Poll: Does anyone really take Trump's "presidental run" seriously?

[Sonic Doctor]

I never got why Socialist healthcare bothered Americans.

Because it means that we will be paying for other people's health care. I would say that a majority of people here only want to pay for what they are going to use, or something that in the future will come in play if something happens.

All other areas that people pay taxes to the government are things that are needed daily or things that are their for our protection: Police, firefighting, schools, the military, and road works.

Health care is something that most people don't use daily, it is usually there just for emergencies. People get insurance to help pay for high costs and many pay just a small amount to get insurance and it is smaller way smaller in the long run compared to paying it all when and emergency happens.

The point is that people are paying for just themselves and possibly for their families. With government healthcare, people know that part of the taxes they pay will go to other people, people they don't know and frankly don't care about. Such increase in taxes for such a thing is taking money from people that would rather see it go to use for themselves or their families. That extra money is possibly money that was going to go into an account to be saved for emergencies.

I shouldn't have to pay extra tax money for the healthcare of other people, when I am not using the American taxpayers' money to pay for my healthcare. If I have to pay for the healthcare of some stranger, than that is forced charity. The only way I would allow for government healthcare to be, is if the only people that had to pay extra taxes for it are the people that are using it.

The is only really one reasonable way that government healthcare would be truly viable without forcing people to pay for other people, and that is if they turned it into a normal charity.

The government healthcare charity:

The government asks people to pay into the charity but they don't half to. The people that do pay into the charity get special tax incentives. Example: If a person gives 100 dollars to the government healthcare charity, that person gets 120 dollars taken off their federal taxes when tax time comes around.

People gets something out of it and the government gets money for the government healthcare without having to wrongfully force people to pay for other people's healthcare.

You wanted to know what Americans have against Socialist healthcare, that is my view on the situation as an American. Americans don't want to be forced to do things, especially if it means they lose the money they earn and nothing comes to them for forking that money over.

 

[Booze Zombie]

You wanted to know what Americans have against Socialist healthcare, that is my view on the situation as an American. Americans don't want to be forced to do things, especially if it means they lose the money they earn and nothing comes to them for forking that money over.

Well, quite frankly, should the government care if you know these people? It's got to stop doctors dying from stress from having to deal with insurance companies and people having to choose between keeping an finger or a thumb, one or the other, because they don't have enough money.

It does go the other way, by the way. If you suddenly lose your house, all of your money, etc, etc, improbable "smelly man in a box" ending to the game of life, you would still have the same medical services as everyone else in the country.
It shouldn't matter in a civilized country, all human beings should receive fair and proper medical treatment.

 

[Gudrests]

Yes I do take his run seriously; I would vote for him.

If the Republican party was serious about winning, they would just select Trump right now as their candidate, because if they don't, he will run as an Independent and will take a load if not more than half of the Conservative vote away from the other person that would be running for them.

If they really want to show they care about the economy, they will select him, because of his success and knowledge of such business matters, he would be best for these times.

But in the end, I know I will be voting for who isn't Obama. It's pretty hard to imagine the country electing someone that could beat Obama's status as the worst president in US history. But then again, the country did elect him in the first place. Though if the nightmare does come true, that he wins a second term, at least I know it will be his last.

His latest publicity stunt was erecting a seven story flag pole on a golf course owned by Trump himself. Not only a tacky addition, the flag pole is endangering helicopters, and in direct violation of the county law. Now, when challenged by the local town's major to take down the pole, Trump is able to claim patriotic superiority; no doubt making him a hero for flag rights in the eyes of his supporters.

What kind of helicopter pilots are in that area? Are they drunk or possibly blind?

Seven stories isn't that tall, around 70 feet. I know a couple flagpoles around where I live that are at least 40 or more feet. This is easy to see because one of the restaurants in a city near me has out front what I would consider the city's flagpole and it is twice the height of the restaurant and the restaurant is two stories.

30 more feet isn't all that much higher, definitely not high enough to interfere with helicopters. Every helicopter I have seen in that city flies way higher than seven stories, and they don't get that low until they are extremely close to their landing site.

So, is this flag pole of his sitting smack dab in the middle of the landing pad? Because that is the only way it can interfere with helicopters.

The whole situation to me sounds like some Americans that are mad that he actual show some pride for the country. Knowing those 40 foot flagpoles and how big around they are and thinking logically on how big around one that is 70 feet would be(which would be no more than a few feet around), figuring in length of the waving flag in the air, the area that that flagpole takes up would only be 25 square feet give are take a few feet. If a helicopter pilot can't avoid that small an area, than the pilot shouldn't be flying. The only way they could hit it is if as I asked, the pilot is drunk or blind, unless there is some gigantic super magnet attached to it that pulls helicopters straight towards it.

Again, the story sounds like a bunch of bull.

By the way, since this thread has to do with politics, it should be in the Politics and Religion section.

First nothing flying should be anywhere under 200ft. at 200ft thats when you need thoes flashing red lights to show something is there. 2nd at night the American flag has to have a light on it...there would be GIANT lights on this thing. 3ed, 7 stories is less than 70 feet. 1 story including the inbetween of floor is a little over 8 or 9. only high celieings go that high. but your right.nothing will ever hit that. He will have a flag the right size for it, lights on it at all times and the whole 1000 yeards here

 

[Strain42]

I had a good laugh the other day: I was watching some of the older Simpsons episodes, and I came across the one where Lisa gets elected President. Her first board meeting, she tells them "Now, as you know we've inherited quite a budget crisis from President Trump." I literally lol'd.

Where Lisa becomes America's first "straight Female president"? ...Maybe we're gonna learn something about Palin over the next few years...

 

[mrF00bar]

It looks like a publicity stunt to me.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

Trump defeats any err of formality or seriousness everytime he opens his mouth to the U.S media. I think he's too use to being the "star" of his reality TV show to realize that he's a colossal joke. He didn't even make himself a billionaire, that's all inherited money from his father's efforts and a result of his investments and TV show. Nothing more.

So whenever I hear my parents talking about him POSITIVELY (they're completely ignorant about his TV show and the blatant crap he spews on a regular basis) it just reaffirms why I'll never take him seriously. His plan for negotiating with China and the OPEC nations? "You're fired". Seriously, he said that in one of his interviews... what an idiot.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

But in the end, I know I will be voting for who isn't Obama. It's pretty hard to imagine the country electing someone that could beat Obama's status as the worst president in US history.

Are you kidding? What sort of bizarre criteria are you using where Obama even makes the 'worst 20' Presidents on any ground other than "Lack of Republican Party Membership" or "Surfeit of Melanin"?

Well I never said there couldn't be ties for the worst president. But things like this are why he makes worst president:

1.) Initiating healthcare that I won't be using but have to be forced to pay into for other people.
2.) Last I heard, he wants to make community service a requirement for graduating high school. In the future, when I have kids, I want them to have the freedom to choose if they want to be charitable, like I have had. It relates to number one because like number one, this is forced charity.
3.) His war on "dirty" fuels. This country has a proven way to break its dependance on foreign oil, and that is by turning coal into synthetic oil and then into gas. That oil would be cheap to make and would be at least half the barrel price of regular oil. But no, because of Obama and his blockade in favor of "clean energies", which those "clean energies" will take too long to develop to meet today's standards and save us from this gas price crisis, we can't use the best option we have to get us out of this crisis.
4.) He is in favor of telling me how I should be allowed to defend my home; he wants to make it harder and harder to own a gun. My dad and my friends own guns, if somebody breaks into one of their homes while they are home, they aren't going to run away and allow the robbers to walk all over them. Hiding and calling the police is just too slow and by the time they arrive, said robbers will already be gone with a ton of stuff, never to be caught. It makes no sense to take the freedom of owning a gun away from the citizens, when even if guns are banned or are extremely hard to get, criminals will always find a way to get guns to use in their criminal acts. If somebody breaks into my home, they are breaking the law, and I should be able to defend myself as I see fit, because they would be threatening me and my property.(Anyway, I consider threatening my property as threatening me, because I use my property to live my life.)

Those are just a few things. But they easily give him at least a tied position for worst president.

Nothing, is going to sway me away from what I think on those four points.

 

[i7omahawki]

Nothing, is going to sway me away from what I think on those four points.

Not even reasonable arguments? Seriously, saying nothing will ever change your mind is not saying how strong your argument is, or even why you think what you do, it's admitting how stubborn and close minded you are. That's not something to be proud of.

Hailing from the UK myself, I can see a reasonable argument from what you bring up, we have many of the things you are opposed to, public healthcare and good gun control.

The most annoying thing for me, and I think this connects in someway with what you're saying, is that people who abuse their bodies are given the same healthcare as those who look after themselves. That is what I object to. I differ from you in that I wouldn't mind paying for those who geniunely looked after themselves, and had a good appreciation for life. But those that squander their own lives, getting fat and drunk and turning their own lungs black, I don't think they do deserve the same healthcare as everybody else.

And I guess our gun control here in the UK simply doesn't apply to the US, barely anybody has guns here, not even the police.

(Realized I'm wayyy off-topic)

I don't take Trump seriously at all, but then...look at Bush?

 

[Ladette]

I think there's a 50% chance he actually runs, and I doubt he gets more than 5% of the vote if he does. He will probably take just enough votes away to keep Obama in office though.

There's not one candidate in the next election that I like. I hate conservatives even more than I hate the incumbent, and I refuse to ever vote for him in anything. So gogo throw away vote I guess.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

You wanted to know what Americans have against Socialist healthcare, that is my view on the situation as an American. Americans don't want to be forced to do things, especially if it means they lose the money they earn and nothing comes to them for forking that money over.

Well, quite frankly, should the government care if you know these people? It's got to stop doctors dying from stress from having to deal with insurance companies and people having to choose between keeping an finger or a thumb, one or the other, because they don't have enough money.

It does go the other way, by the way. If you suddenly lose your house, all of your money, etc, etc, improbable "smelly man in a box" ending to the game of life, you would still have the same medical services as everyone else in the country.
It shouldn't matter in a civilized country, all human beings should receive fair and proper medical treatment.

I'm ignoring the hypothetical situation, because it is beside the point. If something happens to me that causes me to be in such a situation, chances are the situation was my fault. I am not going to burden other people with my problems, if that means I die because I don't have health coverage than so be it. Other people that don't know me, shouldn't have to deal with losing money to pay for me. Besides, if I am ever in such a situation, I know I have family and extended family members that will help out.

If anything, forcing people to pay extra money to the government for this healthcare would bring them closer to not having money and being forced to use said government healthcare. I would say that over half the cases where people don't have the money for private healthcare from companies, can be solved by teaching said people to make the healthcare payments a priority over the non-necessities of life.

I have used this example many times before and I will use it again:

My mom had an appointment at a clinic and I was in the waiting room waiting for her of course. I over heard the conversation a woman was having with the receptionist. She told the receptionist that if the payments for doctor's visits got any higher she just didn't see how she was going to pay for them. Well, previously, when she had been waiting to be seen by a doctor, I over heard her talking to her kid. The kid asked if they could go to his favorite restaurant afterwards, after they went to see the latest kids movie at the theater and she said yes. The kid then asked if they could also go to the mall and pick up a new video game that he wanted, she also said yes. Then when I was walking out the not long after she had exited the building, I saw them get into a gas guzzling SUV.

The problem with many people today is that they think that the government should be there to hold their hands. People these days don't know how to go without. They complain about the prices of necessities and claim that it is harder and harder to afford them, but then they turn around and buy wants, got to movies, go out to eat instead of finding ways to save money by buying the cheap brands at grocery stores and eating in when times are tough. If there are money troubles, adults have to learn to go without the things they like to do, and they have to tell their children that they can't have the newfangled toy if they want to eat during the next month.

A good deal of the problems that some people are dealing with in this country could be dealt with and solved by themselves if they just learned to take responsibility for their own lives and didn't expect strangers to help them out.

This will always be my position on the matter, no matter what happens.

 

[Booze Zombie]

A good deal of the problems that some people are dealing with in this country could be dealt with and solved by themselves if they just learned to take responsibility for their own lives and didn't expect strangers to help them out.

This will always be my position on the matter, no matter what happens.

Healthcare isn't meant to be a lesson in common sense, it's meant to keep people alive... even if they're massivly stupid. It isn't government handholding, it's managing your populace in an effective manner.

You can't just let people drop dead because they haven't got cash, I mean this is meant to be "the good and just, civilized" part of the world, isn't it?

 

[00slash00]

you would have to be an idiot to think trump actually has any desire to be president. there isnt much money in being president. he could make much much more money if he didnt run and for someone who values money as much as he does, theres no way he would want to actually win. its obviously just a publicity stunt. do you think its coincidence that everything he said has been controversial? no, he wants as much publicity as possible. i mean even when bush was running he said one or two things that werent retarded. trump cant make that same claim

 

[mooncalf]

If Trump became president it would be the most alarming act of concerted idiocy on the part of the american people since Bush Jnr's election.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I hope for the sake of the American people and the whole freakin' world that he ain't serious. Then again, if it's him or Sarah Palin...okay I really don't know.

le snip

As said before, healthcare isn't about learning a lesson, it's about being a decent society that doesn't let people die because they can't afford awful insurance policies that do their best to not cover you when you actually need them to.

It's about being a society that doesn't put a pricetag on human life, and lets you rot when you can't afford it. What an awful, cold and malicious society you are proposing. Yes there are people like the one in your example, but do you really think there aren't thousands of Americans that are genuinely bad off? They'd all be screwed in your world, simply because they've run out of luck. Because no, it doesn't have to be your fault to end up in the smelly-man-in-a-box situation. It's an illusion that you're that much in control of your own life.

The States, compared to other Western countries, has a terrible healthcare system. Just look at how low your country is on the WHO ranking list on several fronts, accessability being the most pressing. You're planning to make it even worse, and that's because the ideal society you're proposing is just as utopic as pure communism, both have basic human nature standing in their way.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Because it means that we will be paying for other people's health care. I would say that a majority of people here only want to pay for what they are going to use, or something that in the future will come in play if something happens.

The thing I find so strange about this very line of reasoning is that if one pays for medical insurance they are directly paying for the health care of others unless their personal costs happen to exceed their payments over the long term (a rare eventuality).

All other areas that people pay taxes to the government are things that are needed daily or things that are their for our protection: Police, firefighting, schools, the military, and road works.

The military is not needed for the daily protection of the people. At least not the Federal military. In fact, only the National Guard is able to deploy on combat and police operations on US soil without a declaration of war.

Health care is something that most people don't use daily, it is usually there just for emergencies. People get insurance to help pay for high costs and many pay just a small amount to get insurance and it is smaller way smaller in the long run compared to paying it all when and emergency happens.

Everyone will need to see a doctor. The cost of seeing a doctor without insurance is, simply put, staggering. A simple visit to a family doctor for a mild ailment can cost hundreds of dollars. Even ignoring the extreme cases, health care of any sort is an enormous financial burden in the US and Americans give a significant portion of their income to health care (according to one <a href=http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today/consumer-financial-risk>souce six percent on average)

The point is that people are paying for just themselves and possibly for their families. With government healthcare, people know that part of the taxes they pay will go to other people, people they don't know and frankly don't care about. Such increase in taxes for such a thing is taking money from people that would rather see it go to use for themselves or their families. That extra money is possibly money that was going to go into an account to be saved for emergencies.

People are already spending money on healthcare. It is not as though there would be a new expense here. The question you ought to be asking is simply if there is a better way. I'm not saying any option thus far presented is better, but I've seen fair evidence that suggests our current course is both more expensive per capita than any other nation and is somehow less effective. That reason alone is why we ought to examine the issue.

I shouldn't have to pay extra tax money for the healthcare of other people, when I am not using the American taxpayers' money to pay for my healthcare. If I have to pay for the healthcare of some stranger, than that is forced charity. The only way I would allow for government healthcare to be, is if the only people that had to pay extra taxes for it are the people that are using it.

And yet you happily pay taxes that support other things including the education of people you don't know, (you're paying for my tuition just so you know thanks to my time in the Army), the construction of roads you will never use, the enforcement of laws you might not agree with, and charities beyond counting. Why is healthcare the one thing in this whole laundry list of things that, if you're anything like me, you spend roughly 1/3 of your paycheck on that you choose to draw the line at? Why not any of the other things that offer you no personal benefit?

The government asks people to pay into the charity but they don't half to. The people that do pay into the charity get special tax incentives. Example: If a person gives 100 dollars to the government healthcare charity, that person gets 120 dollars taken off their federal taxes when tax time comes around.

Your logic here doesn't work at ALL. If I give 100 bucks to the charity then I do not have to pay 120 dollars in taxes. The budget is not going to be reduced accordingly. All I have done is, in effect, transfer that tax burden to someone else. Not only that but I am essentially using it to print money. If I were an incredibly wealthy person, I could simply pay into this charity and receive what amounts to an enormous cut in taxes.

You wanted to know what Americans have against Socialist healthcare, that is my view on the situation as an American. Americans don't want to be forced to do things, especially if it means they lose the money they earn and nothing comes to them for forking that money over.

The problem with appending the word "socialist" to things is simply that it is a transparent attempt to vilify any project or institution without giving said project or institution a proper chance in the realm of public opinion. The nation is already host to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of programs that are easily socialist in nature. Where is the mass protest of public schooling? Where are the rallies calling for an end to social security and medicare? Why do we not march in the streets in protest of food stamps and welfare programs? Between these things we're looking at hundreds of billions of dollars spent each and every year and yet most of us receive no direct benefit from their existence.

Could it be that the indirect benefits are, in many cases, seen as an acceptable tradeoff, or has this just somehow slipped under the radar?