• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

zeke said:

View: https://x.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1811918512761254377
Click to expand...


It's funny (in an obviously tragic and "why the fuck has no one ever done this" way). The total amount of medial debt is like 200+ billion, but most of it can be purchased for literal cents on the dollar.

www.nytimes.com

For His Latest Trick, John Oliver Forgives $15 Million in Medical Debt (Published 2016)

The host of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” has perfected the art of explaining complicated subjects.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

For his latest trick, Mr. Oliver, the host of the HBO show, formed a company called Central Asset Recovery Professionals — or CARP, named after the bottom-feeding fish — and purchased $14.9 million worth of medical debt for just under $60,000.

Mr. Oliver said it had cost $50 to create his company, after which he received the portfolio offering the names, current addresses and Social Security numbers of about 9,000 people.
Mr. Oliver then gave the debt away, bragging that his giveaway was bigger than Ms. Winfrey’s — her car giveaway was estimated at $7 million — and completed the show by pressing a giant red button that triggered a rain shower of dollar bills.
Click to expand...

But that's socialism I think.

How will people ever make good decisions and not get sick if society is there for them to help when they need it?
 
MindzEye said:
However you choose to interpret those passages is wrong if the conclusion isn't the one you've been told a half of a dozen times.

The appropriate section of your constitution has been quoted, and it grants the rights to the states that we've told you it does. Take it up with SCOTUS if you have a problem. On the bright side, I've heard they take bribes now, so maybe you can get something cooking.
Click to expand...
If that section has been interpreted by the SC or legislated by Congress to mean that the federal government can't establish a method for taking in votes in Presidential elections, and that only the states can manage voting in a federal election, that's different than pointing to this and saying the text resolves the matter definitively. It clearly doesn't. I tried just briefly googling to find the answer earlier, but didn't come up with anything immediately. If you have the proper authority for what you're saying, let me know.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
If that section has been interpreted by the SC or legislated by Congress to mean that the federal government can't establish a method for taking in votes in Presidential elections, and that only the states can manage voting in a federal election, that's different than pointing to this and saying the text resolves the matter definitively. It clearly doesn't. I tried just briefly googling to find the answer earlier, but didn't come up with anything immediately. If you have the proper authority for what you're saying, let me know.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm good with you walking around being hilariously wrong the rest of your life. Reality doesn't require your comprehension to do what it does.

Enjoy.
 
MindzEye said:
Nah, I'm good with you walking around being hilariously wrong the rest of your life. Reality doesn't require your comprehension to do what it does.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...
I'm not wrong that that section doesn't say what you're saying.

And you're not right by saying that it just needs to be read that way regardless.

Let's leave it at that.
 
If it's been interpreted to say more than the text says on its face, all you have to do is point to that authority. I'm not saying it hasn't been, just that if you're positive it has been, so just cite something.
 
You've been told what is accurate. Do with it what you will.

If you have doubts, a few easy google searches will provide everything you need to know about the legal framework of US elections. Spoiler: It's exactly what I've told you it is. I'm not taking the time to prove to you that water is wet mate, you would still find something stupid to argue anyway.
 
MindzEye said:
You've been told what is accurate. Do with it what you will.

If you have doubts, a few easy google searches will provide everything you need to know about the legal framework of US elections. Spoiler: It's exactly what I've told you it is. I'm not taking the time to prove to you that water is wet mate, you would still find something stupid to argue anyway.
Click to expand...
Water isn't Wet, Water Causes things to be Wet..
Yay Pedantic :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top