all  others can read is ADHD, adhd, adhd, etc..

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

 

I'll read that, when I can find the time a get back to you when I know the specifics.

For the rest this is a comparison between Canada and the US they have more guns and a higher homicide rate by fire arms. That's undisputable 

It's an old anti-gunner trick to try and make it about firearms deaths. If the overall deaths are not the same then the tool is meaningless.

As far as Canada versus the last goes as I said we also have far less knife death. How is that possible if we have the same sort of knife laws? Do you own a knife? Me too! So it doesn't seem to be the presence of the tool that's responsible for the discrepancy.

And that would be undisputable as well. Americans kill more Americans than Canadians kill Canadians regardless of the tool

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

They also have a higher homicide rate in general, but I agree there are many other factors that contribute to this to simply say it's because of guns, but negating that things like stand your ground laws  aren't contributing factors would also be dishonest I'm sure you'd agree 

Stand your ground laws aren't considered murder or the like.  It's like suicides don't really belong in "gun killing' stats either.  And oh look, there's your second major separate topic of conversation for later  Waiting for that third shoe to drop.

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

I would also note that according to the New England journal of medicine the leading cause of death in children in the US is fire arm related injury. A pretty credible publication.

But not a credible definition. Your definition of children is anyone under the age of 18 and it includes gang warfare and kids killing kids with illegal guns. So children is a little bit misleading. And even then it's only the most recent figures, it hasn't been that way before 2019. Before then it was automobile accidents by far. There aren't more guns in the states right now than there used to be. It's about the same number with a slow steady growth rate. So obviously it wasn't the presence of guns that made this happen considering the guns were there before.

In fact a disproves your point. If we look at a 10-year time stretch the number of guns in the united states was about the same. It's been a slight increase but not particularly that much.  So if the presence of the firearms were the problem we would expect to see a roughly similar result year over year with maybe a little bit of a spike or Lull here and there. But that is absolutely not what we see.

So I would propose that the issue there isn't about guns, it's about gangs and criminal activity. That's why the murder rate went up amongst children. The vast majority of those extra deaths were homicides.

 

So again I don't think you can see any evidence in there for causation. If the number of guns hasn't substantially changed and yet the murders with guns amongst children has changed then it would appear to be whatever is causing there to be more murders, not the guns considering that is a variable that didn't change