2016 Republican Thread

[CrimsonWeltall]

Yes, of course people think that Trump wants to punish women who get abortions, regardless of the law. Hence why he had to back track with a statement yesterday.

 

No, he backtracked because the position is extremely unpopular, even to pro-life people, as noted by HickoryHuskers and many pro-life groups. I haven't heard of a single person (outside of those looking to make excuses for Trump) who took the interpretation that Trump wanted to illegally round up women.

 

And if we're really saying that Trump is so bonkers that his policy positions could mean breaking the rule of law and that he wants some kind of secret police force to arrest women on non-existent laws, then we're basically declaring it impossible to contextualize his statements. Trump wants Mexico to build the wall? Whoa whoa whoa, you forgot to mention that he wants to put some kind of trade pressure on them to get them to do it. If you don't mention that, people might think he wants to invade Mexico and enslave their population and have the slave Mexicans build the wall!

 

The whole discussion was premised on the fact that abortion gets outlawed and that women would therefore be doing something illegal. I'm not sure how ignoring that isn't a huge, huge problem.

 

It's not being ignored; it was taken as a given because it was already known he wants it to be illegal. Your defense only makes sense if the hypothetical was in contradiction to his preferred policy.

 

I want the 35 mph major road near my house to be a 45 mph zone. If I was asked if someone should get a ticket for going well over 35, I'd say yes because that's the law right now. Now, if someone quoted me saying only "Crimson wants people to get tickets for people speeding over 35", THAT technically true statement would be misleading because it's not being made known that I oppose the 35 mph speed limit to begin with.

 

Nor do I understand why it's a "garbage" position. If an act is illegal and you commit the act, why shouldn't you be held accountable? Drugs are illegal. We arrest people who use and possess drugs. We don't ignore the low level user and focus only on drug dealers. Driving while drunk is illegal. We don't ignore the driver and charge the person supplying the alcohol.

 

If you take part in an illegal activity, guess what, you should be charged. You're a criminal.

 

That's not a question for me to answer. I don't know if Strange was referring to Trump's punishment-for-women statement or the actual mainstream Republican punishment-for-doctors position. I don't support either one.

 

You'd have to ask HH or most pro-life groups why they like the punishment-for-doctors-only position. To me, it seems to portray women as ignorant idiot victims who got suckered into something, rather than people making a conscious decision for themselves.

[Jenksismyhero]

The key point you are missing is that he wants abortions to be illegal, which very directly means that he wants to punish women for having abortions.

 

I appear to have a similar policy position as him. I'd like abortions to be more illegal than they are, and if/when that happens, i'd like women to be punished for obtaining them in most cases. Yet, as we sit here today, it is not true that I want to punish women for having an abortion that is legally allowed. I DO if/when abortions becomes illegal, but I do not at present.

 

You guys are making a leap in his position, which he may ultimately agree with, but he didn't say that in that interview and it wasn't reported accurately.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Trump wants abortions to be illegal and is okay with that leading to back-alley abortions, and he'd want women to be punished for obtaining abortions. It's a barbaric position to take, but I think everyone understands pretty clearly and doesn't think Trump wants to start rounding up women today with the laws as they currently are.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump wants abortions to be illegal and is okay with that leading to back-alley abortions, and he'd want women to be punished for obtaining abortions. It's a barbaric position to take, but I think everyone understands pretty clearly and doesn't think Trump wants to start rounding up women today with the laws as they currently are.

 

1) Abortion is barbaric. Odd how you have that flipped around, but whatever, I respectfully disagree with your position without calling it garbage.

 

2) Look who is leading the polls. I don't think "everyone" takes those headlines with the appropriate context or understanding that he doesn't mean today, regardless of the law, nor do I think the media wrote them in that way so people would understand the context. They wanted the "Trump wants to punish women! He's anti-female!" reaction, and they got it.

Edited March 31, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[CrimsonWeltall]

I appear to have a similar policy position as him. I'd like abortions to be more illegal than they are, and if/when that happens, i'd like women to be punished for obtaining them in most cases. Yet, as we sit here today, it is not true that I want to punish women for having an abortion that is legally allowed. I DO if/when abortions becomes illegal, but I do not at present.

 

You guys are making a leap in his position, which he may ultimately agree with, but he didn't say that in that interview and it wasn't reported accurately.

 

He explicitly said in that interview that he wanted abortions banned. Moreover, in any interview with politicians, you can infer that they're talking about legal changes they desire to make.

 

When Bernie Sanders says he wants the rich to be taxed more, you can infer that he's talking about changing tax laws to increase the tax rates on the rich. You don't assume he's talking about IRS agents illegally mugging rich people and snatching benjamins out of their wallets. The only leap being made here is by you.

[CrimsonWeltall]

1) Abortion is barbaric. Odd how you have that flipped around, but whatever, I respectfully disagree with your position without calling it garbage.

 

2) Look who is leading the polls. I don't think "everyone" takes those headlines with the appropriate context or understanding that he doesn't mean today, regardless of the law, nor do I think the media wrote them in that way so people would understand the context. They wanted the "Trump wants to punish women! He's anti-female!" reaction, and they got it.

 

2) All the full articles I read on Trump's gaffe gave the full conversation with Trump supporting an abortion ban and saying that it would include punishments for women.

 

Trump does want to punish women for abortion and is anti-female...so I'm not sure how the media is doing anything wrong there.

[Jenksismyhero]

He explicitly said in that interview that he wanted abortions banned. Moreover, in any interview with politicians, you can infer that they're talking about legal changes they desire to make.

 

When Bernie Sanders says he wants the rich to be taxed more, you can infer that he's talking about changing tax laws to increase the tax rates on the rich. You don't assume he's talking about IRS agents illegally mugging rich people and snatching benjamins out of their wallets. The only leap being made here is by you.

 

No, see in that example the Bernie Sanders headline would be "Sanders wants to raise taxes" without qualifying that he only means to the rich. After all, that's his policy that's he stated, so why the need for context?

[shysocks]

No, see in that example the Bernie Sanders headline would be "Sanders wants to raise taxes" without qualifying that he only means to the rich. After all, that's his policy that's he stated, so why the need for context?

That makes no sense. For this to be akin to the Trump example, headlines would need to have read just "Trump wants to punish women" without qualifying for what.

[CrimsonWeltall]

No, see in that example the Bernie Sanders headline would be "Sanders wants to raise taxes" without qualifying that he only means to the rich. After all, that's his policy that's he stated, so why the need for context?

 

Well he doesn't only mean to the rich. AFAIK, Sanders' tax plan increases taxes on a lot of people. It just hits the rich the most.

 

The point of my example was that reporting on a topic doesn't require explicitly excluding crazy s*** just so to prevent people from jumping to crazy conclusions. The reporting on Trump's statements would cause any reasonable person to believe he was in favor of making abortion illegal and that includes legal punishments for women. And that was true.

 

The only potentially unfair thing I could see about the reporting would be if it caused people to believe that Trump supported punishments in 100% of abortions, when his actual position included some exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother's life.

[southsider2k5]

No, see in that example the Bernie Sanders headline would be "Sanders wants to raise taxes" without qualifying that he only means to the rich. After all, that's his policy that's he stated, so why the need for context?

 

It was pretty clearly shown that his tax plan would increase taxes on everyone.

[lasttriptotulsa]

It was pretty clearly shown that his tax plan would increase taxes on everyone.

 

Unless your household makes >$250,000 per year your income taxes would not go up other than a 2.2% tax for the universal health care. For most Americans, health insurance plus deductibles cost them way more than 2.2% each year.

[southsider2k5]

Unless your household makes >$250,000 per year your income taxes would not go up other than a 2.2% tax for the universal health care. For most Americans, health insurance plus deductibles cost them way more than 2.2% each year.

 

So, like I said, your taxes are going up.

[cabiness42]

Unless your household makes >$250,000 per year your income taxes would not go up other than a 2.2% tax for the universal health care. For most Americans, health insurance plus deductibles cost them way more than 2.2% each year.

 

Does the healthcare I get for that 2.2% cover everything that my current plan covers?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Does the healthcare I get for that 2.2% cover everything that my current plan covers?

 

Yes but your doctor is now Bernie Sanders.

[lasttriptotulsa]

So, like I said, your taxes are going up.

 

Taxes are going up but you are saving money. Are you really going to complain about that?

[cabiness42]

Taxes are going up but you are saving money. Are you really going to complain about that?

 

Show me that I'm saving money. Show me that the 2.2% will cover everything that my current health plan covers now and that I won't have to spend a bunch out of pocket to make up the difference.

[southsider2k5]

Show me that I'm saving money. Show me that the 2.2% will cover everything that my current health plan covers now and that I won't have to spend a bunch out of pocket to make up the difference.

 

If you like your plan, you can keep it!

[lasttriptotulsa]

Show me that I'm saving money. Show me that the 2.2% will cover everything that my current health plan covers now and that I won't have to spend a bunch out of pocket to make up the difference.

 

Read his proposal. It's all there.

 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

[southsider2k5]

Read his proposal. It's all there.

 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

 

The link probably is all I need to see. With as few places as take medicare now, that should tell all right there.

 

Not to mention how many people his plan would leave unemployed.

[lasttriptotulsa]

The link probably is all I need to see. With as few places as take medicare now, that should tell all right there.

 

Not to mention how many people his plan would leave unemployed.

 

I guess if want to remain ignorant and not even read his proposal that is your right but any criticism of his plan that you may offer carries no weight.

[southsider2k5]

I guess if want to remain ignorant and not even read his proposal that is your right but any criticism of his plan that you may offer carries no weight.

 

I read it, and it is exactly what I expected. He'll unemploy an entire industry and most of the country will suffer for this new plan, with less care and options.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I read it, and it is exactly what I expected. He'll unemploy an entire industry and most of the country will suffer for this new plan, with less care and options.

 

You just completely made that part up. There is no reason to think that will be the case.

 

Here is a good article describing what could happen under Bernie's plan.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/news/econo...alth-care-plan/

Edited March 31, 2016 by lasttriptotulsa

[southsider2k5]

You just completely made that part up. There is no reason to think that will be the case.

 

Here is a good article describing what could happen under Bernie's plan.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/news/econo...alth-care-plan/

 

I have personally seen in my home town how many places refuse to accept medicare because it isn't profitable for them to do so. Looking over this plan there is zero reason to think that trend won't continue, even more so if this is the only game in town. Like it or not, medicine does have to be profitable for places to stand in business doing it.

 

Honestly from my point of view there is no reason to think this plan would actually work when real life is showing that no one wants anything to do with medicare now.

[Reddy]

I have personally seen in my home town how many places refuse to accept medicare because it isn't profitable for them to do so. Looking over this plan there is zero reason to think that trend won't continue, even more so if this is the only game in town. Like it or not, medicine does have to be profitable for places to stand in business doing it.

 

Honestly from my point of view there is no reason to think this plan would actually work when real life is showing that no one wants anything to do with medicare now.

 

Nothing about Bernie's campaign has anything to do with real life.

[southsider2k5]

Nothing about Bernie's campaign has anything to do with real life.

 

I will leave it with this thought.

 

The two examples we have of the government being involved in health care are medicare and the VA.