Merging Cultures Posted 21 December 2015 Posted 21 December 2015 Hmmm...that's interesting, I distinctly remember it saying in the Constitution those religious conservatives value so highly it saying "freedom of religion", not "freedom of religion so long as it is evangelical Christianity". Evidently I read it wrong, huh?A whole county as well, not just one school. Ridiculous.
bovril Posted 21 December 2015 Posted 21 December 2015 It does make an interesting point, and obviously the banning of Jews from a country is no different to the banning of Muslims, the difference is that this is historical whereas Trump proposing banning muslims is current and so is on trend. I think if a modern western country proposed banning Jews or Christians now it would get the same response. I also thought that it was Israelis rather than Jews that were banned, but I could be wrong, it doesn't make it any less intolerant, but it is intolerance on nationality and not religion. It says in the text that it's Israelis. Most of the countries listed have Jewish communities, up until the wars of the last 15 years Syria and Iraq were pretty good places for Jews to live. In Iran (at least in the major cities) they still have very a vibrant and successful community.
FireFox Posted 22 December 2015 Posted 22 December 2015 I had to read parts of the bible in school at the age of like 14 as part of 'world literature class'. Felt a little bit uncomfortable but whatever, also read Gilgamesh.
leicsmac Posted 22 December 2015 Posted 22 December 2015 I'm actually OK with religious texts being studied in schools, as long as they are left open to interpretation rather than being presented as absolute fact, and multiple religious texts are given the same treatment rather than just studying one. Hell, when it comes down to it the three main Abrahamic religions rely on pretty much the same kind of scripture anyway.
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 Latest Repub debate, with Trump chipping in with: We have a huge mental health issue in this country." How he and the others standing there have the gall to complain about that when their party is the one passing, blocking and enabling legislation that keeps mental healthcare in the US (not to mention other types of healthcare) unaffordably inaccessible, I don't know. Hypocrisy at its finest. Edit: Another screamer from Jeb: "We should have a no fly zone against ISIS." (paraphrased). I wasn't aware Daesh had an air force, was anyone else?
SMX11 Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 Are you aware that the much lauded 'Obamacare' is more expensive? USA's healthcare system was bad enough before.....
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 Are you aware that the much lauded 'Obamacare' is more expensive? USA's healthcare system was bad enough before..... I am indeed (though I'm not entirely convinced that the case across the board). I'm also aware that bipartisan grandstanding BS by the repubs is the reason why Obamacare is the half arsed watered down lack of solution it is, rather than the single payer, no-one-is-saddled-with-a-lifetime-of-debt-just-because-they-were-unlucky solution a leading nation like the U.S. really should have.
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 Are you aware that the much lauded 'Obamacare' is more expensive? USA's healthcare system was bad enough before..... I remember saying to a Yank in Vegas a couple of years back that if he thought healthcare was expensive now just wait until it's "free".
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 I remember saying to a Yank in Vegas a couple of years back that if he thought healthcare was expensive now just wait until it's "free". It's a pretty awful solution, but at least it means more people can actually get insurance and therefore get treated for anything more than a grazed knuckle without having some loanshark company chasing them for the rest of their lives. Of course, the insurance companies run far too much of the show themselves still but hey. In any case, like I said my issue is how Trumpton had the gumption to decry a problem the party he belongs to stopped Obama from helping solve.
MPH Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 Latest Repub debate, with Trump chipping in with: We have a huge mental health issue in this country." How he and the others standing there have the gall to complain about that when their party is the one passing, blocking and enabling legislation that keeps mental healthcare in the US (not to mention other types of healthcare) unaffordably inaccessible, I don't know. Hypocrisy at its finest. Edit: Another screamer from Jeb: "We should have a no fly zone against ISIS." (paraphrased). I wasn't aware Daesh had an air force, was anyone else? If someone has a mental health issue, and we are talking mind altering, schitsophenric(!?) type here thejn they often qualify for SS! Adults over age 18 (SSI): Has a disability that prevents "substantial, gainful activity" (this generally means work for pay or profit, either full- or part-time). In 2005, substantial gainful activity was defined as a job that pays more than $830 per month (after any impairment-related work expenses and employment subsidies) for a person with disabilitiesNOTE: earning income may not totally disqualify you, but it will probably reduce your SSI payments. See the SSA Gov website for more details Does not have resources that exceed $2000 (if single) or $3000 (if married)NOTE: SSA does not count all kinds of income (for example, students have some special income exclusions) or all types of resources (for example, the home you live in, and one car, do not count towards your resources). For more, see the government SSI eligibility page If you have resources or savings that exceed the SSI limit, you may want to consider "spending down" - that is, paying for some of your own medical expenses until you fall below the eligibility cutoff. You can also sell excess resources to become eligible - see government information on how to do this With that being said, anyone who qualifies for SS! automatically qualifies for medicare/ medicaid so all their bills would be covered.
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 If someone has a mental health issue, and we are talking mind altering, schitsophenric(!?) type here thejn they often qualify for SS! Adults over age 18 (SSI): Has a disability that prevents "substantial, gainful activity" (this generally means work for pay or profit, either full- or part-time). In 2005, substantial gainful activity was defined as a job that pays more than $830 per month (after any impairment-related work expenses and employment subsidies) for a person with disabilitiesNOTE: earning income may not totally disqualify you, but it will probably reduce your SSI payments. See the SSA Gov website for more details Does not have resources that exceed $2000 (if single) or $3000 (if married)NOTE: SSA does not count all kinds of income (for example, students have some special income exclusions) or all types of resources (for example, the home you live in, and one car, do not count towards your resources). For more, see the government SSI eligibility page If you have resources or savings that exceed the SSI limit, you may want to consider "spending down" - that is, paying for some of your own medical expenses until you fall below the eligibility cutoff. You can also sell excess resources to become eligible - see government information on how to do this With that being said, anyone who qualifies for SS! automatically qualifies for medicare/ medicaid so all their bills would be covered. If this is true and effective (and I have no doubt the information is reliable) and screening and treatment for mental health conditions is covered by SSI below a certain threshold, then why is there such a problem with mental health in the US that the Repubs are mentioning it the the debate at all? Either it's not as much a problem as they state (in which case they're lying), or it is a big problem and the system is ineffective because of their blocking and watering down of legislation to change it (in which case they're hypocrites).
MPH Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 If this is true and effective (and I have no doubt the information is reliable) and screening and treatment for mental health conditions is covered by SSI below a certain threshold, then why is there such a problem with mental health in the US that the Repubs are mentioning it the the debate at all? Either it's not as much a problem as they state (in which case they're lying), or it is a big problem and the system is ineffective because of their blocking and watering down of legislation to change it (in which case they're hypocrites). Because state funding has been cut individually by the federal government and certain states ( probably all of them actually) have chosen to pass on some of those cuts to the mental health services. Not wishing to open up a can of worms, but its similar in some ways to the NHS. Its there, the services are free, but is it being funded in according to its needs?
MPH Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 I must admit, i have a heavy disdain for American politics and particularly the presidential debates/ election process. People from the same political party will not just disagree/ dicscuss/ argue/ they will publicly slander someone else from the same political party. All that says to me is that they are more interested in the power of the presidency than actually representing the people. I'm sure thats very naive of me!
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 Because state funding has been cut individually by the federal government and certain states ( probably all of them actually) have chosen to pass on some of those cuts to the mental health services. Not wishing to open up a can of worms, but its similar in some ways to the NHS. Its there, the services are free, but is it being funded in according to its needs? That sounds on the money. Belt-tightening all around. It just makes me laugh that these people are wailing about this ongoing issue when the party they stand for is at least partially responsible for it happening in the first place. Not really what you'd call an ideal political football. I must admit, i have a heavy disdain for American politics and particularly the presidential debates/ election process. People from the same political party will not just disagree/ dicscuss/ argue/ they will publicly slander someone else from the same political party. All that says to me is that they are more interested in the power of the presidency than actually representing the people. I'm sure thats very naive of me! This I totally agree with. Power attracts the corruptible, after all.
MPH Posted 15 January 2016 Posted 15 January 2016 That sounds on the money. Belt-tightening all around. It just makes me laugh that these people are wailing about this ongoing issue when the party they stand for is at least partially responsible for it happening in the first place. Not really what you'd call an ideal political football. This I totally agree with. Power attracts the corruptible, after all. Its often the republican response to calls for tighter gun control - do more for the mental health services. But that wider discussion is for another thread.
Alf Bentley Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Interesting and rather scary article here, assessing in detail how Trump could win the presidency - including by winning more votes from blacks, poor whites and women than other Republican candidates might: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868 I'm halfway through Paul Theroux's travel book "Deep South", about his recent journeys around the southern states. Excellent book by a great travel writer. From reading that, I can well imagine the scenario of Trump assembling a winning electoral score: traditional "bible-and-gun" Republicans + folk insecure at jobs going to Mexico/Asia + folk wanting "America to be strong in the world again" + folk insecure about immigration + poor whites (& blacks) sick of the grind of poverty pay or rust belt unemployment and blaming "Washington insiders" like the Clintons & Bushes for that....and reaching for a "strong, patriotic, no nonsense. traditional feel-good American" president. I seriously hope they don't take that option. The future looks rocky enough with all the serious stuff going on in the world (global warming, economic crises, mass migration, Russia, China. cvnts like Islamic State etc.), without a loose cannon like Trump taking charge of the world's leading military power at a time when a lot of its population feel that their nation is on the slide, has its back to the wall and needs to be much more aggressive in the pursuit of its national self-interests.
Guest MattP Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 I still don't see it happening (although Sanders is again catching up Clinton which would help him) but it's certainly not as impossible anymore as people are making it out to be. The whole "America to be strong in the World again" could be a huge topic around this election though, people are certainly sick of Obama's attitudes and his personal ratings have been lower than Bush's got at times last year. It's 2016 as well, any years ending in '16 are generally very bad for humanity.
Detroit Blues Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 My gut feeling is that Clinton will still win the democratic nomination, and face some Republican other than Trump for the presidency. Though she may face public scrutiny for her handling of classified emails, she wont ever face the full legal consequences a normal citizen would for the same crime. In a sense Clinton really personifies the status quo of American government. She has been given millions of dollars by pharmaceutical corporations and wall street executives that have the most to lose if progressive policies and regulatory actions are put in place. Though Americans may feel "progressive" for electing the first woman president, the progress needed to fix America's problems in healthcare, gun control, financial regulations, campaign finance reform, closing tax loopholes, etc. will always be stopped by the elite at the top.
SMX11 Posted 23 January 2016 Posted 23 January 2016 From what I have read Clinton will be lucky not to be charged with that private server/email scandal. Trump or Cruz? I'd take Cruz over Trump as he has been pretty consistant over his positions (for a politician anyway).
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2016 Posted 23 January 2016 From what I have read Clinton will be lucky not to be charged with that private server/email scandal. Trump or Cruz? I'd take Cruz over Trump as he has been pretty consistant over his positions (for a politician anyway). Flipflopping rich populist nutjob with not much understanding of political process or fire and brimstone Baptist nutjob who adores any social more as long as it involves the 1950's style household and doesn't involve homosexuality or abortion? Hell of a choice. Whatever happened to Rubio? The GOP establishment must know that they have to at least try to appeal to the middle ground to get a win this November, right?
SMX11 Posted 23 January 2016 Posted 23 January 2016 Flipflopping rich populist nutjob with not much understanding of political process or fire and brimstone Baptist nutjob who adores any social more as long as it involves the 1950's style household and doesn't involve homosexuality or abortion? Hell of a choice. Whatever happened to Rubio? The GOP establishment must know that they have to at least try to appeal to the middle ground to get a win this November, right? I'm not sure the Democrat options are any better, particularly Clinton.
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2016 Posted 23 January 2016 I'm not sure the Democrat options are any better, particularly Clinton. From an economic standpoint, certainly - it's a shiteshow either way. From a social standpoint, the way I see it if either Cruz or Trump get into the White House with a majority in the Houses then the gay marriage Supreme Court decision won't last a year, and I'm not sure that Roe v Wade will last their entire term either (particularly if it's Cruz). At least with Clinton the fundamental freedom of choice that goes with those two rulings will remain. That alone is enough for me.
SMX11 Posted 23 January 2016 Posted 23 January 2016 Hasn't Cruz stated that he would leave marriage down to the states? I find it difficult to believe that he would impose anything on everybody through the Federal government. Would have to check what he said though.
leicsmac Posted 24 January 2016 Posted 24 January 2016 Hasn't Cruz stated that he would leave marriage down to the states? I find it difficult to believe that he would impose anything on everybody through the Federal government. Would have to check what he said though. Still not good enough. Such freedoms should be federal and therefore open to all without restriction, and in any case the war regarding universal rights of states was fought and lost a century and a half ago. It's disturbing how many people don't see that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.