I love Trump

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, that it was only directed at the first African american President. And to know the people behind that absurd birther theory and their ideology is to understand the racism behind their motivation.

An unqualified one. People don't like that he forced the Affordable Care Act down our throat. Trying to get out of Iraq so quickly has meant that ISIS gained a stronghold and was a danger to Christians in the area. Obama was wrong on the red-line in Syria, wrong in Libya, and wrong in Egypt. It took a military coup in Egypt to finally get the government back. Iran in 1979 under Jimmy Carter wasn't so lucky and so they are still a damn foe today. We need to stop promoting democracy in the Middle East where they cannot handle it. I don't think Trump's foreign policy can be as bad as Obama's and the idea to team up with the Russians sounds like a good idea to annihilate ISIS.

Some people don't like the ACA. Plenty of others who had been left out of medical coverage due to poverty or preexisting conditions like it well enough. And lest it be forgotten, the ACA had been based on Republican plans, one dreamt up by the far right Heritage Foundation, and on Romneycare. Obama went with this plan because he had naively believed the congressional Republicans would show some bipartisan support.
To the rest of your post - are you suggesting that Obama's foreign policy stumbles justified the baseless charges of foreign birth? And on that subject; we ended up with ISIS in the first place because of Bush's idiotic military adventurism to spread democracy in the Middle East. As for Obama pulling out too early - he was only honoring the US military pull out date established by Bush.

I didn't support Romney when he proposed it and called him a socialist at that time too. It did provide my mother much needed health insurance. I don't support it because it's not right to force people to get insurance if they don't want it. I think that people should buy the insurance in the private market but the government should regulate it. If people buy insurance, they don't have to be concerned about preexisting conditions. If they choose not to buy insurance, they are subject to pre-existing conditions. It should be inexpensive and affordable in the private market without the requirement of the employer or the government offering the insurance. If people get a $2,000 deductible, they should get a $1,600 break on their premium ($1,800 if they are diabetic) to make the insurance affordable. We should also help the people that are too poor to acquire health insurance and/or be able to access healthcare. This is something that should get bipartisan support whether Obama, Trump, Hillary, Romney, Bush, or Cruz had suggested it.



The initial going into Iraq was a mistake as was the pullout. The idea to spread democracy was a huge blunder committed by Obama (in Egypt) and by both Clinton (when she voted for the war) and Bush (who brought us to war) in Iraq.

And it was a mistake to focus on the issue of Obama not being a naturally born citizen. In 1791, the issue had been resolved. First he was born in Hawaii. Second his mother was a US citizen. His mother being a US citizen allowed him to be president even if he hadn't been born in Hawaii (think Ted Cruz who was born in Canada or McCain that was born in the US as his father was on a military base in Central America).

Last edited by sunset47 on 16 Sep 2016, 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But what about those who don't mind paying for medical coverage for others? Are those who don't like it to decide for those who do, and for those who need it, such as your mother?
As for everything else, I think we're close to agreement.

I think we can be. I think we both see it from different angles that lead us to choose different candidates.

I think if a person who doesn't mind buying insurance to make it cheaper for those who are sicker is fine. I also think that people should be aware that they should get insurance to prevent against a potential catastrophic event(s) rather than after knowing you're sick. And if you buy it on your 21st birthday and keep it up, you should never have to worry about preexisting conditions. There also should be assistance if you lose your job so that you can keep it.

It's unfortunate that if you lost your job that you couldn't transfer your coverage. COBRA is very expensive and makes it very difficult to maintain coverage. It's too bad that there weren't ways to reduce the cost of coverage where you could stay insured and not have to worry about the limitations caused by preexisting conditions by a gap in coverage or by a change in policies. That was very unfortunate and a perilous part that led to the evolution of the healthcare system towards the ACA and towards Romneycare. It's also unfortunate when people not by their choosing were uninsured.

That said, I think there indeed is a lot of common ground even if we don't agree as to whom we support. That's okay. It's really a free country.

Clinton has never seen a war she didn't like, a bomb she wouldn't detonate, a drone she wouldn't send out. Putin has repeatedly warned the world about American-lead NATO's behaviour towards Russia in the last 15 years and where it is leading (global war, probably nuclear). Trump, for all his faults, has hinted at a friendlier relationship with Russia, and has even thrown doubt on NATO's continued existence. Every non-US citizen, especially those in NATO member states should be praying for a Trump victory, for their own sakes, his internal policies be damned.

If conservatives, or anyone else, offered some other plan that would cover those in need, I'd be more than happy to listen. Right now, though, Republicans seems to be consumed by libertarian ideology that everyone is supposed to take care of themselves, and/or evangelical prosperity gospel that teaches that God rewards the elect with material wealth, which is highly flawed when compared with legitimate Christianity.

Christians who follow this path are highly misguided. Those who preach prosperity gospel are NOT bringing people to Christ. They are bringing people to THEM. That's because if anything negative happens in their life, they will stop believing in God. Why would God do this to them? Those who "come to Christ" because of the prosperity Gospel have not come to Christ; when they're circumstances change, they will be unable to accept that part of God's will can be your life challenges. Thus, we'd argue that they were never saved in true Christian circles. In Catholic circles, they would have fallen away from the faith.

A person that truly comes to Christ can articulate that their circumstances has nothing to do with their sin nature but that things just happen. They accept that bad things can happen, (i.e. job loss, cancer, illness, accident, loss of friend, loss of romantic partner/spouse/parent/child, etc). They love God and love what he did for them on the cross. They have a lifetime of attempting to seek holiness and being truly repentant (getting over themselves & being humbled). As a Catholic, it means they continue going to mass, going to confession, seeking the Eucharist, and coming to Christ in prayer.

ln the Book of Job, he lost everything and his wife was grappling with this loss. Everyone believe he must have been a grave sinner despite his great holiness. What had happened is the devil had made a bet with God that Job would curse God for his change of circumstances. Job was restored and then-some and had never cursed Job.

I think the problem is we focused on the status quo. In a divided government, that's easy to do. Actually, it was nearly 40 years of status quo which went from fee-to-service to the HMO; it goes all the way back to Richard Nixon. Employer provided healthcare is a byproduct of the end of World War II. Despite the flaws of Obamacare and private industry, it's better than Canada because we have been able to create so many lifesaving drugs. Profit is the mother's milk of innovation. That said, Europe or Canada can do a better job if they reduce the regulations it takes to bring a drug to market. I have some people who I know who work in the pharmaceutical industry that actually say it's now easier to bring a drug to market in Europe than it is in the US.

The government should have had a plan before Obamacare and there should have been a bipartisan healthcare plan. In fact, it should be concise with very little kickbacks and little bills that get slipped in. The ideal would be a constitutional healthcare amendment that would define how people should receive healthcare whether it be privately, mandated by the government, or single payer. In my opinion, I like private, one that encourages innovation, and one that is compassionate and is concerned about access.

I do like it if we can give help to the poor and those who are uninsured but not by their choosing. If someone stays continuously insured since 21, they should not be subject to a preexisting condition limitation. We should have health insurance that has a $2,000 deductible and a person gets a $1,600 rebate after they go for an annual physical. For a person with diabetes, it should be $1,800. A person could have the option of receiving a health savings account, a check, or a monthly payment (of $133.33, $150 if diabetic).

The private sector should be encouraged to minimize administrative costs by reducing regulation. It's important to have customs and practices that don't leave the poor in a lurch. We really need to keep health costs affordable. For the poor and middle-class, it would be optimal if healthcare costs across a lifespan averaged 12-18% (lower for young adults and higher for elderly). It needs to be a reasonable rate that people can afford but it also needs to be high enough so that people can get the healthcare they deserve and the life-saving medicines they seek. I don't know how you subsidize the costs without the costs increasing (i.e. like college costs skyrocketing due to financial aid).

My pastor (we're Lutheran) had told us about a church in the neighborhood that practised the so called prosperity gospel. They fired their minister because he wasn't rich enough, and so in their eyes couldn't be truly a man of God(!). I am in total agreement that this kind of theology that places mana on the place of Christ is aberrant. By that way of thinking, Christ's disciples, and I dare say even Christ himself, wouldn't have fit the qualifications of material wealth to be in God's grace.
The thing is, though, the Republican party has become beholden to the religious right, and a great percentage of that is of the prosperity gospel variety to one degree or another. Many of them even embrace Ayn Rand with all her heartlessness, despite the fact that she was an atheist.

Of course it does.

Hundreds of years of white men being presidents, and people might disagree with them but they rarely question where they were born. A black man becomes president, and people demand he proves that he was born in America. Some don't believe him when he does. The double standard is clear.

What's especially ridiculous is that apparently no-one's ever tested what the relevant law actually means. The consensus seems to be that Ted Cruz is eligible to become president despite being born in Calgary, because his parents were American citizens. Obama's mother was an American citizen, so even if he were born in Kenya he'd probably still have been eligible.

It's not the consensus that Ted Cruz is eligible, there are some pretty respected people that disagree.

Also Chester A. Arthur had questions about his place of birth with his father being Canadian, Obama wasn't the first president to have rumors like this arise. To call it racist I think is reading too much into the motivations of people, it's all partisan as there were a number of Obama supporters that raised questions about Ted Cruz's eligibility actually. The common belief in the US which isn't tested in law is that to be eligible to run for president you have to be born in this country, that was the whole reason there was any questions about Obama to begin with. John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone had questions raised about him as well. Obama played up and continues to play up the birther stuff, he could of released his birth certificate long before he did but it's a tar-baby for his enemies when he'd rather not talk about something else.

Putin talks a good talk, but there's nothing about him that seems particularly trustworthy.

Clinton's like that (at least in part) because They've already got to her. When They get to Trump, it'll be far worse. (I'm not paranoid, but I know you think I am.)

And that's leaving aside the possibility he gets baited into a conflict, be it by foreign or US voices, with a minor insinuation or two as to the properties or capabilities of his penis.

The reason why Obama hadn't shown his birth certificate for such a long time is because it's insulting to him as an American, and President, for him to cave into a racist conspiracy theory. If he brings it up, it's only because a great amount of the opposition against him is race based.
As for Chester A. Arthur and questions about his birthplace - I seriously doubt it had reached the fever pitch it had with Obama, and that's because there was no racial motivation behind it. Any questions of McCain's birthplace was hardly a blip on the radar, and the only person displaying histrionics about Cruz was Trump.

If the Supreme Court said that Cruz was eligible to run for president, there would be no issue with Obama. He was likely born in Hawaii but there's no issue if having a mother or a father be a US citizen be sufficient. The only other definition would be what would constitute parents in the case the child is adopted - would an adopted child who's both adoptive parents were US citizens be eligible for presidency or would it depend on the birth-parents as well?

One might argue that the nationality is being discriminated against if you have the naturally-born citizen standard. The idea for it in the initial constitution was to prevent a foreign government from gaining control of our government (i.e. a Cuban citizen winning the presidency). Thus it maybe should bar anyone that has dual citizenship as well.

I am pretty sure in 1791 there had been a Supreme Court ruling just 4 years after the passing of the constitution that would have allowed both Cruz and thus Obama to be president even if the rumors about where Obama was born was true. Those rumors were false but the 1791 ruling would say that even if they were true, he was still eligible.