TSB
General => General Discussion and ??? => Topic started by: blue moon on November 09, 2016, 10:46:59 AM
-
This is going to be an exception to the no political comments in the regular area so please keep it civilized!
Soooooo, whaddya think?
pierre
-
People spoke, issues won, people are tired of the corruption, being lied to, tired of self serving government. People want America to be great again, blue collar workers stood up and said enough of this crap and so did I.
-
I wasn't sure if the polling was 100% accurate heading in. I felt like it oversampled democrats just because what seemed like a lack of enthusiasm.
It made for some great nail biting TV though. I did think Trump's acceptance speech was very good. It was a great departure from partisan rhetoric.
I think what you saw was a repudiation of Clinton and the political elites more than it was a win for Trump. I think the 2 best things to come out of this election is the end of the Clintons and (hopefully) the end of the Bushes.
-
They already made the movie about this several years back.
-
Hell of a a$$ kicking was dished out and the establishment was defeated in amazing fashion. This should open doors for others going forward.
-
I just hope people do realize the factory jobs are not coming back. Shirts will not be made here again and so on. So if trade deals get ripped up with China - they will just go somewhere else for production of tvs and phones and other things. It doesn't matter who is president. We will continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. Nothing is going to change in that arena.
-
Not being a American I was shocked by the whole process and mudslinging.
It's a democracy so we wish President Trump the best of luck.
I believe in his acceptance speech he already toned down his rhetoric.
One thing, he talks about bringing all those jobs home but from what I read on TSB there are not that many people who really want to do them.
It's going to be interesting to see the relationship between a President who did not emerge from one of the parties and in fact clashed with them quite a lot. Has this ever happened before?
-
People spoke, issues won, people are tired of the corruption, being lied to, tired of self serving government. People want America to be great again, blue collar workers stood up and said enough of this crap and so did I.
[/quote
Well said!
-
People made a choice, so we get what we get good or bad and have to live with it for 4 years and if they like it 4 more after that.
-
I just hope people do realize the factory jobs are not coming back. Shirts will not be made here again and so on. So if trade deals get ripped up with China - they will just go somewhere else for production of tvs and phones and other things. It doesn't matter who is president. We will continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. Nothing is going to change in that arena.
People don't realize they aren't coming back though. That's a big part of why blue collar white voters supported him, but they truly don't get that globalization and automation aren't going away and will only increase unless some truly regressive and draconian policy is instituted that will hurt our economy even more.
I posted about this in the cage (but will water it down a bit here), but I really hope his supporters who think he is anti-establishment understand that he has surrounded himself with the likes of Giuliani, Christie, Gingrich, Bachmann, and a slew of other career politicians that have been embroiled in controversies and scandals throughout their careers. It also looks like he is going to put people like Steven Mnuchin in charge of the Treasury, a Goldman Sachs exec. He is pretty clearly more of the same. I'd also like to point out that incumbents overwhelmingly won in all other races, at the federal and state level.
I can only hope when he fails to live up to his promises for change, despite having a republican house, senate, and supreme court that his supporters hold him accountable, but I doubt it.
-
I can only hope when he fails to live up to his promises for change, despite having a republican house, senate, and supreme court that his supporters hold him accountable, but I doubt it.
[/quote]
when has this happened for any candidate. NEVER they all lie and tell you what they think you want and need to know.
-
so there is plenty to be scared of as possibilities of a major screwup are significant. What about the possibility that it actually works out? Could he go in for 4 years, shake things loose and force a reset button? It's the Cleveland mentality in me, "There's always next
year election!"
pierre
-
Well I hope when they put the wall up between Canada and the US they leave a gate open so I can visit Mickey in the winter :)
-
The main difference this time around will be Trump has the full support of congress.
I believe most candidates at least try to fulfill their campaign promises, but compromises and obstructionism are an inherent part of politics, and the legislative results are often watered down (like the ACA) or fail to become law (like gun control). Obama will be viewed by history as a good president who was mostly ineffective due to unprecedented obstructionism from his opponents in congress, not because he abandoned his campaign promises en masse. Trump will likely be a rubber stamp for congress, but I doubt we even hear about his token "policies" like The Wall or congressional term limits once he is actually in office.
As for things "working out", I don't think white men have anything to worry about, but everyone else...
I just really hope we don't have another 9/11 type event because I seriously question Trumps ability to react in a rational and measured way to something like that.
-
Again, folks really didn't vote for Trump as much as they voted against Clinton and the establishment. Trump is an outsider. He's never held office in his life. Will he be more of the same? Probably.
I don't see a wall happening, or half of what he promised. It never does. Remember, Guantanamo is still open. We do need to start balancing the budget, $17,000,000,000,000 is a lot of money to be in debt.
His speech last night did give me some hope for a positive outcome. And I think Hillary's speech today was great as well. Now is the time for unity. Stop protesting and move on, so you didn't get your way, focus your energy on something that benefits other people.
As for things "working out", I don't think white men have anything to worry about, but everyone else...
Do you have anything to back that up?
-
what i think is funny is how some think this election was about bringing jobs back. they will not come back period. if they look further down the road you will see another mass loss of jobs and gov money when the driverless cars and truck start to go full swing.
think about it. no traffic tickets, drivers not insured cars and systems are, no extra charges for bs pull overs. no dui's, speeding, failrue to yield etc no need for traffic courts, all the revenue from tickets courts probation etc. and this is not even thinking about long haul truck drivers.
-
As for things "working out", I don't think white men have anything to worry about, but everyone else...
what a bunch of bull.
oh do not forget Obama had the house and senate his first term which is how the ACA was passed, and that program has done wonders for all right.
-
Again, folks really didn't vote for Trump as much as they voted against Clinton and the establishment. Trump is an outsider. He's never held office in his life. Will he be more of the same? Probably.
I don't see a wall happening, or half of what he promised. It never does. Remember, Guantanamo is still open. We do need to start balancing the budget, $17,000,000,000,000 is a lot of money to be in debt.
His speech last night did give me some hope for a positive outcome. And I think Hillary's speech today was great as well. Now is the time for unity. Stop protesting and move on, so you didn't get your way, focus your energy on something that benefits other people.
As for things "working out", I don't think white men have anything to worry about, but everyone else...
Do you have anything to back that up?
https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/796249464826687488 (https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/796249464826687488)
-
Again, folks really didn't vote for Trump as much as they voted against Clinton and the establishment. Trump is an outsider. He's never held office in his life. Will he be more of the same? Probably.
I don't see a wall happening, or half of what he promised. It never does. Remember, Guantanamo is still open. We do need to start balancing the budget, $17,000,000,000,000 is a lot of money to be in debt.
His speech last night did give me some hope for a positive outcome. And I think Hillary's speech today was great as well. Now is the time for unity. Stop protesting and move on, so you didn't get your way, focus your energy on something that benefits other people.
As for things "working out", I don't think white men have anything to worry about, but everyone else...
Do you have anything to back that up?
Only tons and tons of Trumps own words, his supporters own words, etc.
Honestly, I hope I am completely wrong about the guy. I hope I am completely wrong about Republicans in general. I hope with control of the presidency, the senate, and the house they choose to focus on actually working for the people and improving this country in ways that matter, but man am I skeptical based on the last 30 years.
-
but man am I skeptical based on the last 30 years.
you do realize the last 30years 16 of them were democrats.
-
Hillary would have been more of the same and that's going so well. We can continue to play that same game as a country or we can start trying options. Do I think Trump was our best option, not in any shape or form. As always we are essentially presented with 2 people we aren't happy with....so keep the status quo or try something else. Lets see how it goes.
-
As for things "working out", I don't think white men have anything to worry about, but everyone else...
what a bunch of bull.
oh do not forget Obama had the house and senate his first term which is how the ACA was passed, and that program has done wonders for all right.
He had a majority in the house for 2 years, half of his first term. He had a filibuster proof super majority in the senate for 7 months. The ACA was passed after he lost this supermajority and the most important aspect of that legislation (public option) was shelved as a compromise to appease obstructionists on the right (who were influenced mainly by lobbying from the private insurance industry). The version we ended up with underwent massive changes to become passable and is watered down and broken in many ways, but there are numerous aspects of it that are good. My parents have insurance now specifically because of it. It is objectively not the disaster the right makes it out to be, even with it's faults. Repealing it will not magically bring down healthcare costs for anyone, and believing it will is ignorant. Healthcare costs are what they are because private healthcare is profit motivated. We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as the next most expensive country, are the only country where people lose their homes and savings because they get sick, and have relatively mediocre care comparatively. If you honestly think people in Europe and Canada aren't exceedingly proud of their systems and would trade them for what we have, you're the victim of a propaganda campaign instead of looking at facts.
-
but man am I skeptical based on the last 30 years.
you do realize the last 30years 16 of them were democrats.
Democrats have had control of the presidency, senate, and the house for 4 years total since Jimmy Carter. My point isnt "who was in the white house", its that Republicans have chosen to focus on narrow social issues that appease conservative Christians, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, growing the surveillance/police state, and want to get rid of things like the EPA that exist specifically to protect citizens from corporate interests.
-
My biggest concern, and this is serious.
Trump will now have control over the @POTUS twitter account!
-
My biggest concern, and this is serious.
Trump will now have control over the @POTUS twitter account!
Dank Meme's
-
My biggest concern, and this is serious.
Trump will now have control over the @POTUS twitter account!
Trump drunk tweets would be funny. I doubt he'll have any control over what goes up there, and that's probably a good thing.
The funniest twitter handle I've seen in a long time is @berniethoughts of course I gave up on twitter a while back, so I am sure there is something funnier now...maybe that guy will do trump tweets now.
-
I find it interesting that Trump is accused of being a bully by a segment of folks that have bullied white, middle class Americans for a few decades now. We call the liberals folks wrong, they call us evil. The fact is, and we proved it in this election, we are sick and tiered of being called racists and haters and whatever else they would call us when we don't fall in line. We are tired of footing the bill financially. We are tiered of the federal government telling us how to run our lives. This is a link to an article that was published back in March that pretty well called the way it was going to go down, so don't be surprised. Our own little TSB voter polled reflected this...We've had enough...we organized our vote and our voice was heard.And it didn't take 2 billion dollars that the democrats spent on this election cycle. Thank you Donald Trump for helping our voice to be heard.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/15/forgotten-americans-are-engaged-and-gop-must-not-fail-them-again.html (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/15/forgotten-americans-are-engaged-and-gop-must-not-fail-them-again.html)
-
I just wish more people educated themselves on the political system and what's really going on instead of reading FB click bait posts and basing their opinion on that. We really do have a ton of people that really have no idea what is going on and how to fact check. I find it hard to support anyone running for office with a fear based agenda versus this is what I am going to do and here is the plan.
-
but man am I skeptical based on the last 30 years.
you do realize the last 30years 16 of them were democrats.
Democrats have had control of the presidency, senate, and the house for 4 years total since Jimmy Carter. My point isnt "who was in the white house", its that Republicans have chosen to focus on narrow social issues that appease conservative Christians, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, growing the surveillance/police state, and want to get rid of things like the EPA that exist specifically to protect citizens from corporate interests.
I voted, went home, ate, watched couple of movies, played guitar for a while, tuned in to see what was happening, and was pleased, as l liked seeing the establishment, the self described elite, taking one squarely in the nuts... I despise the elite, I know them well, and they are supported by people who never realize they are being lied to, and just continue to believe the lie... if you think the politicians are on your side, you are being used as a tool... just keep your noses to the grindstone, and treat others as you would have them treat you.
Steve
-
I just wish more people educated themselves on the political system and what's really going on instead of reading FB click bait posts and basing their opinion on that. We really do have a ton of people that really have no idea what is going on and how to fact check. I find it hard to support anyone running for office with a fear based agenda versus this is what I am going to do and here is the plan.
If that is directed toward me, I certainly take exception. I know the gentleman that wrote the article and we have talk about this with each other. You probably didn't even read the article. Yesterday's election had NOTHING to do with policy. A majority of people in this country are tired of status quo and were willing to take a chance on Trump to change it up.
-
The election ended for me when Cruz dropped out. Yesterday I voted for Mcmullin here in VA. I stopped voting for the lesser of two evils a long time ago. The candidates the parties nominated were wholly unacceptable for me. It is always nice to see democrats lose, but at the end of the day they are both big government progressives with similar ideology. Trump doesn't even believe the things that come out his mouth. There are no core values or principles between his ears. He is a liberals caricature of a conservative. He did nothing but pander through the primary and general. Like Obama, he is many things to many people. He is what you want him to be. I'll give DT the benefit of the doubt for now... but I seriously doubt much will improve. I don't think he will be able to implement most of his campaign promises, but I am afraid what will happen to our economy if Trump ends up getting tariffs implemented. That could be devastating for our industry.
-
Probably a good day and good place to mention our Controversy Cage, a section limited to those who actually opt-in with a PM or email to me.
This is generally the only place to go for the truly controversial subjects that may get a bit more heated than we would generally permit on the forum.
As I said, PM me if you want to check it out...if you dare.
-
Just regarding all of the celebs promising to leave because Trump won.
Leave. But renounce your citizenship while you're at it because you're not an American. You're filthy rich and spoiled. You have the wherewithal to do it, then breeze back in on a whim. Those who voted against Trump don't, and conversely, had Hillary won those who voted against her are moving on with their lives because, win or lose, it's still their country.
That said, I ran across this because whichever side you voted for you can't deny that it's funny as hell . . . L.A. street artist Sabo started putting these up -- there's a whole slew of them and a link to them on Drudge under "Celebrity Moving Sale Posters Flood LA" . . .
-
I suspect that this will lead to a lot of material for the comedians of the world. One of the more amusing thoughts that crossed my mind was visualising Trump as the new presidential character in any typical Hollywood disaster movie, or maybe the ones where he has to deal with alien contact etc.
Not quite the Morgan Freeman type...
-
It was the most interesting and crazy election I've ever witnessed. Glad it is over.
-
I just wish more people educated themselves on the political system and what's really going on instead of reading FB click bait posts and basing their opinion on that. We really do have a ton of people that really have no idea what is going on and how to fact check. I find it hard to support anyone running for office with a fear based agenda versus this is what I am going to do and here is the plan.
If that is directed toward me, I certainly take exception. I know the gentleman that wrote the article and we have talk about this with each other. You probably didn't even read the article. Yesterday's election had NOTHING to do with policy. A majority of people in this country are tired of status quo and were willing to take a chance on Trump to change it up.
Actually, it wasn't directed at you. In fact, as I was posting my comment I got the warning that someone else had posted while I was writing my post. I am not sure what article you are talking about. In your own words, yesterday's election had nothing to do with policy. That in itself is a sad state of affairs. I understand the shake up people voted for and will accept the outcome. I am not bitter. I just wish people would educate themselves on the issues and not develop opinions based upon FB posts that have no merit. The stakes are way too high to simply roll the dice without knowing any factual information.
-
Voted Obama twice, there was NO WAY I was going to vote for HER.
Trump is an interesting character, lets see what he can do.
But FIRST, we need to let him to TRY to do something.
Would not label myself Republican or Democrat, if I really had to chose I would probably lean a bit to the Democratic side.
BUT, that side lost it when they chose HER over Bernie.
-
Voted Obama twice, there was NO WAY I was going to vote for HER.
Trump is an interesting character, lets see what he can do.
But FIRST, we need to let him to TRY to do something.
Would not label myself Republican or Democrat, if I really had to chose I would probably lean a bit to the Democratic side.
BUT, that side lost it when they chose HER over Bernie.
that's assuming they had a choice. It's come up now that Bernie might have been blackmailed. . .
pierre
-
Bernie would have cleaned the floor with Trump I suspect. Even though I don't really like him either.
-
I was never excited about Trump, he wasn't my 1st choice or even 2nd (or 5th). But, I'll be honest, voting against Clinton was effortless. Joyous, even.....
She is rotten to the core, little more than an "UNindited Felon" awaiting justice. Good riddance.....
Remember Larry Nichols? He was a CLOSE Clinton advisor (fixer, really... "Hit Man" even....) during the Clinton's Arkansas years. He turned on them during the impeachment. I read/heard him often during that time, and I even called him on the telephone once. (How I got his number is still a mystery) Anyhow, it was very enlightening to learn from him, the depths of depravity Bill was capable of that was largely buried by the mainstream media. But according to Larry Nichols as of last Sunday night when I heard him on the radio, compared to Hillary, Bill was just a lovable doofus. Hillary is pure evil by comparison. (my paraphrase)
So yeah. What I think re: USA Elections is we absolutely dodged a bullet, only to be sure there may be another one in the chamber.
But what frightens me is that almost 60 MMMMMmillion(!) voters must have thought that known sack of corruption would be better than a question mark serial adulterer with bad hair and and Orangutan spray-tan.
And speaking of fears, also I fear in the next 70 or so days, Trump's arguably excessive loyalty will cloud his judgement and he'll invite some of the same old foxes right back into the hen house. The next few weeks are "make or break" with the 3000 or so selections that need to be made. And lots of those foxes are jumping up, waving their arms, yelling ME! ME! ME!
Sheesh!....
My dad would be 90 next year, were he still alive. He was 1 (one) the last time the GOP won the White House, the House and the Senate.
There are NO EXCUSES NOW, so its put up, or shut up. Lets see what ya got. Socialism doesn't work for long, it never has. So lets see if you can fix this mess.
It's Show Time...
-
Bernie would have defeated Trump, Bernie does not have the baggage Hillary had so Trump would have been forced to stay on point and run on policy which we can all agree that department was always lacking. I will always say it as much as I do not agree with Bernies policies I do appreciate an honest man and that is what he was, I would prefer an honest man with policies I disagree with versus dishonest people that you never know what their true intentions are.
-
Bernie would have defeated Trump, Bernie does not have the baggage Hillary had so Trump would have been forced to stay on point and run on policy which we can all agree that department was always lacking. I will always say it as much as I do not agree with Bernies policies I do appreciate an honest man and that is what he was, I would prefer an honest man with policies I disagree with versus dishonest people that you never know what their true intentions are.
I think you are right, Bernie at least is honorable, the only thing they had other than his views(that a lot of people don't agree with) was his wife and her handling of some college that went bankrupt. I don't recall the details, but compared to Clinton and Trump, they are angels.
The meltdown on twitter and facebook has been unreal. One of the guys here said he can't tell anybody he voted for Trump because he knows he'll be attacked on FB. My wife had some friends over yesterday and one of the ladies just wouldn't let up on why my wife could ever vote for him. Even after my wife started the whole get together off with "we aren't talking politics." My cousin is posting images of the Nazi occupation of Paris right now to drive his point home.
It's really sad that we are this divided. Right now there are riots taking place..that is the EXACT kind of stuff I am tired of seeing. You NEVER saw any of this by the tea party. As a matter of fact, we cleaned up after ourselves. Rioters right now are lighting crap on fire and clashing with police.
-
No excuse for riots regardless of who you support. That said, people are reacting strongly because the guy has been shitting on minorities, immigrants, women, etc for the whole campaign and those groups are scared and angry. I don't blame them for feeling that way, even if I don't condone their actions.
-
You NEVER saw any of this by the tea party. As a matter of fact, we cleaned up after ourselves. Rioters right now are lighting crap on fire and clashing with police.
Malheur?
Certainly didn't clean up after that one...
-
No excuse for riots regardless of who you support. That said, people are reacting strongly because the guy has been shitting on minorities, immigrants, women, etc for the whole campaign and those groups are scared and angry. I don't blame them for feeling that way, even if I don't condone their actions.
And anybody supporting Trump is a deplorable. I have no problem with strong reactions, that is exactly what the tea party was. I've been called a racist and sexist by my in-laws for the way I voted.
I was disappointed in 2008 and 2012, but I realized the sun still rises and life will go on. I only see Trump president for 4 years.
I'm sorry, but I DO blame folks for feeling that way. It's an election, it's not the end of your life or the world. There is no need for protests before he even takes office and does ANYTHING. We understand you are upset, but get used to disappointment, life is full of it.
-
You NEVER saw any of this by the tea party. As a matter of fact, we cleaned up after ourselves. Rioters right now are lighting crap on fire and clashing with police.
Malheur?
Certainly didn't clean up after that one...
I don't recall the Tea Party being a part of that one. Most of those are sovereign staters and militiamen.
-
... several quick observations:
1) Democracy works, those who voted chose the politicians that will govern.
2) Roughly 50% of the population didn't vote... that's pitiful.
3) In the swing states about 35% didn't vote... again, pitiful
4) The democratic party turn-out in 2008 was almost 70 million, in 2016 around 60 million.
5) How people could believe that a man who has never actually done one decent thing for the "common" man will be looking out for their future baffles me. Hell, he refuses give any consideration to the impact of global warning, which easily has the potential to pose more danger to this country's future than immigrants, terrorists and trade deals combined.
6) I, for one, won't rest easy knowing he has access to nuclear strike capability.
7) The rest of governing falls into the hands of congress, which has never been all that impressive, regardless of party make-up. But we have always survived (and at times thrived) no matter how inept they performed their duties.
-
I see a lot of sky is falling style posts.... if you are wrong expect to be called out on that if it doesn't fall. Over reacting really doesn't help any situation.
-
Both George Washington and John Adams warned of the problems of the two party system over two hundred years ago. Seems as if the hit the nail right on the head.
John Adams said:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
-
No excuse for riots regardless of who you support. That said, people are reacting strongly because the guy has been shitting on minorities, immigrants, women, etc for the whole campaign and those groups are scared and angry. I don't blame them for feeling that way, even if I don't condone their actions.
Can you please reference these events in which your say DT is shitting on minorities, immigrants, women, "ETC" - BTW what falls into etc? I have a few very close family members and friends that have dealt personally with DT and his network since the early 80's in which every single one of them have nothing but positive things to say. I have multiple stories that he went out of his way to help these so called crap ons.
The majority of people acting strongly have no effing clue what they are even protesting over and it seems like there's little to no substance in these arguments. The way people react to a story is mainly due to how the story was presented. The media drives theses stories of Trump treating people like crap but there's no basis behind it. It reminds me of this video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU)
A great example of the type of people that are out on the streets rioting...... The majority have not a damn clue
-
Smart (legal) minorities and underemployed (legal) minorities should have been Trumps number 1 supporter.
-
off the top of my head "etc" would include people with disabilities, LGBT folks, muslims, jews, and POW's. Sorry I didn't put the full list in my original list. :shrug:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+racist+and+misogynistic+quotes (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+racist+and+misogynistic+quotes)
-
No excuse for riots regardless of who you support. That said, people are reacting strongly because the guy has been shitting on minorities, immigrants, women, etc for the whole campaign and those groups are scared and angry. I don't blame them for feeling that way, even if I don't condone their actions.
Can you please reference these events in which your say DT is shitting on minorities, immigrants, women, "ETC" - BTW what falls into etc? I have a few very close family members and friends that have dealt personally with DT and his network since the early 80's in which every single one of them have nothing but positive things to say. I have multiple stories that he went out of his way to help these so called crap ons.
The majority of people acting strongly have no effing clue what they are even protesting over and it seems like there's little to no substance in these arguments. The way people react to a story is mainly due to how the story was presented. The media drives theses stories of Trump treating people like crap but there's no basis behind it. It reminds me of this video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU)
A great example of the type of people that are out on the streets rioting...... The majority have not a damn clue
You honestly need proof of how he treats and respects women? This is the same guy that when he dislikes you as a woman he criticizes your looks. This is the same guy that on national TV made fun of a disabled reporter. This is the same guy that repeatedly over and over made fun of Hillary because he assumed she was sick. This is the same guy that believes if you have are in position to either judge or opine about and you are not white then its unfair to Trump. This is the same guy that brags about going into dressing rooms with women because he is the owner (this includes teenage pageants).
-
They're US elections, Pierre--we're not supposed to think.
FWIW, I just popped in to clarify something--we are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.
I'll leave it up to reader exercise to understand how important that is in the current context.
-
It reminds me of this video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU)
A great example of the type of people that are out on the streets rioting...... The majority have not a damn clue
This!
-
They're US elections, Pierre--we're not supposed to think.
FWIW, I just popped in to clarify something--we are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.
I'll leave it up to reader exercise to understand how important that is in the current context.
I like this post.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anNWYPfK2oU)
"This video of cherry picked idiots on TV proves everyone who doesn't like the guy who has said racist and misogynistic crap throughout the campaign has no idea why they don't like him!" OK, yea...
But hey, there are a bunch of dumbasses out there, so we better cut even more funding to schools to fix it, right? right?
-
Is there a difference between being a racist and being insensitive and if so, where is that line?
-
this describes it PERFECTLY for me. Warning, language...and really annoying camera work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs)
-
this describes it PERFECTLY for me. Warning, language...and really annoying camera work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs)
Very well said...
-
The Electoral College gave us Trump, not voters. Clinton won the popular vote.
But the bigger issue here is that over 90 million registered voters, didn't vote at all.
-
The Electoral College gave us Trump, not voters. Clinton won the popular vote.
But the bigger issue here is that over 90 million registered voters, didn't vote at all.
of course they didn't because in states that are solidly blue or solidly red, what's the point in voting?
-
I guess if your attacker is bigger and stronger than you are it's just best to lay down and die. Right?
-
this describes it PERFECTLY for me. Warning, language...and really annoying camera work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs)
NAILED IT!!!
-
I understand the point of the electoral college in theory, but it really doesn't make much sense with current demographics and the broad range of complex issues government has to tackle. Of course, first past the post voting is also archaic and inherently flawed vs a number of other voting systems designed and tested around the world over the last 240 years. At the time we formed our system, it was revolutionary and in many ways it "works", but we really should be implementing systems that encourage broadened representation and forces coalition governance among a spectrum of political ideologies.
Maine passed ranked voting this week though, so we will finally have at least a small sampling of how those systems work in and against our broader FPTP system. Everyone on both sides saying Bernie would have won instead of Hillary would probably have seen that happen in a ranked voting system where all 3 of those candidates were on the ballot for example. It will be interesting to see if the concept becomes popular and we finally have a true means for more parties to become involved at the federal level.
As for lack of participation, it is of course a huge issue, especially considering Trump's "broad support" was actually lower than Romney or McCain and they both lost. People can believe whatever they want, but the reality of this election is turnout was horrible, and while Clinton being a "bad" candidate probably played a role, so did gutting the Voting Rights Act. I also think we seriously need to encourage wider participation by making Election Day a holiday, making registering and verifying your vote easier, and stopping with the shenanigans that try to limit turnout in the name of stopping individual voter fraud which happens on a scale that is so small that it is absolutely a non-issue in our elections.
-
The video was awesome and well said by the Brit. What is sad tho is he is dead right Trump represents change no matter what the change is, but Trump is already showing his true colors and surrounding himself with Washington insiders and goddam lobbyists. Guliani and Christie are on the fast track to appointments, and close friends of major banking firms are being considered for Treasury. Wow! He is not draining the swamp he is bringing back the monsters.
-
I think that is what is so disappointing, people were conned. I don't think everyone is a racist and a misogynist for voting for Trump, but I do think he is both and I think there are large parts of his base that are as well. The KKK is literally holding parades celebrating his win. What I don't get though is why people think his murky promises of "change" somehow fully excused those views, especially when it is so obvious that those promises are hollow. I mean the guy is surrounded by some of the most ridiculous career politicians and crony capitalist you can think of, yet you think he is going to "change" everything? He ran a campaign on rhetoric designed specifically around the idea of "us vs them", and you think he is going to "unite" everyone? He is already removing campaign promises from his website. Congress has already shot down many of the rest. The realities of the global economy mean the jobs aren't coming back, and renegotiating trade deals like NAFTA is going to freak over farmers and manufacturers even more. I just don't get what people honestly thought would happen...
He has both the house and the senate so he should be able to effectively do whatever he wants. When the only thing that happens is repealing Obamacare without an alternative and tax cuts for the rich, who are his supporters going to blame?
-
I think that is what is so disappointing, people were conned. I don't think everyone is a racist and a misogynist for voting for Trump, but I do think he is both and I think there are large parts of his base that are as well. The KKK is literally holding parades celebrating his win. What I don't get though is why people think his murky promises of "change" somehow fully excused those views, especially when it is so obvious that those promises are hollow. I mean the guy is surrounded by some of the most ridiculous career politicians and crony capitalist you can think of, yet you think he is going to "change" everything? He ran a campaign on rhetoric designed specifically around the idea of "us vs them", and you think he is going to "unite" everyone? He is already removing campaign promises from his website. Congress has already shot down many of the rest. The realities of the global economy mean the jobs aren't coming back, and renegotiating trade deals like NAFTA is going to freak over farmers and manufacturers even more. I just don't get what people honestly thought would happen...
He has both the house and the senate so he should be able to effectively do whatever he wants. When the only thing that happens is repealing Obamacare without an alternative and tax cuts for the rich, who are his supporters going to blame?
If he repeals Obamacare it will all be worth it.
-
I wonder if the 20+ million people who will lose their care would agree with you? Will you be just as happy those people are getting freaked when your premiums continue to rise and you end up having to pay more out of pocket for less care?
-
I wonder if the 20+ million people who will lose their care would agree with you? Will you be just as happy those people are getting freaked when your premiums continue to rise and you end up having to pay more out of pocket for less care?
It's not hard to get 20 million people on it when you MAKE THEM SIGN UP FOR IT.
Again, we've already had this discussion and I'm sure this will get moved soon.
Simple math for you. I used to have a plan on my own that cost $50 a month with actually decent deductibles. I bought it on the free market (you know that evil thing you liberals hate so much.) I just checked today because my wife and I will be full time in our business come January 1st. The CHEAPEST plan for us both is $545.15 a month. Do you know what that includes? NOTHING. $7150 deductible EACH and it pays for NOTHING. No doctor visits, prescriptions, NOTHING. It is basically now what is considered a catastrophic plan, something you used to be able to buy for about $100/mo, if that.
You somehow think that is better than how it was before?
Sorry if I am not a willing participant in the liberal agenda to redistribute my wealth.
Thinking like yours is exactly why Trump is in office now.
-
It's correct that this result was a vote against the establishment, against the status quo, against the Clinton dynasty. People are fed up with stagnation and cronyism. The few that voted, anyway. Those who think their vote doesn't count are about half the population, apparently.
Trump wants to "drain the swamp." As he assembles his cabinet, we'll now get to see how serious he is about doing that. If he picks GOP politicians and Washington insiders, we'll know for certain if we've been duped.
-
And when they repeal Obamacare that plan will cost just as much and be just as shitty. But of course you will have the freedom to be uninsured at that point, so if you get sick or have an accident you can have the "freedom" of crushing medical debts and losing things you've worked hard for just so you don't die. You will also have the freedom of your taxes going to pay for all those uninsured folks anyway, but having it cost everyone more in the end.
YOU are not the point though. 10's of millions of people who need that care are the point, and just because your selfishness blinds you to the perils of privatized profit motivated healthcare doesn't change the issues with it.
-
I can't remember anytime in my life where I could have bought decent insurance for a mere $50 a month. I have had company supplied insurance where my cost was about twice that but ofcourse the company had to pay their share. Funny thing is I pay about $100 now self bought and ok coverage. The only thing that really sucks about it is prescription cost.
-
There has to be a better way on health care... that's the real point. Obama Care was suppose to reduced costs... its drastically raised them. Mine has almost quadrupled.
-
I wonder if the 20+ million people who will lose their care would agree with you? Will you be just as happy those people are getting freaked when your premiums continue to rise and you end up having to pay more out of pocket for less care?
why do you think ACA will be repealed?
you do know that to repeal ACA is must be done using the house and senate. and the senate has enough democrats to fillibuster. so a likely repeal of ACA is a mute point.
i looked at ACA plans and the cost was the same but coverage was less then what I pay now which is $500 month 1 person. comapanies are leaving the ACA market because they are losing money.
-
And when they repeal Obamacare that plan will cost just as much and be just as shitty. But of course you will have the freedom to be uninsured at that point, so if you get sick or have an accident you can have the "freedom" of crushing medical debts and losing things you've worked hard for just so you don't die. You will also have the freedom of your taxes going to pay for all those uninsured folks anyway, but having it cost everyone more in the end.
YOU are not the point though. 10's of millions of people who need that care are the point, and just because your selfishness blinds you to the perils of privatized profit motivated healthcare doesn't change the issues with it.
I don't know how you make it through the day with your doom and gloom attitude. It's impressive.
But yes, call me selfish if you wish for actually wanting to work hard and keep the money I have earned and not subsidize other people with it. Good luck with your Robin Hood economics.
As that video pointed out, name calling will never get people on your side. Take a lesson.
-
I can't remember anytime in my life where I could have bought decent insurance for a mere $50 a month. I have had company supplied insurance where my cost was about twice that but ofcourse the company had to pay their share. Funny thing is I pay about $100 now self bought and ok coverage. The only thing that really sucks about it is prescription cost.
What plan? Deductible? That's the lowest cost ive heard in recent time.
Mine was $200 a month last year with 5k deductible I believe. Now its nearly $400.
-
I can't remember anytime in my life where I could have bought decent insurance for a mere $50 a month. I have had company supplied insurance where my cost was about twice that but ofcourse the company had to pay their share. Funny thing is I pay about $100 now self bought and ok coverage. The only thing that really sucks about it is prescription cost.
BCBS Florida, I did it. It was in my late twenties.
Show me one now for $100 a month? I'd be happy with that just to not pay the stupid fine.
-
There has to be a better way on health care... that's the real point. Obama Care was suppose to reduced costs... its drastically raised them. Mine has almost quadrupled.
I agree. Why not have an opt-in single payer program? Then everyone that loves that can jump on board. (Only the premiums collected from the members can be used, if they start losing money they hit everyone with an assessment. Like when you own a townhouse. Because you know, it's for the greater good and all, so I'm sure they'll understand.)
Let the free market have the rest.
Then people at least have a choice.
-
I'm at $250 a month and losing my plan for the 4th time in 5 years or so.
I wish I could have just kept my original plan...
Costs keep going up and my coverage and usage isn't changing at all. I'm not sure if I'm going to let it change itself and see what plan is the comparable plan then I have until Jan 31st to change it myself if I don't like it. This is a $6350 deductible plan.....
-
Why is it doom and gloom to point out how policy changes are objectively going to effect a huge portion of the population negatively? That's called reality :shrug:
bulldog: you do realize Obamacare was supposed to be exactly what you described, right? It is what it is because Republicans fought tooth and nail to make it as shitty as possible, to protect corporate profits instead of public interests. If we had a public option like Obama (and Clinton and Bernie and liberals in general) wanted we would collectively have a cheap and quality option available for everyone, and if you felt like paying more for some kind of premium plan on the private market you would still have been able to, like in every other country with socialized medicine. More importantly, that public option would have massive advantages when negotiating and regulating the cost of care, which would drive down those private free market options as well.
Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA, but do you actually think they would replace it with something that drove down costs for individuals at the expense of corporate profits when that has been exactly what they have been fighting against since Bill Clinton was president?
-
My plan is also a BCBS not a great plan nor the worse, costs me exactly $128 a month. I do not know if it is a group discount or not since all of us here purchased from the same broker.
-
For everyone here that thinks they know what Canada's health care is like and do not even live in their country you should read the link below. Keep in mind it is almost identical to what ACA was supposed to be and accomplish.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php)
-
Why is it doom and gloom to point out how policy changes are objectively going to effect a huge portion of the population negatively? That's called reality :shrug:
bulldog: you do realize Obamacare was supposed to be exactly what you described, right? It is what it is because Republicans fought tooth and nail to make it as shitty as possible, to protect corporate profits instead of public interests. If we had a public option like Obama (and Clinton and Bernie and liberals in general) wanted we would collectively have a cheap and quality option available for everyone, and if you felt like paying more for some kind of premium plan on the private market you would still have been able to, like in every other country with socialized medicine. More importantly, that public option would have massive advantages when negotiating and regulating the cost of care, which would drive down those private free market options as well.
Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA, but do you actually think they would replace it with something that drove down costs for individuals at the expense of corporate profits when that has been exactly what they have been fighting against since Bill Clinton was president?
Where to start...Republicans had zero input into the ACA, they were not allowed to be heard, any idea they had wasn't even allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. That pissed a lot of people off and was the reason MA elected Scott Brown.
Our plan for our family is $1350 per month with a $6500 per person, max of $19500 out of pocket. We can't afford that, which is fine, because the plan is being cancelled, for the 3rd time. Our last hospital bill for our son was $7600. Explain to me why the ACA was a good thing? before that our family was right around $400 a month and our daughter's hospital bill for birth was $1500.
-
Why is it doom and gloom to point out how policy changes are objectively going to effect a huge portion of the population negatively? That's called reality :shrug:
bulldog: you do realize Obamacare was supposed to be exactly what you described, right? It is what it is because Republicans fought tooth and nail to make it as shitty as possible, to protect corporate profits instead of public interests. If we had a public option like Obama (and Clinton and Bernie and liberals in general) wanted we would collectively have a cheap and quality option available for everyone, and if you felt like paying more for some kind of premium plan on the private market you would still have been able to, like in every other country with socialized medicine. More importantly, that public option would have massive advantages when negotiating and regulating the cost of care, which would drive down those private free market options as well.
Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA, but do you actually think they would replace it with something that drove down costs for individuals at the expense of corporate profits when that has been exactly what they have been fighting against since Bill Clinton was president?
You can't claim things that haven't happened yet to be reality.
Always blame the republicans. Liberals never are to blame for anything.
Of all the arguments we've had nothing like that has ever been mentioned. You just want to point out how selfish I am for not wanting to be in the club.
-
My plan is also a BCBS not a great plan nor the worse, costs me exactly $128 a month. I do not know if it is a group discount or not since all of us here purchased from the same broker.
BCBS here as well. But I qualify for no discounts of course since I make too much money. TN also just had one of the highest increases of all states in Oct.
-
"Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA" yes this is true BUT BUT BUT..........
I will say it again. the ONLY way to repeal ACA is through congress (house and senate). the senate has enough democrats to filibuster, so if ACA is repealed that means some democrats voted to repeal. But as you have said ONLY TRUMP and REPUBLICANS want to repeal so with the filibuster the senate has a REPEAL will not happen.
oh and this is a FACT not imagined
BCBS of Florida non ACA plan and I pay $500 month has gone up $100 for the last 2 years.
-
Why is it doom and gloom to point out how policy changes are objectively going to effect a huge portion of the population negatively? That's called reality :shrug:
bulldog: you do realize Obamacare was supposed to be exactly what you described, right? It is what it is because Republicans fought tooth and nail to make it as shitty as possible, to protect corporate profits instead of public interests. If we had a public option like Obama (and Clinton and Bernie and liberals in general) wanted we would collectively have a cheap and quality option available for everyone, and if you felt like paying more for some kind of premium plan on the private market you would still have been able to, like in every other country with socialized medicine. More importantly, that public option would have massive advantages when negotiating and regulating the cost of care, which would drive down those private free market options as well.
Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA, but do you actually think they would replace it with something that drove down costs for individuals at the expense of corporate profits when that has been exactly what they have been fighting against since Bill Clinton was president?
Where to start...Republicans had zero input into the ACA, they were not allowed to be heard, any idea they had wasn't even allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. That pissed a lot of people off and was the reason MA elected Scott Brown.
Our plan for our family is $1350 per month with a $6500 per person, max of $19500 out of pocket. We can't afford that, which is fine, because the plan is being cancelled, for the 3rd time. Our last hospital bill for our son was $7600. Explain to me why the ACA was a good thing? before that our family was right around $400 a month and our daughter's hospital bill for birth was $1500.
But it's for the greater good! You're helping so many other people get terrible insurance!
-
"Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA" yes this is true BUT BUT BUT..........
I will say it again. the ONLY way to repeal ACA is through congress (house and senate). the senate has enough democrats to filibuster, so if ACA is repealed that means some democrats voted to repeal. But as you have said ONLY TRUMP and REPUBLICANS want to repeal so with the filibuster the senate has a REPEAL will not happen.
oh and this is a FACT not imagined
BCBS of Florida non ACA plan and I pay $500 month has gone up $100 for the last 2 years.
You are right, unless some defect.
Not sure which plan you have but the cheapest BCBS FL plan right now for me and the wife is $545. That is the absolute crap plan too.
-
Republicans had zero input into the ACA? Sorry, that is incorrect. Proof:
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf (http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/1770 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/1770)
http://addictinginfo.org/2013/11/10/obamacare-study-republican-contribution/ (http://addictinginfo.org/2013/11/10/obamacare-study-republican-contribution/)
But yeah, it does need fixed badly. aauusa is right, it cannot be done by the POTUS, it has to go through Congress first and it will take a while. In my opinion, there should be a public option. The health insurance industry is a racket and Obamacare did little to reign it in. It was a compromise settled upon by the bipartisan subcommittee tasked with bringing a bill to Obama to sign... he said he'd sign whatever was brought to him.
Much of what all Presidential candidates promise are beyond the power of the POTUS.
-
That insurance companies are no longer able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions is an effing stellar thing
in my opinion. Why on effing earth would you want to repeal that? Who does that benefit?
-
So I found http://www.uhone.com (http://www.uhone.com) you can get short term health insurance. Doesn't meet Obamacare requirements so you'd have to pay a penalty.
But I can get a plan for my wife and I with a 5k deductible (you can do more or less) for 6 months for $158.10 a month. Even if you pay the penalty you still come out $324 a month. So you save $200+ a month and get slightly less terrible insurance.
What in da fuk?
-
You guys aren't actually arguing that this version of health care is the best we can do are you? We get it some good things are there with Obama Care and I'd agree with that. But its far from even remotely good and for many people becoming too expensive.
-
That insurance companies are no longer able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions is an effing stellar thing
in my opinion. Why on effing earth would you want to repeal that? Who does that benefit?
Specifically it benefits people that take care of themselves.
Don't act like every single person with a pre-existing illness was denied coverage. If you were part of a group plan it didn't matter in most cases.
It was just the people getting self insured, the same ones getting the shaft now.
-
You guys aren't actually arguing that this version of health care is the best we can do are you? We get it some good things are there with Obama Care and I'd agree with that. But its far from even remotely good and for many people becoming too expensive.
I think you know where I stand. 8)
-
You guys aren't actually arguing that this version of health care is the best we can do are you? We get it some good things are there with Obama Care and I'd agree with that. But its far from even remotely good and for many people becoming too expensive.
I would never say ACA is great, far from it. It could have been a lot better if it was not regurgitated over and over by the house.
-
Of course not, but wholesale repealing the ACA will not improve healthcare for anyone. Premiums will not go down, benefits will not go up, and 10's of millions of people will lose coverage who need it and much of those costs will be covered by our taxes collectively anyway. Keeping the good parts of the ACA without the mandate aren't realistic either, because that is the one thing insurance companies have absolutely refused to do. Fixing healthcare is about offering a baseline of care that is collectively paid for and can negotiate costs and control benefits on a massive scale, aka a public option.
I just don't understand why people want to keep health insurance profits at record highs instead of just fixing the freaking system in a way that benefits everyone because it MIGHT mean they pay a little more in "taxes" instead of "premiums". It's asinine...
-
You guys aren't actually arguing that this version of health care is the best we can do are you? We get it some good things are there with Obama Care and I'd agree with that. But its far from even remotely good and for many people becoming too expensive.
Not in the slightest. But anything that makes insurance company ceo's pissy is a step in the right direction.
Becoming a billionaire at the detriment of your fellow man's health is disgusting in my opinion.
They are now wet in the britches at the promises of the orange one.
I, for one, have no problem paying more if it means that we do better by the health of the whole.
And FWIW, I've never had health care that I would consider even decent. My plan is almost $400 now.
I had BCBS, it sucked. Switched to Kaiser, it sucks. Overall health care in this country seems like
effing mattress salesmen or something.
-
Specifically it benefits people that take care of themselves.
Don't act like every single person with a pre-existing illness was denied coverage. If you were part of a group plan it didn't matter in most cases.
It was just the people getting self insured, the same ones getting the shaft now.
My point being that Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky who's wife was uninsured and just got diagnosed with cancer is likely
to be screwed and yet's he's wholesale voted for it. I seriously don't get it.
-
For everyone here that thinks they know what Canada's health care is like and do not even live in their country you should read the link below. Keep in mind it is almost identical to what ACA was supposed to be and accomplish.
[url]http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php[/url] ([url]http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php[/url])
That article is "on the money"....
-
Specifically it benefits people that take care of themselves.
Don't act like every single person with a pre-existing illness was denied coverage. If you were part of a group plan it didn't matter in most cases.
It was just the people getting self insured, the same ones getting the shaft now.
My point being that Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky who's wife was uninsured and just got diagnosed with cancer is likely
to be screwed and yet's he's wholesale voted for it. I seriously don't get it.
You have a sacrifice the village to save one person kind of mentality.
-
Specifically it benefits people that take care of themselves.
Don't act like every single person with a pre-existing illness was denied coverage. If you were part of a group plan it didn't matter in most cases.
It was just the people getting self insured, the same ones getting the shaft now.
My point being that Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky who's wife was uninsured and just got diagnosed with cancer is likely
to be screwed and yet's he's wholesale voted for it. I seriously don't get it.
Yea but Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky isnt bulldog, so in his opinion he can get freaked 'cause this is America and we look out for ourselves before anyone else or something like that. Anyway, back to printing since I'm done with my morning emails and artwork...
-
You have a sacrifice the village to save one person kind of mentality.
No, I have the kind of mentality that a civilization is judged on how they do by their least.
-
Of course not, but wholesale repealing the ACA will not improve healthcare for anyone. Premiums will not go down, benefits will not go up, and 10's of millions of people will lose coverage who need it and much of those costs will be covered by our taxes collectively anyway. Keeping the good parts of the ACA without the mandate aren't realistic either, because that is the one thing insurance companies have absolutely refused to do. Fixing healthcare is about offering a baseline of care that is collectively paid for and can negotiate costs and control benefits on a massive scale, aka a public option.
I just don't understand why people want to keep health insurance profits at record highs instead of just fixing the freaking system in a way that benefits everyone because it MIGHT mean they pay a little more in "taxes" instead of "premiums". It's asinine...
So let me get this straight. Many people on the board here (who run their own businesses and are self insured) have said their premiums have quadrupled (for less insurance) since Obamacare has taken affect and you somehow believe they would now be at the same level if Obamacare never happened? Or our taxes would be raised to the point of offsetting it?
Do you just not care about the government reaching into your pocket to take what they want?
At what point can it become too much for you? Because I'm already at too much.
-
you guys seem to be confusing heathcare with health insurance.
Healthcare in this country is great...access to insurance is terrible. For lower income people Medicaid has always been there. I would have been cheaper to expand that program to include high risk folks and raise the max income so that it covers more lower to middle income people.
So the ACA included early 90's ideas. I doubt it was the way Republicans thought of them as happening. We put the IRS in charge of policing health insurance.
And I'm sorry I looked it up and yes there were a few republican amendments to make it, but a lot of "technical amendments" which don't change policy, usually only errors. No repulican amendments that were considered a priority were voted in. The final bill is not bipartisan.
There were and are ways to protect the most vulnerable without overturning the entire system. Sadly, this was a power move by democrats to do exactly what they've done for generations with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid..."If you vote for republicans, they will take you XYZ away." And we are seeing that now with health insurance.
-
Specifically it benefits people that take care of themselves.
Don't act like every single person with a pre-existing illness was denied coverage. If you were part of a group plan it didn't matter in most cases.
It was just the people getting self insured, the same ones getting the shaft now.
My point being that Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky who's wife was uninsured and just got diagnosed with cancer is likely
to be screwed and yet's he's wholesale voted for it. I seriously don't get it.
Yea but Joe Bill the roofer in Kentucky isnt bulldog, so in his opinion he can get freaked 'cause this is America and we look out for ourselves before anyone else or something like that. Anyway, back to printing since I'm done with my morning emails and artwork...
Yeah, sorry that bulldog has his own family to worry about and can't let his heart bleed for 350 million other people.
Charity should be a choice. There are so many kickstarter like programs, or organizations, that help people in need. If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.
I am personally a fairly charitable person. But don't FORCE it upon me. You can think I'm a terrible person, you can look down at me. I DON'T CARE. Get out of my wallet.
-
Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay. Just sayin'
-
If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.
This is the standard response to the absurd idea that we should help eachother out. That what benefits the least benefits the most.
The problem is, why should it fall to the individual to care for the herd? Should be the other way around as far as I'm concerned.
-
Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay. Just sayin'
But many do not get primary care to slow down or prevent major problems......So when they do resort to emergency things are far worse and far more costly to deal with.....
-
You guys aren't actually arguing that this version of health care is the best we can do are you? We get it some good things are there with Obama Care and I'd agree with that. But its far from even remotely good and for many people becoming too expensive.
Not in the slightest. But anything that makes insurance company ceo's pissy is a step in the right direction.
Becoming a billionaire at the detriment of your fellow man's health is disgusting in my opinion.
They are now wet in the britches at the promises of the orange one.
I, for one, have no problem paying more if it means that we do better by the health of the whole.
And FWIW, I've never had health care that I would consider even decent. My plan is almost $400 now.
I had BCBS, it sucked. Switched to Kaiser, it sucks. Overall health care in this country seems like
effing mattress salesmen or something.
I don't mind paying more IF it's solving our problems. It's not though. I know countless people that can't either afford it or what they can afford is total horse shat. We can do better.
$400 a month to me is nothing and that's what its roughly costing me. Ill pay it all day if my dryer guy could stand a fair plan for $100 a month. But its not working like that. Its still broke.
-
If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.
This is the standard response to the absurd idea that we should help eachother out. That what benefits the least benefits the most.
The problem is, why should it fall to the individual to care for the herd? Should be the other way around as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is, why do you think you can take as much of my money as you want that you did not work at all for to make that happen?
If I reach into your wallet and see you have $200 and I take $60 or maybe $80 or maybe $100 because I want to go do something good with it but I'm not going to tell you exactly what, you're cool with that?
Or is that stealing?
I'm a little confused. Where is the line?
-
Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay. Just sayin'
But many do not get primary care to slow down or prevent major problems......So when they do resort to emergency things are far worse and far more costly to deal with.....
Which many studies have pointed to as one of the main reasons our healthcare costs per capita are twice the next most expensive country.
-
Also, doctors and hospitals can't refuse care for people due to the inability to pay. Just sayin'
But many do not get primary care to slow down or prevent major problems......So when they do resort to emergency things are far worse and far more costly to deal with.....
Which many studies have pointed to as one of the main reasons our healthcare costs per capita are twice the next most expensive country.
Dude it costs like $50 to go see a doctor if you don't have insurance. Usually $25 if you do. If that was truly the case, the money you spent on insurance could just go to doctor visits to stop the problems before they get to the point of no return. Poor exercise and diet are the reason for most of the health problems in this country.
-
If you feel so strongly to help every single person that needs it, go ahead, with your own time and money.
This is the standard response to the absurd idea that we should help eachother out. That what benefits the least benefits the most.
The problem is, why should it fall to the individual to care for the herd? Should be the other way around as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is, why do you think you can take as much of my money as you want that you did not work at all for to make that happen?
If I reach into your wallet and see you have $200 and I take $60 or maybe $80 or maybe $100 because I want to go do something good with it but I'm not going to tell you exactly what, you're cool with that?
Or is that stealing?
I'm a little confused. Where is the line?
This is the fundamental issue honestly. My view of it (which is of course biased by which side of "the line" I fall on) is people either believe that collectively we are better off when everyone contributes to the greater good, or they believe that we should look out for our own self-interests at the expense of the greater good as long as it benefits us more than our neighbors. Essentially you either believe we can all benefit together albeit maybe with a little less individual benefit when compared to everyone else, or we can have some who benefit at the expense of some who don't but those who do benefit will benefit a lot more. I don't really see why insurance executives and shareholders making record profits is better for me or you or anyone else than modestly well paid bureaucrats doing the same work.
-
We need Dr. Ben Carson to come to our rescue!
-
What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet. At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation. I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.
-
This is the fundamental issue honestly. My view of it (which is of course biased by which side of "the line" I fall on) is people either believe that collectively we are better off when everyone contributes to the greater good, or they believe that we should look out for our own self-interests at the expense of the greater good as long as it benefits us more than our neighbors. Essentially you either believe we can all benefit together albeit maybe with a little less individual benefit when compared to everyone else, or we can have some who benefit at the expense of some who don't but those who do benefit will benefit a lot more. I don't really see why insurance executives and shareholders making record profits is better for me or you or anyone else than modestly well paid bureaucrats doing the same work.
I see this as dangerous, especially the last part. Number one, you have no idea how to run an insurance company. Number two, neither does the government. Number three, how much someone else makes should be none of your concern. Perhaps it is too much government regulation (which of what you want more of) that drives up prices.
For example. You sell shirts.
Let's say you sell them for $20 each (retail) and the government stops by and says, "Hey kid, you're no longer in the shirt business, we feel you've been charging too much, so we're gonna have the government start producing shirts from now on."
Or let's say you sell them for $15 each (retail) and you decide that you want to sell them for $20. The government swoops in and says NOPE, $15 is the cap because we've decided you're making too much money. But, but, but, I'm working 80 hours a week and have rent, utilities, advertising, etc you say. DOESN'T MATTER, $15 is it, we can't be having people going around making too much money.
Now extrapolate that to any other business. Might seem like a silly argument, but that's how I feel when you try to argue for the government getting more involved in our lives. Silly.
The only one that should determine how much you make or do not make is YOU. That's what makes this the land of opportunity.
-
What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet. At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation. I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.
You are 100% right. It's the fear factory.
-
Except whether or not someone buys a custom shirt is a choice with little or no consequences on anyone else in our society. Getting sick or injured typically isn't a choice, and can and does effect the rest of us. I'm not advocating government to get into the shirt printing business...
-
"Trump and this Republican congress want to repeal the ACA" yes this is true BUT BUT BUT..........
I will say it again. the ONLY way to repeal ACA is through congress (house and senate). the senate has enough democrats to filibuster, so if ACA is repealed that means some democrats voted to repeal. But as you have said ONLY TRUMP and REPUBLICANS want to repeal so with the filibuster the senate has a REPEAL will not happen.
oh and this is a FACT not imagined
BCBS of Florida non ACA plan and I pay $500 month has gone up $100 for the last 2 years.
Well they can defund it in the House of Reps which holds the purse strings.
-
I see this as dangerous, especially the last part. Number one, you have no idea how to run an insurance company. Number two, neither does the government. Number three, how much someone else makes should be none of your concern. Perhaps it is too much government regulation (which of what you want more of) that drives up prices.
For example. You sell shirts.
Let's say you sell them for $20 each (retail) and the government stops by and says, "Hey kid, you're no longer in the shirt business, we feel you've been charging too much, so we're gonna have the government start producing shirts from now on."
Or let's say you sell them for $15 each (retail) and you decide that you want to sell them for $20. The government swoops in and says NOPE, $15 is the cap because we've decided you're making too much money. But, but, but, I'm working 80 hours a week and have rent, utilities, advertising, etc you say. DOESN'T MATTER, $15 is it, we can't be having people going around making too much money.
Now extrapolate that to any other business. Might seem like a silly argument, but that's how I feel when you try to argue for the government getting more involved in our lives. Silly.
The only one that should determine how much you make or do not make is YOU. That's what makes this the land of opportunity.
The overwhelming public response to Mr. Martin Shkreli's maneuvers would indicate that the majority of humans do not agree with you.
-
What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet. At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation. I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.
He's already promising to repeal Dodd-Frank. And this isn't a "campaign promise".
Who does this benefit?
And no, the sky does not fall over night. Nothing in politics moves quickly. But given the chance to take crap gambles
at no risk of their own you can bet banks too big to fail are chomping at the bit.
-
What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet. At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation. I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.
We are discussing what the guy campaigned on and what congress has promised to do. Should people sit by quietly and not be upset when they say "we are planning to do something you don't want" until after they do it?
I don't see anyone condoning destroying property or being violent except the people doing it... I understand the anger and fear, but not the reaction.
On the other hand, prior to the results of the election Trump himself said he would not accept the results and I saw countless comments on social media talking about marching on Washington and starting a revolution if he lost by his supporters. He himself called for revolution after Obama was elected in 2012 on his twitter...so?
-
Dodd-Frank, yeah, the banks are still too big to fail and Hillary is in their pockets. Dodd-Frank has harmed small banks. That is the idea of crony capitalism, create laws that you can afford to comply with while your competition can't, therefor you effectively eliminate them.
To all the liberals. Name one thing the government does better than the private sector. And you can't name something OUR government has made it illegal to do in the private sector either...like mail delivery, road construction(this is usually contracted out anyway), military, etc.
-
Dodd-Frank, yeah, the banks are still too big to fail and Hillary is in their pockets. Dodd-Frank has harmed small banks. That is the idea of crony capitalism, create laws that you can afford to comply with while your competition can't, therefor you effectively eliminate them.
To all the liberals. Name one thing the government does better than the private sector. And you can't name something OUR government has made it illegal to do in the private sector either...like mail delivery, road construction(this is usually contracted out anyway), military, etc.
So repealing Dodd-Frank benefits Joe Bill the roofer whose questionable mortgage was gambled on by B of A?
Isn't that how we got to that wonderful place the last time? It's weird but since the worst economy in history save the
great depression we haven't had any more of those kinds of things happen. We should totally change that.
And to answer your question, libraries. And universities. Though TU probably was a quality institution....
-
What's really funny is all this hoopla over a guy that hasn't even been sworn in yet. At this point everything he's looking to accomplish is speculation. I think the left should give him a chance instead of riot in the streets, light crap on fire, smash windows and block traffic.
He's already promising to repeal Dodd-Frank. And this isn't a "campaign promise".
Who does this benefit?
Well I assume congress is well rested and ready to work hard and fast since they haven't done anything in 8 years.
And no, the sky does not fall over night. Nothing in politics moves quickly. But given the chance to take crap gambles
at no risk of their own you can bet banks too big to fail are chomping at the bit.
-
The overwhelming public response to Mr. Martin Shkreli's maneuvers would indicate that the majority of humans do not agree with you.
So if you think someone is a douche he shouldn't be able to make money? Got it.
-
So if you think someone is a douche he shouldn't be able to make money? Got it.
Yeah, the public was clearly upset at the fact the dude is a douche, and not that he bought the patent for and raised
the price 10,0000x of a drug that was helping people. Nothing gets by you. I'm sure his current legal predicament
is a result of his douchieness as well.
Here, I'll spell it out for you in small words. When you try and take ad-van-tage of shitty sit-uat-ions
like people's health in order to ben-e-fit your own wealth people get upset. There's a common
morality there that you don't do crap like that. It's skeezy.
-
Dodd-Frank, yeah, the banks are still too big to fail and Hillary is in their pockets. Dodd-Frank has harmed small banks. That is the idea of crony capitalism, create laws that you can afford to comply with while your competition can't, therefor you effectively eliminate them.
To all the liberals. Name one thing the government does better than the private sector. And you can't name something OUR government has made it illegal to do in the private sector either...like mail delivery, road construction(this is usually contracted out anyway), military, etc.
I'll just go ahead and say our definitions of "better" will differ quite a bit here, but I think government does tons of stuff better than the private sector. It is "better" at pretty much every single thing that benefits the public as a whole vs executives and shareholders. Thinks like protecting the environment for example. I think the EPA probably does a better job of that than coal companies, don't you think? Hell, I'm arguing we should have a public option for healthcare because I think government would be better at that than insurance companies as well.
-
Dodd-Frank, yeah, the banks are still too big to fail and Hillary is in their pockets. Dodd-Frank has harmed small banks. That is the idea of crony capitalism, create laws that you can afford to comply with while your competition can't, therefor you effectively eliminate them.
To all the liberals. Name one thing the government does better than the private sector. And you can't name something OUR government has made it illegal to do in the private sector either...like mail delivery, road construction(this is usually contracted out anyway), military, etc.
So repealing Dodd-Frank benefits Joe Bill the roofer whose questionable mortgage was gambled on by B of A?
Isn't that how we got to that wonderful place the last time? It's weird but since the worst economy in history save the
great depression we haven't had any more of those kinds of things happen. We should totally change that.
And to answer your question, libraries. And universities. Though TU probably was a quality institution....
My local 5 branch bank had to sell out because they would have had to spend 600k a year to comply with all the regulations. Less competition hurts everyone.
Bank of America and others didn't cause the recession. Irresponsible people who took out mortgages for way more than they could afford weren't able to repay the money.
Greedy banks just accelerated the decline. You do realize liberal government programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mostly contributed to this in the first place. They back the mortgages and then created a secondary market for them to be traded on. Maybe if the banks had more skin in the game they would be more careful about who they loan money to.
But people are never responsible for their own actions. And government is just so great at everything they do.
-
Just look at countries where they do not spend money on anything, infrastructure, police, education etc. If you really think we are so bad off here in America you truly do not know what it is like to live in most of the other nations in this world.
-
So if you think someone is a douche he shouldn't be able to make money? Got it.
Yeah, the public was clearly upset at the fact the dude is a douche, and not that he bought the patent for and raised
the price 10,0000x of a drug that was helping people. Nothing gets by you. I'm sure his current legal predicament
is a result of his douchieness as well.
Here, I'll spell it out for you in small words. When you try and take ad-van-tage of shitty sit-uat-ions
like people's health in order to ben-e-fit your own wealth people get upset. There's a common
morality there that you don't do crap like that. It's skeezy.
He raised it 560% or 56x. Douche move for sure. But the government you think does such a great job at everything controls the patent system that allowed him to be capable of this (legally) in the first place.
Hmm...but that's none of my business.
But go ahead, keep talking in your condescending tone like you think you're better.
-
He raised it 560% or 56x. Douche move for sure. But the government you think does such a great job at everything controls the patent system that allowed him to be capable of this (legally) in the first place.
Hmm...but that's none of my business.
But go ahead, keep talking in your condescending tone like you think you're better.
Right, and you're of the impression that given free reign people will regulate themselves and not pull skeezy crap like that to the detriment of others?
I mean hell, the drug in question was an HIV related medicine. You know, something that helps people who've contracted god's just wrath? And yet
even the religious right was calling for his scalp.
I'm beginning to think you don't believe there's anything wrong with what he did, and that given a similar situation, you would do the same.
You know, because you and yours come first.
-
He raised it 560% or 56x. Douche move for sure. But the government you think does such a great job at everything controls the patent system that allowed him to be capable of this (legally) in the first place.
Hmm...but that's none of my business.
But go ahead, keep talking in your condescending tone like you think you're better.
Right, and you're of the impression that given free reign people will regulate themselves and not pull skeezy crap like that to the detriment of others?
I mean hell, the drug in question was an HIV related medicine. You know, something that helps people who've contracted god's just wrath? And yet
even the religious right was calling for his scalp.
I'm beginning to think you don't believe there's anything wrong with what he did, and that given a similar situation, you would do the same.
You know, because you and yours come first.
You got me all figured out, right?
When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.
-
Slander what?
I'm saying that I couldn't sleep at night knowing people were literally dying at the cost of my second yacht.
I know that makes me a bleeding heart liberal but I guess I'm okay with that. At least I can sleep.
And you?
-
Slander what?
I'm saying that I couldn't sleep at night knowing people were literally dying at the cost of my second yacht.
I know that makes me a bleeding heart liberal but I guess I'm okay with that. At least I can sleep.
And you?
Me personally? No, I would not do that. I guess you don't remember me calling him a douche. I know you think you're the moral superior but there are non-liberals who aren't evil.
I guess me not casting judgement on someone else doesn't make me a bleeding heart liberal and you know what? I'm ok with that.
-
I guess you don't remember me calling him a douche.
I guess me not casting judgement on someone else doesn't make me a bleeding heart liberal and you know what? I'm ok with that.
Wait what?
And how do you know what I think? When have I ever said anything about being superior? I know full well that
caring for others even to the detriment of your wallet is an underdog loser position. The worth of a man is clearly
judged on his bank account and how many megatons his nukes are.
I do however think it's foolish to believe that without regulation all people would behave themselves. There will
always be someone willing to chit in the punch bowl for a few dollars. And when it comes down to it your attitude is
what allows it. Absolute freedom at all costs. We've already been through that and paid that price and yet here we
are signing up for it again.
-
They're US elections, Pierre--we're not supposed to think.
FWIW, I just popped in to clarify something--we are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.
I'll leave it up to reader exercise to understand how important that is in the current context.
Exactly correct...
Steve
-
I guess you don't remember me calling him a douche.
I guess me not casting judgement on someone else doesn't make me a bleeding heart liberal and you know what? I'm ok with that.
Wait what?
And how do you know what I think? When have I ever said anything about being superior? I know full well that
caring for others even to the detriment of your wallet is an underdog loser position. The worth of a man is clearly
judged on his bank account and how many megatons his nukes are.
I do however think it's foolish to believe that without regulation all people would behave themselves. There will
always be someone willing to chit in the punch bowl for a few dollars. And when it comes down to it your attitude is
what allows it. Absolute freedom at all costs. We've already been through that and paid that price and yet here we
are signing up for it again.
Well, you sp-ell-ed things out for me slowly because you apparently think I'm stupid. You want to force your ideologies on everyone else because obviously it is the better way. And you've called me selfish for not agreeing with you. You may not have outright said it, but you sure imply you're superior. It's a characteristic I see a lot from the left.
Whereas I would like to see people have a choice in their lives. (Ironic since most on the left are pro-choice but I guess only when it suits them.) But I guess that makes me the evil capitalist re-re.
Oh, and BTW, I hope one day you realize the government has been shitting in your punch bowl over and over and you just keep gladly drinking it.
-
To all the liberals. Name one thing the government does better than the private sector. And you can't name something OUR government has made it illegal to do in the private sector either...like mail delivery, road construction(this is usually contracted out anyway), military, etc.
I'll take a stab at that (and I guess I would qualify as a liberal by many folks standards).... I noticed you used all caps when you spelled "OUR" government and that's where rub is. I would tend to agree with your statement... "OUR" government hoses up plenty.
Let's talk healthcare.... I feel your pain there brother, because I also have a monthly premium of $1500 & a family deductible in the $13,000 range (if I remember correctly... you have a similar burden).
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume we had two parties that were really interested in the welfare of the people. Over the last 8 years (6 of those under a Republican congress) OUR government could have moved us towards a NHS (national health service) similar to the British model which is funded by General Taxation (the same way we fund Defense and many other government programs). Say what you want about "socialized medicine"... you won't find many Brits who would trade their healthcare for ours:
1) It's not tied to employment, which levels the playing field for employers big and small.
2) Healthcare costs run about 50% of what we spend (in total)
3) The most vulnerable are taken care of (AKA children)
4) It's not rocket science to implement... but we would need a way to transition to that model (maybe the ACA offers some role ?? not sure)
So while I don't take exception to your statement, in regards to "OUR" government fuc#ing things up .... I think we should expect more of our elected officials (where healthcare is concerned). Even if the ACA had never been implemented.... our healthcare system was already broken (for a large portion of the population anyway). I know many people would disagree with me based on a preconceived idea about "socialized" medicine.... but many countries have solved this issue (to the betterment of their citizens).
To sum up.... only government can move the needle on this. Big corporate medicine & Pharma won't ever make healthcare "affordable" for the nation. They will use the "Free" market system to be competitive with one another... but that's a long way from "affordable".
So, my right wing friends, if you tend to disagree with most liberals and their viewpoints... I apologize to you for expressing my opinion.
But, I know many of you have the same concerns I do.... it's just a matter of how do we work together to solve those problems (we didn't see much of that in congress, over the last 6 years).
-
So, my right wing friends, if you tend to disagree with most liberals and their viewpoints... I apologize to you for expressing my opinion.
But, I know many of you have the same concerns I do.... it's just a matter of how do we work together to solve those problems (we didn't see much of that in congress, over the last 6 years).
Hey, at least you don't come across as a smug ass trying to force feed your opinions on others. So thanks for that. While I don't necessarily agree with some of what you said, this is definitely a much better way to have a useful conversation.
If you could get the government to cut back on their massive spending (this is a problem with both sides) then maybe you would have room for something like this. (Still would prefer optional...like as in you can use the USPS or UPS.) Doubt it though, too many backs to scratch.
-
Just as a note.
Over in the Controversy Cage (the section requiring an "opt-in" usually used for potentially inflammatory discourse) there is a new thread inviting our friends in other countries with universal healthcare to chime in on how it's working for them.
PM me if you wish to be added.