International News Donald Trump 🍊🇺🇸

bashamwonderland said:
I'd like to see Arnie Vs Stallone for 2028
Click to expand...

Sadly, Arnie doesn't qualify - you need to be a 'natural-born citizen' under the constitution to be President, and as I've previously mentioned, amending the constitution requires a level of bipartisanship that is impossible in the current political climate.

I would genuinely vote for him over the two likely candidates. He was not a horrific governor.

If it is Biden vs. Trump, I will vote 3rd party in November if there's anyone else even vaguely rational and intelligent running
(I have the luxury of knowing that my state, NJ, isn't going to vote for Trump, and it won't be close, so I can apply my vote in protest......)
 
The problem with Europe is it doesn't spend enough militarily. Trump was absolutely right if certain countries prefer to spend money on socialism and not a strong defence then to be honest that is a free choice they made and they deserve to live in fear of invasion and it isn't Americas job to bail them out. Why should the American taxpayer provide military support to counties who aren't willing to fund it themselves? Personally I think the defence target should be 3% of GDP and I would rather spend the money on defence rather than benefits.
 
MattyGreensLeftBoot said:
The problem with Europe is it doesn't spend enough militarily. Trump was absolutely right if certain countries prefer to spend money on socialism and not a strong defence then to be honest that is a free choice they made and they deserve to live in fear of invasion and it isn't Americas job to bail them out. Why should the American taxpayer provide military support to counties who aren't willing to fund it themselves? Personally I think the defence target should be 3% of GDP and I would rather spend the money on defence rather than benefits.
Click to expand...
"prefer to spend money on socialism"? WTAF?
 
MattyGreensLeftBoot said:
The problem with Europe is it doesn't spend enough militarily. Trump was absolutely right if certain countries prefer to spend money on socialism and not a strong defence then to be honest that is a free choice they made and they deserve to live in fear of invasion and it isn't Americas job to bail them out. Why should the American taxpayer provide military support to counties who aren't willing to fund it themselves? Personally I think the defence target should be 3% of GDP and I would rather spend the money on defence rather than benefits.
Click to expand...
I agree, bloody socialists with their health & welfare, education, public order and safety, transport, housing, pensions and social security. These last 14 years of socialist rule must be ended!
 
Big Ron said:
I agree, bloody socialists with their health & welfare, education, public order and safety, transport, housing, pensions and social security. These last 14 years of socialist rule must be ended!
Click to expand...
Precisely! What have socialist ever done for us??? It's not like they're Romans or anything.
 
SteMerritt said:
Not all "socialism" is bad. The NHS for instance.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's such thing as a political system/way of modelling society that works for everyone. They're either 'good' or 'bad' depending on individual circumstance. Using the NHS as an example, you could work your entire life paying considerably into the system, to never really need it and ultimately die peacefully in your sleep. Alternatively, you could pay the same amount and use consistently. Some people cost the NHS very little over their lifetime whereas others can cost it millions whilst paying in the same amount.

There's always losers and winners.
 
MustardYellow said:
I don't think there's such thing as a political system/way of modelling society that works for everyone. They're either 'good' or 'bad' depending on individual circumstance. Using the NHS as an example, you could work your entire life paying considerably into the system, to never really need it and ultimately die peacefully in your sleep. Alternatively, you could pay the same amount and use consistently. Some people cost the NHS very little over their lifetime whereas others can cost it millions whilst paying in the same amount.

There's always losers and winners.
Click to expand...
No, we are all "winners" because it is there if we need it. That's the whole point.
 
SteMerritt said:
No, we are all "winners" because it is there if we need it. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...
You're not a winner if you die putting tens of thousands in and using a couple of grands worth of service. In that circumstance you're paying for a service you haven't received.

It's like saying when I paid over £1,500 for car insurance in my first year of driving, I was a 'winner' despite not using it because 'it was there if I needed it'. No... I've just lost £1,500!
 
MustardYellow said:
You're not a winner if you die putting tens of thousands in and using a couple of grands worth of service. In that circumstance you're paying for a service you haven't received.

It's like saying when I paid over £1,500 for car insurance in my first year of driving, I was a 'winner' despite not using it because 'it was there if I needed it'. No... I've just lost £1,500!
Click to expand...
No, what a rediculous comparison. Driving is a choice. Being randomly struck down by an illness, being hurt in an accident, or needing surgery is not. Paying to provide a minimum healthcare to our fellow citizens is what a developed country should do.
 
MustardYellow said:
You're not a winner if you die putting tens of thousands in and using a couple of grands worth of service. In that circumstance you're paying for a service you haven't received.

It's like saying when I paid over £1,500 for car insurance in my first year of driving, I was a 'winner' despite not using it because 'it was there if I needed it'. No... I've just lost £1,500!
Click to expand...

You've missed the socialism memo. The NHS is good for everyone. Everyone pays in and, if you need it, it's there for you. Not everyone will come out with a net balance from it. Some will use 'more' NHS services than others or what they pay into it. I'm in good health and a light user of the NHS but am perfectly content that my taxes are paying for a service that benefits those that need it more.

The car insurance example is also flawed since car insurance is a legal requirement. You're paying £1500 to not be prosecuted by the police if caught and to protect yourself and others.
 
SteMerritt said:
Not all "socialism" is bad. The NHS for instance.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it before but most people in Britain who complain about socialism have no idea how much they take it for granted. The best example is ambulances. In Oz you have to pay for the ambulance. Call out fee is about 250 GBP and add ons can take it to a maximum of 4K GBP. Pensioners and the like are exempt but that’s about it, and many people have insurance to cover it. I was surprised when I first learned this and most Brits are completely amazed. Ambulances are just a free thing aren’t they? Only in the socialist paradise of Britain :)
 
SteMerritt said:
No, what a rediculous comparison. Driving is a choice. Being randomly struck down by an illness, being hurt in an accident, or needing surgery is not. Paying to provide a minimum healthcare to our fellow citizens is what a developed country should do.
Click to expand...
It's not ridiculous at all. It's exactly the same - it's paying into a system based on a chance that you may eventually use it. Whether that's for a car or your health doesn't matter, the concept is the same.

I don't necessarily object to the NHS, but the idea everyone's a 'winner' is a bit silly. In no other context would you say you've 'won' by overpaying for a service.
 
unification said:
You've missed the socialism memo. The NHS is good for everyone. Everyone pays in and, if you need it, it's there for you. Not everyone will come out with a net balance from it. Some will use 'more' NHS services than others or what they pay into it. I'm in good health and a light user of the NHS but am perfectly content that my taxes are paying for a service that benefits those that need it more.

The car insurance example is also flawed since car insurance is a legal requirement. You're paying £1500 to not be prosecuted by the police if caught and to protect yourself and others.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily have an issue with it either, I just don't agree that if I finish my life paying more than what I receive that I've 'won' - I've simply just lost money and ultimately overpaid for a service.
 
MustardYellow said:
It's not ridiculous at all. It's exactly the same - it's paying into a system based on a chance that you may eventually use it. Whether that's for a car or your health doesn't matter, the concept is the same.

I don't necessarily object to the NHS, but the idea everyone's a 'winner' is a bit silly. In no other context would you say you've 'won' by overpaying for a service.
Click to expand...

Having spoken to an American recently about what they pay I wouldn’t say we are overpaying.

Chances of you kit using it if you live a normal length life are quite low, you will probably get at least a chunk of that money back in service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gary Baldi
The Donald Is Coming To Town
2 3
Replies
49
Views
11K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
M
International News Trump NFTs
Replies
9
Views
2K
Wallop
W
Sarge
International News Trump impeached
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
Back
Top Bottom