2024 Election - What are your key issues, if you are voting?

[Chris2055]

It's an interesting ideology, but a contradictory one. You believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but don't believe in doing anything to defend or enforce it, except at the individual level. A major point of society, government, our institutions, our rights, and laws, is to ensure that everyone is protected, yet you don't seem to believe in any intervention (except to shoot illegal immigrants).

You're making a huge leap and generalization from people fleeing hostile countries from their actual crime (crossing the border) to stealing.

You should be treated the same as any enemy of the state, foreign invader or hostile party. You forfeited any of your rights the moment you decided to invade a sovereign nation, as would be the right of ANY nation on the planet.

You should re-read the preamble and pay close attention to the word inalienable.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

It's an interesting ideology, but a contradictory one. You believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but don't believe in doing anything to defend or enforce it, except at the individual level. A major point of society, government, our institutions, our rights, and laws, is to ensure that everyone is protected, yet you don't seem to believe in any intervention (except to shoot illegal immigrants).

You're making a huge leap and generalization from people fleeing hostile countries from their actual crime (crossing the border) to stealing.


You should re-read the preamble and pay close attention to the word inalienable.

When they become legal Americans, they can enjoy those rights. We do not need them, they need us. So they should come here the right way, and not like thieves in the night.

Dude, everything I said all ties to the same thing. You have liberty to do as you will. I have liberty to do as I will. Neither harms the other.

Everything I believe in, when it comes to American society, stems from this. I haven't tripped over myself once. I'm not going to harm you. I MIGHT help you if you ask, or if I feel so inclined, but I will feel no obligation to do so, nor would I have any expectation of you being forced against your will to offer me comfort, service, support or care. You owe me nothing, and you never will. You deserve to keep everything you have earned, without anyone trying to force you to give it to others.

I leave you alone. You leave me alone. We both do what we like. Neither harms the other. If we choose to help each other, we can. If one of us DOES harm the other, they will be punished. No one said anything about "no intervention" except for you. I'm simply saying that there is no point to intervene in anything unless someone is harmed by another. Has to be a crime for there to be a punishment.

It can't get any more fair than that, for everyone. Completely emotionless and neutral. Liberty for all, harm to none.

 

[Chris2055]

I'm interested to know what part of your ideology justifies confining those broad rights to Americans.

 

[KingVamp]

Which category would the people who voted for the current guy fall in?

People that are tired of the other side voting for either the opposite of what they claim or voting out of hate and now going as far as in to vote for people that tried and is trying to overturn our democracy. The other guys that wouldn't even stand a chance, if it wasn't for the electoral college.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I'm interested to know what part of your ideology justifies confining those broad rights to Americans.

Well, we were talking about specifically American politics. I don't care what they do in other parts of the world. Not my pig, not my farm.

See how freeing it can be when you divorce yourself from the woes of the rest of the world?

The older and more jaded I get, the fewer fucks I have left in my Bucket O' Fucks. Still got a few skittering around in there.

They are Shiny. Rare. Hard to catch.

 

[Chris2055]

Well, we were talking about specifically American politics. I don't care what they do in other parts of the world. Not my pig, not my farm.

See how freeing it can be when you divorce yourself from the woes of the rest of the world?

The older and more jaded I get, the fewer fucks I have left in my Bucket O' Fucks. Still got a few skittering around in there.

I see. How about this then.

You believe in the pursuit of happiness, but on the last page you said this:

A huge part of that, though, as you likely know, is the actual medications. Your patent laws aren't refuckingtarded like ours are. You don't gouge the fuck out of insulin patients. You don't jack the prices of brand-name designer drugs by 20x the component costs for twenty full years before you allow a generic equivalent on the market. This is why you have prescription tourism in Canada.

Here, we have sycophant doctors with Pfizer clipboards, and wall-to-wall advertisements every time a new drug that they can foist off on the public gets approved. Hell, look at the ads you see on the internet all the time. "Ask your doctor if Buttfuxia is right for you".

That's ANOTHER thing we could break in America. Absolutely destroy Big Pharma. Rewrite every last one of their laws when it comes to creating new medicines and making them available to the public without putting people in lifelong debt.

There is a cure for Hep C, for example. It takes three pills to CURE it. And each pill costs $10,000.

Jonas Salk would weep.

Is writing laws that control what private companies can charge for the product they create not interfering with their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I see. How about this then.

You believe in the pursuit of happiness, but on the last page you said this:


Is writing laws that control what private companies can charge for the product they create not interfering with their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?

When they are actively harming people? Yes.

Price gouging isn't exactly an altruistic action. You keep neglecting that MAIN caveat. I only have two. Liberty, and do no harm. Remember?

It harms people when you intentionally inflate the price of a drug or medication that is literally NECESSARY for life, without cause.

I'm an odd duck. I hate people, but I am pretty empathetic. Let me clarify; I am not evil. I will not just let someone suffer in front of me if I can help them. It's in my nature to care about others (I still hate humans, emphatically) and to try to help them if they are suffering, in almost all cases.

I do not go out of my way to help criminals or thieves, though. I am not going to ever help anyone who is actively harming others that do not deserve it.

The ultimate point is, it is my CHOICE and not compulsion that causes me to do so. I don't help people because I feel that I MUST, BY LAW. I help those I choose to help because I know what it's like to suffer, and not everything is always black-and-white.

I explained my general ground rules. Everything else stems from there. I might have said this, verbatim, before. I still have my own code of morality and ethics and decency. I just don't feel compelled to do anything besides what I feel like doing, at all times, regardless of what anyone else thinks or feels, as long as I am harming no one else.


But, really. Not even a chuckle at "Buttfuxia"? I was proud of that one. Giggled to myself for a solid three minutes over that one. Damn.

 

[therealethan]

That's a fair enough response, but I think having a sane party is a good enough reason/issue. I literally don't think the modern republican party is fit to govern. That said, republicans are on the opposite side of virtually everything I believe in. But since you did ask and it's a fair question given the topic you posted, here's some issues that concern me.

• Education - Democrats want to forgive student debt, republicans are actively blocking that from happening. Democrats want equity in education, republicans want to filter what people can learn through a lens. Democrats want to make community college tuition free, republicans oppose increased grants.
  
  
• Healthcare - Democrats support a strong safety net, which includes Medicaid. Trump tried (and nearly succeeded) to make people work for it. Democrats want to increase coverage in various ways (a public option has been floated but not implemented). Republicans want to cut coverage, delegating it to expensive private companies. Democrats have expanded Medicare in various ways, such as giving them the power to negotiate drug pricing. Democrats have passed the Affordable Care Act, while republicans have tried to weaken it or take it away multiple times.
  
  
• Voting Rights - Republicans have been rolling back voting rights at the state level, especially since the 2020 election and Trump's lies. They're taking away voting drop boxes, trying to disenfranchise demographics that don't support their policies and generally pick their electorate rather than the other way around. Democrats, by comparison, have tried to strengthen voting rights, expand absentee voting, and generally make it easier to vote.
  
  
• Social Equity - Republicans sow division, democrats push for unity. Whether it be an assault on Women by attacking Roe or LGBTQ rights or subtle antisemitism, the choice here is clear.

I could go on with this list, but it's a good start.

You realize that that they tried repealing obamacare, and that has done nothing. Also realize that every time they “forgive debt” and such, it usually comes out of the funds of taxpayers. Most conservatives want to see a unified USA but all I hear from dems are that they hate America. How is that unifying? I am willing to say that both repubs and dems are spineless since it seems nothing can get done in our country.

 

[Chris2055]

How are they actively harming people? By not supplying their medications at "affordable" cost? You just told me you don't believe anyone is obligated to lift a finger to help others, that includes big pharma's price obligations then. Whether it's altruistic is irrelevant.

What's the difference between harming people by inflating the price of a drug that is necessary for life and harming people by gating life-saving healthcare behind monetary compensation? Where is the line that makes one of these okay and not the other?

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

How are they actively harming people? By not supplying their medications at "affordable" cost? You just told me you don't believe anyone is obligated to lift a finger to help others, that includes big pharma's price obligations then. Whether it's altruistic is irrelevant.

What's the difference between harming people by inflating the price of a drug that is necessary for life and harming people by gating life-saving healthcare behind monetary compensation? Where is the line that makes one of these okay and not the other?

You said it yourself, remember? You said that health care should be a "right" and not a "purchase". You said that, right?

Is that what you believe, or were you just trying to "Gotcha" me? Because I won't get gotched.

 

[Chris2055]

You said it yourself, remember? You said that health care should be a "right" and not a "purchase". You said that, right?

Is that what you believe, or were you just trying to "Gotcha" me? Because I won't get gotched.

I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in your ideology. I do personally believe in universal healthcare. I just don't understand how you can reconcile forcing a private company to provide their drugs at an affordable price when you seem to be dogmatic about not being obligated to do anything.

Post automatically merged: Oct 3, 2023

You realize that that they tried repealing obamacare, and that has done nothing. Also realize that every time they “forgive debt” and such, it usually comes out of the funds of taxpayers. Most conservatives want to see a unified USA but all I hear from dems are that they hate America. How is that unifying? I am willing to say that both repubs and dems are spineless since it seems nothing can get done in our country.

So just because they failed in their effort it should be overlooked... or what's the point you're trying to make?

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in your ideology. I do personally believe in universal healthcare. I just don't understand how you can reconcile forcing a private company to provide their drugs at an affordable price when you seem to be dogmatic about not being obligated to do anything.

Predatory pricing is harmful to others. I might have said that before. Do no harm. Intentionally pricing medication that could prevent you from dying out of your price range is tantamount to murder, which Big Pharma is guilty of in America.

BUT, they can rely on the massive, massive network of for-profit insurance companies to cover them for everything, so, Bob's your uncle. Most of the laws involving healthcare in America are harmful and predatory, and should be completely abolished and rewritten.

Because they are harmful. Ineffective. Incredibly stupid.

The PATENT LAWS on medications are the main issue, here. Removing that simple law, itself, would allow for any number of other companies to create a generic equivalent with the exact same components, and then Big Pharma COULDN'T try to jack up the price twenty times over, because they would get crushed in the market by cheaper and equal competitors. See how that works?

That's why they broke up the Bell companies in the 80's. To prevent monopolization, which harms everyone. Competition is GOOD. Capitalism is GOOD.

You have already seen me agree with at least two others on this topic so far that the system is fucked, broken and wrong, and hurts people. That's precisely what I support laws existing for in the first place, and truly the ONLY reason for laws to exist.

To protect innocent people from being harmed. The entire American medical system, insurance structure and Big Pharma is absolutely evil, broken, wrong and harmful. So, yes, that's one of the first things I would have the laws rewritten to govern properly.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[JeepX87]

Highest priority - I only support whoever committed to protect the Social Security and Medicare, also committed to improve those programs. I oppose increase the retirement age because last one passed in early 1980s was counterproductive and it did drive others who unable to receive a full retirement to receive disability pay instead or end up take early retirement with less pay.

As for border, I support bipartisanship version - must have support from majority of democrats and republicans, otherwise, you will see no real reform.

US Government will continue to divided for very long time, so no one get what they wanted.

 

[Wolfy]

How are they actively harming people?

The various persons calling for the people to rise up against their "horrible" opponents and protest in front of their homes are definitely what I would call harmful and not at all civil.

 

[Chris2055]

Predatory pricing is harmful to others. I might have said that before. Do no harm. Intentionally pricing medication that could prevent you from dying out of your price range is tantamount to murder, which Big Pharma is guilty of in America.

BUT, they can rely on the massive, massive network of for-profit insurance companies to cover them for everything, so, Bob's your uncle. Most of the laws involving healthcare in America are harmful and predatory, and should be completely abolished and rewritten.

Because they are harmful. Ineffective. Incredibly stupid.

You have already seen me agree with at least two others on this topic so far that the system is fucked, broken and wrong, and hurts people. That's precisely what I support laws existing for in the first place, and truly the ONLY reason for laws to exist.

To protect innocent people from being harmed. The entire American medical system, insurance structure and Big Pharma is absolutely evil, broken, wrong and harmful. So, yes, that's one of the first things I would have the laws rewritten to govern properly.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

It could be argued that turning people away for lack of healthcare or ability to pay is harmful to others too. Or any other issue for which we have developed safety net programs for, like SNAP (to feed the hungry), TANF (to provide monetary aid for the poor), WIC (for pregnant women and their children), etc.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

It could be argued that turning people away for lack of healthcare or ability to pay is harmful to others too. Or any other issue for which we have developed safety net programs for, like SNAP (to feed the hungry), TANF (to provide monetary aid for the poor), WIC (for pregnant women and their children), etc.

It is not intentionally capitalizing on other people's suffering. Not everyone can pay for their medicine, either. Life isn't fair. The point is to prevent people from actively harming others. Not to ensure that everyone has a perfect life. You still have to pay for shit. And if you can't, sometimes you die. That goes for food, shelter, medicine, healthcare, whatever.

You are building one hell of a Strawman, though. We both know that you CANNOT be turned away from receiving medical treatment at any emergency room in the entire country. So, it's a non-issue. The problem is, though; the costs for receiving emergency room care is literally ten to twenty times what it is worth, BECAUSE of the for-profit insurance scam. It's built-in to their pricing, for everything.

Ever been to the ER? I was there a decade or so ago. While I was in, they gave me two aspirin. Charged me sixty dollars. No bullshit, sixty bucks. Do you know why?

Because my insurance would pay for it. They could literally write their own blank check, knowing they were covered. You're a pretty bright cat, surely you know this.

 

[Chris2055]

It is not intentionally capitalizing on other people's suffering. Not everyone can pay for their medicine, either. Life isn't fair. The point is to prevent people from actively harming others. Not to ensure that everyone has a perfect life. You still have to pay for shit. And if you can't, sometimes you die. That goes for food, shelter, medicine, healthcare, whatever.

Survival of the fit-enough.

So you're okay with companies doing harm as long as the prices they're charging fit your subjective arbitrary definition of fair?

Post automatically merged: Oct 3, 2023

The various persons calling for the people to rise up against their "horrible" opponents and protest in front of their homes are definitely what I would call harmful and not at all civil.

Read the full context of the comment. We were referring to big pharma corporations.

Post automatically merged: Oct 3, 2023

You are building one hell of a Strawman, though. We both know that you CANNOT be turned away from receiving medical treatment at any emergency room in the entire country. So, it's a non-issue. The problem is, though; the costs for receiving emergency room care is literally ten to twenty times what it is worth, BECAUSE of the for-profit insurance scam. It's built-in to their pricing, for everything.

Ever been to the ER? I was there a decade or so ago. While I was in, they gave me two aspirin. Charged me sixty dollars. No bullshit, sixty bucks. Do you know why?

Because my insurance would pay for it. They could literally write their own blank check, knowing they were covered. You're a pretty bright cat, surely you know this.

What about treatments for a potentially terminal illness, like chemo treatments for cancer then?

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

So you're okay with companies doing harm as long as the prices they're charging fit your subjective arbitrary definition of fair?

Which company is doing harm? You have access to the medical care you can afford. The liberty to access any medical provider you can get to. They will treat you if you are hurt. If you can't afford it, well... you're in the same position you were in to begin with. No one "harmed" you.

Now, if the only reason you couldn't get care from them, or couldn't afford it, is because they were intentionally charging so much that you COULDN'T possibly afford it, that would be a different story. No one is picking on you if you get hurt and can't afford to see a doctor. Life is hard; wear a helmet.

 

[Chris2055]

Which company is doing harm? You have access to the medical care you can afford. The liberty to access any medical provider you can get to. They will treat you if you are hurt. If you can't afford it, well... you're in the same position you were in to begin with. No one "harmed" you.

By that logic, if you can't afford the medicine big pharma is selling you're in the same position you were in to begin with. No one "harmed" you.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

What about treatments for a potentially terminal illness, like chemo treatments for cancer then?

We talked about this. The prices being charged for drugs is beyond ridiculous. That must change. As far as the other treatments and access to equipment? I feel like Xzi said it pretty well. We decimate the military spending, and that's covered for "free", for everyone. SOMEONE has to pay for it. Don't they? I mean, fuck. We don't spin this shit out of straw.

You want this utopian world where everyone has basic income, a house, all the food they want, a great job, a nice education, a family, a puppy and a fucking iPhone every year.

I simply want everyone to leave everyone else alone, stop being so entitled, ignore each other if you can't be nice, and everybody just fuck off in the direction that they feel like off-fucking.