That's the justification, that someone else pays for it. Progressive politics in a nutshell.
That's the justification, that someone else pays for it. Progressive politics in a nutshell.On the other hand, maybe they have business insurance to cover exactly these kinds of losses.
That's the justification, that someone else pays for it. Progressive politics in a nutshell.
Insurance is an entirely private product, paid for in its entirety by the premiums of policy holders for precisely this sort of reason. Jesus.That's the justification, that someone else pays for it. Progressive politics in a nutshell.
He, as a free market capitalist, is apparently very angry that these individuals freely associated in a private contract and that one of those individuals will have to fulfill its terms.The insured pays their premiums; the insurance company promises to cover their losses in accordance with the contract. Those are the terms of the deal.
Or are you opposed to all forms of insurance because it is by definition a social construct where the cost is spread across the many in the risk pool to mitigate the catastrophic losses of the few?
Where do you think the money for those premiums comes from?Insurance is an entirely private product, paid for in its entirety by the premiums of policy holders for precisely this sort of reason. Jesus.
It is consistently amazing how conservatives lack even a basic understanding of economics. This is why reasoning with you guys is so hard, you expect the world to conform to how you wish it worked as opposed to how it actually works.
The money for the premiums comes from other people choosing to engage in free market transactions with the businesses. Who is making a third party pay for anything? This is the arrangement both parties signed up for!Where do you think the money for those premiums comes from?
Have you ever seen a policy that excludes civil unrest along with war and acts of god? I have.
Why do the perpetrators get a pass? Why is it wrong for anyone to defend their property against criminals? Rather than make a third party pay for damage from criminals, stop the criminals. Is that so hard to understand? Those folks have the right to protest, they don't have the right to riot and loot. Put the responsibility where it belongs.
Abusing the power of govt to violently suppress any differing opinion. Republican politics in a nutshell.That's the justification, that someone else pays for it. Progressive politics in a nutshell.
What I thought was interesting was that he thought the insurance companies paying out was ‘someone else paying for it’ instead of the businesses getting what was agreed upon in the terms of their contract that they paid premiums for every month.Abusing the power of govt to violently suppress any differing opinion. Republican politics in a nutshell.
The perpetrators get a pass for the same reason we judge from the perspective innocent until proven guilty, for the same reason we don't allow warrantless searches, etc; because the damage caused to the innocent trying to punish the guilty far exceeds the damage caused by the guilty. If local law enforcement is able to prosecute those engaging in violence and vandalism without widespread violation of the civil rights of the peaceful protestors, they are welcome to. In fact it would be great. But any competent observer can see that the damage being done is happening by a small minority of the protestors. Anyone that is really concerned about government upholding the constitution is concerned by the response of federal law enforcement to these protests, not the small amount of property damage that is ocurring.Why do the perpetrators get a pass? Why is it wrong for anyone to defend their property against criminals? Rather than make a third party pay for damage from criminals, stop the criminals. Is that so hard to understand? Those folks have the right to protest, they don't have the right to riot and loot. Put the responsibility where it belongs.
Agreed, and I acknowledge that Trump is fanning the flames, but I will never understand the logic in protesting police brutality by engaging in behaviors that create a public safety hazard and require an assertive police response.Makes steps so cops dont kneel on someones neck for 8 minutes and etc. Without it this will happen again when a person dies from an abusive cop.
All Trump has done is add fuel to the fire and did a photo shoot with a bible in front of a church.
Where do you think the money for those premiums comes from?
Have you ever seen a policy that excludes civil unrest along with war and acts of god? I have.
Why do the perpetrators get a pass? Why is it wrong for anyone to defend their property against criminals? Rather than make a third party pay for damage from criminals, stop the criminals. Is that so hard to understand? Those folks have the right to protest, they don't have the right to riot and loot. Put the responsibility where it belongs.
Yes they do, but not all businesses are able to bounce back from such an eventOn the other hand, maybe they have business insurance to cover exactly these kinds of losses.
Do you grok how insurance works? Cause it sounds like it equals socialism up in your brain...That's the justification, that someone else pays for it. Progressive politics in a nutshell.
Agreed, and I acknowledge that Trump is fanning the flames, but I will never understand the logic in protesting police brutality by engaging in behaviors that create a public safety hazard and require an assertive police response.
Do you grok how insurance works? Cause it sounds like it equals socialism up in your brain...
Where do you think the money for those premiums comes from?
Have you ever seen a policy that excludes civil unrest along with war and acts of god? I have.
Why do the perpetrators get a pass? Why is it wrong for anyone to defend their property against criminals? Rather than make a third party pay for damage from criminals, stop the criminals. Is that so hard to understand? Those folks have the right to protest, they don't have the right to riot and loot. Put the responsibility where it belongs.
I honestly see how the two can get confused because as Paul Krugman put it the government in a modern sense is basically an insurance company with an army. So, when the insurance company dispenses benefits similar to what a government would do, *click, whirr* someone is getting away with something other people paid for.No, I don't think he does. Nor does he know much about politics.
If Trump/Republicans/you are so concerned about well being of business owners, answer me this: have Trump actions of putting boots on the ground made matters better or worse for the business owners? Are business owners better off or worse after Trump deployed his little green men in Portland?Fair response, although in the two cases where they tried that in Seattle, it led to the loss of human life. For the business owners who are already suffering the losses of a pandemic, maybe they can’t afford to shoulder the additional loss of revenue and the destruction of their livelihoods.
The agitators are the ones damaging the businesses, so they are the ones directly responsible for making it worst. A federal presence is no excuse to riot. It’s possible to nonviolently protest the federal government the same as thousands if not millions of people have done in support of BLM.If Trump/Republicans/you are so concerned about well being of business owners, answer me this: have Trump actions of putting boots on the ground made matters better or worse for the business owners? Are business owners better off or worse after Trump deployed his little green men in Portland?
Let me make it easy for you - no DHS troops on the ground X amount of damage. DHS troops on the ground resulted in 10X damage. This is a direct result of Trump's decision. He chose a path, and he chose wrong. That is entirely on him and his administration.The agitators are the ones damaging the businesses, so they are the ones directly responsible for making it worst. A federal presence is no excuse to riot. It’s possible to nonviolently protest the federal government the same as thousands if not millions of people have done in support of BLM.
So your argument is that the only viable response to a federal presence was to riot.Let me make it easy for you - no DHS troops on the ground X amount of damage. DHS troops on the ground resulted in 10X damage. This is a direct result of Trump's decision. He chose a path, and he chose wrong. That is entirely on him and his administration.
Let me make it easy for you - no DHS troops on the ground X amount of damage. DHS troops on the ground resulted in 10X damage. This is a direct result of Trump's decision. He chose a path, and he chose wrong. That is entirely on him and his administration.
So your argument is that the only viable response to a federal presence was to riot.