Meh, this thread has descended into petty bitching IMHO, on both sides.

I'm out.

Now, it's absolutely true that your political class have largely brought this on themselves with lobbying, etc, but it boggles my mind that you would willingly appoint someone to the highest office in the land who brags about his lack of experience.

Now, this is something that I have always wondered. These statements have been appearing online more often lately since Trump got elected. Why would you want to elect an experienced politician? Wouldn't it be like electing an experienced thief? The word politician has been synonymous to dickhead-douchebaggery assholes working in the congress who never actually gone to war, never sent their kids to war, but wanted war to happen anyway. The bastards who pass laws only to benefit themselves. It has never been a positive thing. But now, it's echoed throughout the online chamber like it's a good thing to elect an experienced politician.

The word politician has been synonymous to dickhead-douchebaggery assholes working in the congress who never actually gone to war, never sent their kids to war, but wanted war to happen anyway.

Let's keep ourselves honest and fair, here - this is blatantly untrue. A number of Congressmen and former Congressmen are former military. Just off the top of my head, John Glenn was a Marine and a test pilot who flew combat missions in WWII and Korea. John McCain was also a pilot, flying off aircraft carriers during the Vietnam War, and was actually a prisoner of war. A simple Google search reveals a list of veterans in Congress here.

Anyway, "politician" may be synonymous with what you suggest for some people, but that doesn't mean their definition is sound.

Now, it's absolutely true that your political class have largely brought this on themselves with lobbying, etc, but it boggles my mind that you would willingly appoint someone to the highest office in the land who brags about his lack of experience.

Now, this is something that I have always wondered. These statements have been appearing online more often lately since Trump got elected. Why would you want to elect an experienced politician? Wouldn't it be like electing an experienced thief? The word politician has been synonymous to dickhead-douchebaggery assholes working in the congress who never actually gone to war, never sent their kids to war, but wanted war to happen anyway. The bastards who pass laws only to benefit themselves. It has never been a positive thing. But now, it's echoed throughout the online chamber like it's a good thing to elect an experienced politician.

That's a naive and childish attitude.

First, there are plenty of honest, hardworking politicians.

Second, if I wanted something stolen, then hell yes I'd elect an experienced thief. But what the US have done is elect someone who's watched Ocean's 11 a bunch of times and thinks he's George Clooney.

There are ways of getting things done in government. Trump clearly doesn't even understand the basics of legislature... that's not electing an outsider, that's electing an idiot.

And I haven't even addressed the fact that he's clearly even more corrupt than the "dickhead-douchebaggery assholes working in the congress".... just look at his appointments.

I did not say literally ALL politicians are like that. I said synonymous. During the Bush era, the need to end the Iraq war was so great, and it was part of the Obama campaign to end that war. You heard stories after stories of families losing their sons. The general public sentiment was that it was never been the politicians' sons, but they were the ones who kept funding the war. It was negative and still was even till the election as that's part of Trump campaign's strategy, and it was working. There are so much negative stigma associated to politicians -- out of touch government workers who get to enjoy the benefits without actually putting themselves at risk.

Now that Trump is actually elected, why is it being echoed that being a politician is now a good thing?

I did not say literally ALL politicians are like that. I said synonymous. During the Bush era, the need to end the Iraq war was so great, and it was part of the Obama campaign to end that war. You heard stories after stories of families losing their sons. The general public sentiment was that it was never been the politicians' sons, but they were the ones who kept funding the war. It was negative and still was even till the election as that's part of Trump campaign's strategy, and it was working. There are so much negative stigma associated to politicians -- out of touch government workers who get to enjoy the benefits without actually putting themselves at risk.

Now that Trump is actually elected, why is it being echoed that being a politician is now a good thing?

That's been coming from the deadlock and obstruction of the senate/house that we've seen over the past few years. Very little got done because both sides refused to budge ideologically while very pressing issues just festered.

A lot of it also comes down to issues which don't really affect the average guy, but became a central debate, like gay rights, transgender bathrooms, etc. Now don't get me wrong, these are important issues, but if you don't have money in your pocket and can't find a job, you don't really give a shit.

I think the point is that people hate the kind of politicians who are doing backroom dealing with lobbyists, etc. That being said, it's one thing to find the 'outsider' like Bernie, or Obama was, or just some guy who's not really established, been around for a while, and put him into office rather than put a buffoon who's got not even the slightest idea of what politics/government/international relations are.

I think the best analogy is like so: you have a doctor who you've been using for a while, but recently he's not able to solve some pretty pressing issues that you've been having. A lot of people have said the same thing. Now the sane thing would be to at least stick with a guy who is a doctor rather than go to the plumber who's just watched a lot of ER and because he helps doctors cheat people of their money, claims it know what he's doing.

@conquestor3: I'm not even trying to debate you. You've been spinning this media is rigged against Trump bullshit for a very long time now, and I honestly don't care to debate more of it. I've repeated this a bunch of times, but I'll reiterate: if Trump shot someone, ripped up his carcass, ate it, laughed maniacally, then posted it on YouTube, you'd still proudly be bearing the "I support Trump" hat.

20 million people are about to lose their healthcare and some of them are too stupid to realise it

You know, I would be most happy if I lost my healthcare and retirement pay system. Why? Because anything that is run by the state is shit. You don't know this because your Obamacare is ridiculous compared to the socialist crap we have here, it's pretensive of "look, we do healthcare, too".

The truth about the oh-so-great healthcare and the oh-so-great retirement pay is that you pay a lot all your life, but when you are ill, you're told this and that is too expensive for you, and when you go into retirement you get next to nothing (Note: I'm not talking out of personal experience here because I belong to the small "elite" (politicians, judges, attorneys, state officers, artists, medical doctors) which is allowed to have both private healthcare and private retirement insurance. I am telling what "normal" people like e.g. my parents have to cope with every day of their lives). If you get anything, it's not yet certain what people will get in 20 years at all. What you pay for your retirement "insurance" is nothing but an extra tax. It has nothing to do with retirement pay. Two-class society in healthcare? Sure thing. I want an appointment, I go the same afternoon, and I'm not waiting 3 minutes. My mother wants an appointment, she gets one in 3 weeks. Wellfare recipient wants an appointment? Go figure, he doesn't need one. Because the wellfare office pays so well that wellfare recipients are served even before the people with private insurances.

Compare that to everybody paying an insurance at a privately owned insurance company. Sure, you have the risk that the company goes bankrupt. How often has this happened here in the past? Zero times. But in return, you get what you paid for, and you need not pay a lot. Oh, they make profit, too, how dare they.

About retirement pay: Our famous piss-prince who recently inherited (or didn't? or got part of it? who knows?) that 100 year old American actor's fortune said in an interview "Oh, and I also have my most generous retirement pay from Germany if all else fails... 320 euros per month". You might think that he was joking, but this is very accurate. It's slightly more than what my mother is getting (she currently gets 306€ after Merkel's most generous raise last year which boiled down to 6€ less after tax and insurance, we're probably the only country in the world where "you get a raise" means "you get less").
Everybody else, including foreigners from perfectly safe states who shout "me is refugee" and 25 year old slackers who are jobless since 7 years (how is that even possible?), gets about twice as much. Plus extra payments for washing machines etc, and of course an extra 200€ for buying rockets and explosives for new year. Excuse me?
If you go to prison (that's really hard to achieve, there exist people with a history of a dozen convictions of armed robbery who are on probation!) you get a luxury room with a private shower and a big flatscreen TV. I've paid 150-180€ per night for hotel rooms which were smaller and had a smaller TV (admittedly, the view from the window was somewhat nicer). That's what this socialist stuff boils down to. Punish the righteous, reward the vicious and the lazy.

So... lose your healthcare system? Sing in joy.

My only problem with Obamacare is that there's no option to opt out, and there's a fee if you don't buy insurance.

I'm in favor of a single payer competitive option though, to help decrease prices.

Compare that to everybody paying an insurance at a privately owned insurance company. Sure, you have the risk that the company goes bankrupt. How often has this happened here in the past? Zero times. But in return, you get what you paid for, and you need not pay a lot. Oh, they make profit, too, how dare they.

There is also the risk of losing your job and not being able to make regular payments for medical bills, or, you know, not being able to work *because* you are sick. So what would happen in a low-wage parent and their kids if only private insurance existed and they lost their job, maybe because their employer "downsized", maybe even because they were diagnosed with a serious illness and can't work? For how much time does the private insurance company cover their medical bills without getting paid? (genuinely asking here).

Also, relative and funny :

In that case you get medicaid, and pay $0 for emergency services as well.

My fiance (at the time) had go to the ER, and because she doesn't have a job/income they dismissed a $3,000+ medical bill.