@Xabiss: Good catch, I did not notice that. Data is so easily manipulated in politics, which is why I try to include logic. Both the left and right use it, but the left is so notorious for it, its absolutely disgusting.
College is more demanding and affords much greater flexibility. I don't believe that making it free is a good idea. Plenty of people go to college just to screw around and drop out. Plenty also get a degree that they have no idea what to do with. This would all be a massive waste of resources. It should be your responsibility to get yourself educated and if you wish to get yourself educated but you're struggling, then have more support programs for them (based off merit).
I don't know about the United states education system but I just oppose the idea of free education.
If not free education at the college level, I assume that's what you mean, then how about 'free' / supported / reduced costs for technical schooling or community college programs?
@zaryia: "Stop. Defending a terrorist is surprising in any situation." You're a coward bud. Never have I said that what he was doing was OK. Never have I tried protecting the shooters actions. I have condemned his actions multiple times. Quit putting words in my mouth.
You want Islamic people to enter America, so therefore, you want Islamic terrorism. Got it.
As for the rest of your stats, I can see you are 1 of 4 who still blindly believe the media
I'll take the rest of your "sources" with a grain of salt
You notice his source Brennancenter.org, well this is super important information he left out:
The Brennan Center is headquartered in New York and the board is co-chaired by Robert A. Atkins and Patricia Bauman. Michael Waldman , a former speechwriter/assistant to President Bill Clinton is the president of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Hmmm I wonder which way they lean with there views. ROFL. I love how liberals only use left leaning publications and try to use them as facts! He also used the Washington Post enough said!
While they have a slight center-left tilt, They are factually reliable,
But I'll do you a favor and directly source their data if that irks you so much:
Columbia University Study: http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf
Comprehensive Study by Wapo:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
Federal Trial in WI: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/frank-v-walker-preliminary-injunction-motion-granted?redirect=legal-document/frank-v-walker-motion-granted
Kansas: The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate.
Mind you none of the above data is estimation. It's directly saying what Brennan is. It's not theory or inference. I can keep going if you want. But please tell me how all major studies and court verdicts on this are false. I look forward to your valid counter studies.
This has nothing to do with the studies and polls I linked. Refute them directly with your own polls and studies, stating exactly what you are stating like mine did rather than theorizing based off of them.
0.00000017 percent fraud rate.
@nattydaddy604 said:
I'll take the rest of your "sources" with a grain of salt
Those are among the most accurate pollsters in US, as well as Harvard, Columbia, Dartmoth, SCOTUS documents, and various other Court Documents.
I consider this quote your concession.
@nattydaddy604 said:
@Xabiss: Good catch, I did not notice that. Data is so easily manipulated in politics, which is why I try to include logic. Both the left and right use it, but the left is so notorious for it, its absolutely disgusting.
That's a shitty catch. He didn't actually refute any of their studies from Harvard, Columbia, Dartmoth, government, and court documents that Brennan linked. None of that data is being manipulated, it's all directly stating what Brennan is.
Voter Fraud is extremely rare and infinitesimally small. All of the data is on my side on this debate, hence you losing.
@shellcase86: I'm supportive of reducing costs but again it should be for a reason and applied for. I don't believe that costs should just be reduced for everyone because that puts unnecessary stress on the tax system while many people will not take their program seriously.
College is more demanding and affords much greater flexibility. I don't believe that making it free is a good idea. Plenty of people go to college just to screw around and drop out. Plenty also get a degree that they have no idea what to do with. This would all be a massive waste of resources. It should be your responsibility to get yourself educated and if you wish to get yourself educated but you're struggling, then have more support programs for them (based off merit).
I don't know about the United states education system but I just oppose the idea of free education.
If not free education at the college level, I assume that's what you mean, then how about 'free' / supported / reduced costs for technical schooling or community college programs?
Out-of-control cost with the education sector i.e. socialism and 3rd way ideal capitalist open competition regulation needs to be applied for this sector.
You mean the NHS is average for a majority of the population providing average care which often means doctors don´t have the best options available to them because of cost.
In the US you can get the best care money can buy and if you have the cash why not get it.
Most people don't have the cash to afford the best healthcare. So the point still stands that US-style healthcare is only more beneficial for a minority of the population, whereas UK-style NHS healthcare is more beneficial for the majority of the population.
Nevertheless, the UK does also have optional private healthcare alongside the NHS. So both public and private healthcare systems can co-exist.
Australia also has duel single payer and private healthcare systems.
UK spends more than 2 percent of GDP on defence
Australia spends about 2 percent of GDP on defence
Then the logical thing would have been for trump NOT to increase the military budget.
Because republicans start yelling socialism and spreading falsehoods in order to start a false narrative about the subject in an attempt to scare citizens of the country away from the prospect. In reality it works in every other major country.
I never understood why republicans care so much about anti-abortion and then are basically screw the children and their health once they are born with health issues or get health issues later on in life.
You mean the NHS is average for a majority of the population providing average care which often means doctors don´t have the best options available to them because of cost.
In the US you can get the best care money can buy and if you have the cash why not get it.
Most people don't have the cash to afford the best healthcare. So the point still stands that US-style healthcare is only more beneficial for a minority of the population, whereas UK-style NHS healthcare is more beneficial for the majority of the population.
Nevertheless, the UK does also have optional private healthcare alongside the NHS. So both public and private healthcare systems can co-exist.
Australia also has duel single payer and private healthcare systems.
UK spends more than 2 percent of GDP on defence
Australia spends about 2 percent of GDP on defence
Then the logical thing would have been for trump NOT to increase the military budget.
The big-ticket items include $50 billion for the 12 submarines, 72 F-35 stealth fighters that would cost taxpayers billions, and a new fleet of frigates. In fact, procurement expenditure over the next 10 years would carry a price tag of close to $200 billion, approximately 55 per cent of the annual defence budget over this period.
Australia's ~2 percent of GDP on defence to increase to ~3 percent.
In 2018–19, the government is increasing the defence budget towards its commitment of 2% of GDP by 2020–21. Based on the Defence Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) and GDP predictions in the budget papers, we calculate that it will fall just short, at 1.98%, but that’s essentially a $400-million rounding error. And, based on forward estimates predictions, the Defence budget will grow past 2% in 2021–22.
Australia's Right (Liberals, Nationals) and Left wing parties (Labor, Greens) supports defence spending plans.
Australia doesn't have US population size to influence supply and demand with it's currency, hence it has to be prudent with government spending.
-------------
Like US education sector, there's plenty of money in the US health system, but the overheads are very high.
Because republicans start yelling socialism and spreading falsehoods in order to start a false narrative about the subject in an attempt to scare citizens of the country away from the prospect. In reality it works in every other major country.
I never understood why republicans care so much about anti-abortion and then are basically screw the children and their health once they are born with health issues or get health issues later on in life.
Socialism is not ideal, but countries like Australia/NZ/UK/Canada (CANZUK) and Nordic Countries regulates/enforce the ideal "capitalist open competition"(1) instead of the classic Socialism model.
1. For example, medicine related data patents and copyright.
Denmark PM Explains Socialism to Bernie Sanders & Debunks What is Socialism.
Loading Video...
On administrative efficiency, Australia, New Zealand and UK beats Nordic countries e.g. Norway and Sweden .
US health and education sectors needs to be reformed. US President has doesn't enough power to execute this process since US House of Representatives rivals the President.
AOC's big government socialism/guaranteed federal jobs sounds like classic Latino socialism i.e. not CANZUK/Nordic's smallest government/high efficiency targets with basic service delivery model.
PS; Australia's welfare money benefits has been turn into community work i.e. to get people back to work habits.
@ronvalencia: Again you ignore the basic fact that we already spend more than other countries and trump increased military spending.
US health system has higher overheads. Australian center-right wing government has identified US's data exclusivity patents with medical drugs would lead to a cost blow out.
US's existing single payer VA system gets gimped by drug cost blow out.
ObamaCare is not single payer, hence government pays into private insurance with their profit overheads.
@horgen said:
The Green New Deal pulled the guaranteed federal jobs point very quickly.
Log in to comment