Donald Trump tried to sidestep giving a policy position on health care, and walked straight off of a rhetorical cliff.
During the presidential debate Tuesday night, Trump struggled to answer a question about his healthcare plan, accidentally revealing that he didn’t have one at all.
After his particularly lackluster response criticizing Obamacare but giving no alternatives, ABC moderate Linsey Davis asked Trump outright if he knew what he was talking about. “Yes or no, you still do not have a plan?” she said.
“I have concepts of a plan,” Trump replied. “I’m not president right now.”
The plan is no plan. tear it all down and let the peasants fend for themselves. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Naw the system protects assholes like trump.
Tearing it all down would give us peasants too much power.
Just saying “The System” absolves the ones abusing it of blame
It does? Interesting.
Do go on. How does recognizing that the government/infrastructure and such exists, and referring to that absolve anyone of anything?
Also… it’s not being abused. It’s designed to function this way. Which is why those “abusers” won’t tear it down and start over.
Like I said, because you’re assigning the blame to The System instead of the people in it. Sometimes the system is set up in a way which harms people. Most of the time the people in the system are misusing it or ignoring protections that it stipulates to harm people. By always blaming The System only, you are ignoring the harm that these people in particular are causing and are misattributing the blame to other factors.
If the people are bad, the system will produce bad outcomes. It is easier to change the system than to change the people, but they still deserve blame.
A gun, knife, screwdriver isn’t to be blamed for murder or the coercion they enabled any more than the government and legal system is to be blamed for anything.
Machines, tools, things cannot be guilty of anything, even if they’re used in a crime.
People are guilty, the people who built it, and who maintain it, and yes, the people who use it. I’m not excusing anyone of anything.
I think you are, though, by failing to realize that whatever you want to call it, it’s fundamentally designed to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots.
Trump using the system to stay out of jail isn’t abuse. It’s meant to be used that way.
You keep using passive voice. When you say “it’s meant to be used that way”, what do you mean? Who meant it to be used that way? The people who created it? They didn’t intend this. The people who modified it over time? That’s more than one distinct group. Or are you saying the design of the system itself incentivizes that use? Because I don’t think I agree with that either.
Also as an aside: Depending on what you mean by “blame”, inanimate objects may be eligible imo. They can’t be culpable, but they can share causal blame.
(I also feel compelled to mention that civil asset forfeiture frequently assigns guilt to inanimate objects, but I think we can agree that that legal practice is batshit insane.)
Yes. I used general language because you’re getting all bent out of shape, missing the forest for the trees.
If we’re at the critiquing grammar stage, I guess there’s no further point. If you genuinely don’t know who and what I mean, that’s your problem.
This isn’t a grammar issue, this is a “you’re being vague” issue. I’m simply asking for clarity. If you cannot provide that, you don’t understand enough about your own position for me to care.
The plan is to become president. Full stop.
I mean yeah, that’s what they mean by “small government”