Yup, awesome, but only for those that test in, certainly not a free-for-all but I like it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Temporarily Blocks US Ban on New TikTok Downloads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe one day you will understand that 90% of what Americans pay for education and healthcare goes into the pockets of billionaires as profits, and only 10% of it pays for the actual education and healthcare. Whilst in all the other western countries in the world, the taxpayers pay the 10%, and then get their education and healthcare for "free" in exchange for that. Americans get angry at "socialism", whilst the rest of the western world laughs at you wilfully working like slaves with your pitiful pay rates, holidays, and benefits so that you can create even richer billionaires. And hey, we are the country of "freedom", but we will ban Tik Tok, omg you are the laughing stock of the world.
USA has had 16 years of peace through its 244 years of existence. We can do without that kind of "peace", thank you very much. We haven't had a war here since 1814, who are you to lecture us about peace, cabron?
Obama never had control of the senate, he was hamstrung and couldn't get through the things he wanted without negotiating them down to a heavily watered down version. And besides, it's not exactly Dems vs Repubs, they are all individuals who are all being bribed by lobbyists in their own way, so just because Obama wanted something, doesn't mean every Dem would vote for it. I really can't see the US having universal healthcare anytime soon, there would have to be a massive shift in public thinking to the left, which is almost impossible to happen, as most of the media is owned by billionaires, who profit massively from having the privatised system, and thus the anti-socialism messages are constant and ubiquitous. That on top of the heavy Jerrymandering, the non-mandatory voting, non-preferential voting, and now all the stuff that Trump is pushing through to kill off mail voting etc, which all favour the right wing, and make it extraordinarily difficult for a socialist platform to gain enough clout to actually make a change.
Will you? Their fleet is larger than yours, and the only way you can be a nuisance to China is by having a functional fleet in the region. They can sink your carriers with a single DF-26, and you would finally be gone from the South China Sea for good.
What has any of that got to do with Tik Tok though? Seems like a weird and pointless way to teach them a lesson?
Trump is a pathetic weakling, under my administation which would be far more powerful than Trump's(MD will be an example, as I plan to run for Republican Governor in that state) which could halt fully TIKTOK. If Biden wins, then i will have no choice but to seize power and stop the communist expansion of socialism with national socialism 2020.
You don't seem to understand why healthcare is available to all people in those countries, i.e. Britain, Canada, New Zealand or Australia.
1. Why something exists is different to how it's funded.
2. I do understand why these countries have healthcare to varying degrees of effectiveness. The parliamentary process made it so.
3. I literally use these healthcare services (I'm Australian) so I have 1st hand knowledge of them.
4. The conversation above was about funding, not about why they exist.
5. I was talking about the national healthcare schemes, ie Medicare/NHS etc etc. Not the separate private healthcare funds. The private health care funds in these countries from an administrative point of view is very different to the US private health care system which in part has your employeer involved.
It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that this is supposed to be a bad thing. Unless you're lucky enough to be in the 1% (or thereabouts), this kind of "subsidy", as you put it, is literally for you.
Meanwhile, US taxpayers continue to spend roughly double that of any other western nation on healthcare (through private insurance and otherwise) despite seeing consistently worse health outcomes. And while the kids of people lucky enough to be able to afford a private education continue their studies, countless underfunded public schools are essentially left unable to operate. (All while the 0.1% — our president included — pay less in taxes than practically anyone else.)
It's actually a good thing. What happens here. Also if you earn over a certain amount, you get a choice. Either go into a private healthcare fund or pay the equivelant in tax. This is ontop of the Medicare levy. The majority of people are ok with this here. What does anger people however is the amount and number of procedures covered by the private healthcare funds has seriously shrunk over the past decade while the fees have not. So much so that a number of people choose to hand the money over to the ATO, instead of a private healthcare fund.
What you say about the US though is unfortunately correct. As you well know it's a complex issue that doesn't look to be solved anytime soon. Of cause there are options on the table that would work, but that would require both sides to compromise. As we all know both sides never compromise, it's either 100% my way or no deal. That's one of the major reasons why good healthcare is not coming to the USA."
Also RE who pays tax. The president has paid his fair share of tax over his lifetime. If he had not, he'd already have been in court, tried and found guilty. The democrats want the president in court yesterday. Only a lack of actual law breaking by the President is preventing this. (The exact same reason why you and I have not been in court, we don't break the law). He doesn't pay tax on his presidental salary because he's not drawing one. He doesn't need it as a billionaire.
Got it. It's a good thing that healthcare in the US is reserved only for those who can afford it, and yet we still pay too much due to the convoluted private healthcare industry. That's really going well for us right now.
Even assuming you're right about the president, that means that essentially every business he's touched has failed, tremendously. But regardless of what the legal facts may turn out to be, trying to claim that anyone who effectively doesn't pay taxes is paying their "fair share" is disingenuous at best.
Tying things off with a both sides argument is rich. Can you imagine the outcry if the Democrats actually gained a sufficient majority to pull what the Republicans have in recent years (and then proceeded to actually do so)? At best, our government is currently serving less than half its population while actively antagonizing a good portion of the remainder and demonstrating literally zero morals or scruples. And those in power quite clearly like it that way.
Even if you agree with the outcomes (which consistently serve the rich, while doing just enough to foist the morals of the religious right upon the rest of the population to retain their vote), you should be condemning the means. That's not a recipe for a healthy nor a stable democracy.
Edit: As for equating lack of legal action with legality, I'll just leave this here: https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/irs-audits-poor-taxpayers-easier.
Last edited:
Your sarcasm is noted.
The issue which you are dismissing is not about who can and who can't afford it. That's an issue that could be easily solved if:
1. Every US tax payer was willing to pay a levy to support it
2. The government subsidised it as well because point 1 will not pay for it all.
3. Both sides of government could come to an agreement on how it would work.
At the moment no one in the US wants any of the 3 points to happen, thus a healthcare system that everyone can access will not exist over there.
Also your hatred of the republicans is also noted.
Your incorrect about the President. If he was guilty of tax fraud, he'd be in jail now. He's not in jail because he's not guilty. That simple. The democrats know they can't take him to court till he actually breaks the law.
Also RE the link you shared. That's mostly obvious. You can get through easier audits quicker than you can get through more complex audits. That's not discrimination at all. It's a simple case of more work takes more time to complete.
Where did I say I hated Republicans, or preferred Democrats? All I'm doing is stating reality.
We already addressed the healthcare argument sufficiently for a thread on TikTok, so not retreading that. You're just repeating yourself there, and what you're saying is demonstrably false (especially the bit about what no one apparently wants to do).
Good to know everyone guilty of a crime is in jail right now, though. What a relief. What was that third little branch of government for, anyway?
If the president was guilty and there was enough evidence to make it stick, the democrats would be pushing so hard to get him in court, the "get Trump in court" cry would be deafening. I agree with you, not every guilty person has their day in court, but in Trump's case he certainly would. The democrats would make sure of it.
You're aware that the DOJ refuses to indict (or even, apparently, really investigate) a sitting president, no? Also that multiple courts have been fighting for years to gather the evidence needed to prove whether or not a crime was committed?
What you're claiming here has no basis in reality. If investigations weren't being systematically blocked at every opportunity by the party that controls the executive, half of the legislative, and a good portion of the judicial power, then we'd have a chance at a real answer to the question. As it stands, that sure looks like… something, and that feeling isn't based in support of either party, just honest governance.
Last edited:
Please take off your tinfoil hat.
If there was evidence existing it would be used in court. The lack of any wrong doings (in this case) is why there has been no leval acton thus far.
The case is ongoing.
I never claimed there is any legal wrongdoing, though I certainly disagree that what we've seen represents a "fair share". We absolutely don't know there hasn't, though. The NYT is not a court of law, and even then only received tax returns through 2017. As far as we know, no court has even seen the documents in question.
It isn't even up to the "Democrats" to bring a case, as has been implied multiple times here. There are multiple cases in progress. The fact that they're still ongoing absolutely means that prosecutors have something. We just don't know what, and whether it rises to the level of illegal activity.
Stop hiding your head in the sand and trying to pretend everything is fine. It clearly isn't, and what's happening now is unprecedented.
I'd be saying the same regardless of whether I supported Democratic or Republican values (and I see value in both). What we're seeing goes well beyond either. The hundreds of millions in financial liability that the president apparently has due on personally guaranteed loans coming up in the next two years is a huge national security concern on its own.
Honestly, I think I'm done with MacRumors. I've always loved the news, but with outright political lies being too often displayed in promoted comments, I can't in good conscience read the articles without then at least trying to bring some truth into the conversation. Ultimately, where I live, I'm not going to feel the worst of what's to come if we keep heading in this direction. Unfortunately, it's largely the very people supporting this administration who have the most to lose.
Last edited:
You claimed and I quote:
"the DOJ refuses to indict (or even, apparently, really investigate) a sitting president"
This is totally false.
the DOJ refuses to indict (or even, apparently, really investigate) a sitting president without evidence of guilt
My addition is in bold for the sake of emphasis.
If there is evidence of guilt, then it will be investigated.
So you want to leave because you can't handle the truth? Fair enough, that's your choice and I can respect this.
Secondly, the political news section is honestly not that bad. Good political debates have happened here. It's PRSI that at times is a real cesspool where people refuse to accept any other opinion except their own matters.
Thirdly, you need to realise that the majority of the users on this forum are either democrat or left wing in their political leanings. Any talk that goes against the traditional left-wing views are heavily criticised here (mostly in PRSI). The minority of centralists and right-wing thinkers try to get fair and decent debates going (within PRSI) where both sides respect each other's opinions, but it's an uphill battle trying to get this kind of equality in PRSI.
Finally, every US citizen will feel the worst if things go downhill from now (ie all the success of the past 4 years). Some will just complain (and burn/loot/murder as well as riot in the streets). Others will positively try to do all they can to improve the country, putting the needs of their fellow citizens first. It doesn't matter if you support the current US government or not, everyone will feel it if things change and become worse.
If you don't like the political talk here then don't partake in it. There's lots of forums here totally devoid of political talk. You'd be surprised at the number of people who hate each other in PRSI (because they can't handle differences of opinion on political topics) but outside PRSI, they have great debates and conversations about Macs or iOS or whatever and actually do recpect each other's opinion. Don't let one section of the forums here turn you off the rest of the forums here which are pretty good in all honesty.
You have no idea what you're talking about. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
The DOJ has a standing policy, based on a legal opinion drawn up during the Nixon administration (though, somewhat ironically, offering an opinion on prosecution of the Vice President at the time), not to indict a sitting president — regardless of evidence. If your news sources had somehow not made that clear (see the surprisingly clear statement straight from the DOJ above), I recommend finding new ones.
The ongoing cases are either at the state level, against businesses owned or run by the President, or against people close to the President. As far as I know, there are also still active investigations into the President at the federal level (just not actual court cases), though as is the nature of such things, we don't have many details. Regardless, the more we learn, the clearer it is that certain avenues of investigation, particularly those that could have revealed financial liabilities of the President (legal or otherwise) were actively curtailed by the administration. The conflict of interest there is, hopefully, clear.
It's worth repeating a statement here that I have no reason to disbelieve (the source is trustworthy, and should know), that based on what the NYT has reported, the President of the United States of America would literally not qualify for the lowest level of security clearance, based on his outstanding financial liabilities and lack of assets through which to cover them. Even if he has done nothing illegal (and there is much to suggest otherwise), that alone is a huge problem.
As for MacRumors, balance isn't the issue. (Though, there is no such thing as balance between a lie and reality.) Threads in the political forum simply shouldn't have promoted comments unless the staff wants to moderate them continuously. Yes, the worst comments don't usually make the main page for long, but that's already not okay. I come here to read tech news, not to be reminded of the insanity going on right now in the federal government.
Last edited: