POLL: Trump or Hillary

[Vergil]

https://news.vice.com/article/the-s...-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton

again:

"In 2010, Epstein pled the Fifth when asked by a lawyer representing one of Epstein's victims about his relationship with Trump:

Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.

Epstein did not respond to a request for comment."

invoking the right to not incriminate yourself--smooth.

I guess I'm a pedo for socializing with people at a family reunion since females under the age of 18 were present. The story I posted above already lists an encounter at one of Trump's buildings were there were "females under 18" involved. Sounds really sketchy when you word it that way but it was a public setting with loads of people around and nothing sexual or otherwise suspicious going on and when Epstein acted inappropriate he was kicked out and barred.
Nothing there incriminates Donald on anything more than knowing the guy.

 

[aenemic]

It certainly doesn't cost as much as we're paying now and dipping into the wages of every single American in the country.

Everyone must help pay, that's how taxes work. And it costs what can be afforded - the more money available, the more can be spent. Should be quite obvious.

Also I like how when a bunch of negative shit about Hillary comes out yall's first instinct is to attack Trump and disregard any of her skeletons because Trump is so much worse because.... lol
Would all of you prefer Hillary "Helped destablize the Middle East, Got Americans killed, Occult Worship, Sex slavery and pedophilia" Clinton?

Why does it have to be one or the other? And doesn't it speak volumes about Trump that you need his rival to be more or less the devil for you to put forth an argument that he's a sane choice for president?

 

[Vergil]

Everyone must help pay, that's how taxes work. And it costs what can be afforded - the more money available, the more can be spent. Should be quite obvious.

The more more money available from taxes, the less for citizens to use.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because the only two other candidates aren't winning a single state and out of the four Trump is the best choice.

And doesn't it speak volumes about Trump that you need his rival to be more or less the devil for you to put forth an argument that he's a sane choice for president?

No because for the past year I've argued for Trump on multiple policies and points. I've made multiple long fucking posts in multiple threads and talked about why Trump is the best choice based on his proposed policies and his actions and defended both for a long time before this mess. I don't need Clinton to be a horrific, criminal individual to vote for Trump and put forth the argument for him, but it certainly doesn't fucking hurt lol.
Doesn't it speak volumes that you're willing to totally ignore all of the evidence against Shillary just so you don't have to admit Trump is the better choice?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Except ... that ... taxes can also go back to citizens, the moment they use a street, for example. The fact that many services we have in Europe (like affordable Healthcare) are cheaper AND of better quality for the average citizen compared to the US are a testimony to that.

 

[Throatpunch]

Spoiler: very rude language

What's the difference between sex and the US Presidential elections?

In sex, the decision to choose the cunt or the arsehole is a pleasure.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Why do people still act like Bernie wasnt a bumbling idiot without a basic understanding of economics?

I'm not I just think it would be hilarious to see socialism slaughtered on a national stage

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Anyway, the US government has been involved in healthcare in the US since the early 1900s, closing down certain occupations that would compete with doctors, giving people monopolies, then the disastrous Medicare and Medicaid programs that drove up costs and continues to do so, and has most recently manifested itself in Obamacare which has doubled the premiums of it's users.

Do we want to go full throttle and just hope it doesn't get insanely expensive while being passed down to the taxpayers anyway or would lowering government intervention and most likely the costs be more appropriate?

 

[Hassknecht]

You shouldn't go full throttle. You should do it properly. Every other country managed to pull it off, why can't you?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

You shouldn't go full throttle. You should do it properly. Every other country managed to pull it off, why can't you?

One, Germany is not the world despite the wishes of your forefathers (and probably Merkel), and neither is Sweden which most folk point to, which leads to two:

http://www.thelocal.se/20150127/swedens-health-care-is-a-shame-to-the-country

Socialist healthcare systems often have poor waiting times and services, and three, Draconian serfdom level taxes subvert the only purpose of the state. To enforce law, and the law's purpose is not plunder with a humanitarian disguise but to protect property.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Hmmm. A system that as how you say (...) often have poor waiting times and services. - Which is also not true for Germany.
Or
A system that doesn't even serve you in the first place, because you don't have the funds to actually get a treatment.

I wonder what a person in pain would prefer. A treatment, even if it's not the best treatment money can buy. Or no treatment at all, because he can't afford it.

Ah ... the american way, or the highway I guess. You guys know how it's done.

And it's called, affordable healthcare.

You shouldn't go full throttle. You should do it properly. Every other country managed to pull it off, why can't you?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

A system that doesn't even serve you in the first place, because you don't have the funds to actually get atreatment.

I wonder what a person in pain would prefer. A treatment, even if it's not the best treatment money can buy. Or no treatment at all, because he can't afford it.

I'd probably prefer going to a clinic that's private so I can get cheap and quick care instead of dying in a waiting chair after forking over seventy percent of my earnings to the local feudal lord.

Also I love how you claim I just support the American system (Obamacare, government maintained monopolies, general heavy intervention) after I directly criticized it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And why do you act, like we do not have that in Germany? Like we would be in short supply of private clinics? That's the beauty of it! You have the choice, get affordable treatment trough health care - my mother had just recently finished her treatment for cancer, she didn't had to get into ANY debt, her treatment was of high quality, with good medications, and she is recovering very nicely thx to therapeutic treatment, and she didn't had to wait 5 years for her operation and any other procedures. That's what affordable public health care can do for you, my friend. But, if she wanted to, she could have also always said, you know I want to go into this private clinic, if she had the 500 000 euros or what ever it costs to get a place there. We really have the best of both worlds here.

Like Hass said, pretty much everyone can get it done. Just not you.

 

[Vergil]

You have the choice,

You can chose what you do and don't pay taxes for in Germany?
You can chose whether or not to use them, you have no choice in having to pay for it out of your taxes.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Don't be obtuse, you know that we're talking about the choice in tratment for medical conditions.

 

[Vergil]

Don't be obtuse, you know that we're talking about your choice in treatment for medical conditions.

Yea choice of treatment but even if you never set foot in one of the government hospitals you still have to pay for it. That's not a choice.
If you wanted to use private healthcare instead you have to pay for the private healthcare AND still pay for the public healthcare you don't want or use.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

And why do you act, like we do not have that in Germany?

First it was understood in Sweden that free healthcare was only for the poor. It would not affect those who were happy with their existing provider. But when government suddenly offers a free alternative, many will leave their private practitioner in favor of the free goods. The public system will have to be expanded, while the private doctors will lose patients. The private doctors are then forced to either take employment within the public system or leave the profession. The result is one single public healthcare monolith. Can one find economies of scale within its operations, as professor Frank claims? Maybe. But if they exist, they will be dwarfed by the costs and inefficiencies of the bureaucracy that inevitably grows to manage the system.

These results are clearly visible in Sweden. There are very few private practices left. Of the few that are left, most are part of the national insurance system. A huge bureaucracy has been erected to take on all the necessary central planning of public and pseudo-private healthcare.

It's likely this applies just as much to Germany as it is starting to apply to the US and already applies to Sweden

 

[Crni Vuk]

No, not really. So far Germany has been spared from masses of starving doctors who take only private patients. THe average citizen ist still better off than the average American in that part.

Yea choice of treatment but even if you never set foot in one of the government hospitals you still have to pay for it. That's not a choice.

Yeah well, no one ever said the world is perfect. But I like it that way, because there would have been no way that my mother could have ever afforded treatment for her cancer by her own. I am glad that she didn't had to start a fundraiser campaign or going for some donnors just to get a decent treatment. And who knows? Considering how certain conditions have become relatively common, like *le gasp* cancer ... I would prefer a system that I know is there when I need it.
So thank you very much, sir.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

If we're to use anecdotal evidence, what about Stefan Molyneux who had to go to America to get treatment for cancer because Canada was to inefficient to deal with it, or a woman I know that couldn't get Dialysis because Obamacare wouldn't cover it?

 

[Vergil]

Yeah well, no one ever said the world is perfect. But I like it that way, because there would have been no way that my mother could have ever afforded treatment for her cancer in any other way. I am glad that she didn't had to start a fundraiser campaign or going for some donnors just to get a decent treatment. And who knows? Considering how certain conditions have become relatively common, like *le gasp* cancer ... I would prefer a system that I know is there when I need.
So thank you very much, sir.

Well I'm very glad it worked out in your own personal, anecdotal situation but it's generally not a good idea to dictate policy based on personal exceptions.

 

[Crni Vuk]

How many from Germany move to the US to get their treatment? Like I can talk for Canada or something. But hey! People with money can go and chose to get their treatment where ever it pleases them! I will say it again, a mediocre treatment, is still better then NONE at all. Beacuse this is what we're talking about. Also, if we go with anecdotes, put that Molyneux or woman in contrast to those countless of medical fundraisers that pop up in the US. How many of them do you see in Germany? Or Sweden for that matter?