Jump to content
Amentep

Political Point and Counterpoint

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

You’re forgetting Trump, who lost NY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election , though Florida is practically a second home state for him. Then again, it's one thing to lose a home state which is already solidly for the other party and another to lose a home state which should be a feaseable win for that candidates party.

Edited by smjjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/01/indy-woman-arrested-for-recording-police

 

To be honest I'm a little surprised they didn't smash her phone, beat the holy hell out of her then shoot her while handcuffed on the ground. You know the problem with police? They are often utterly ignorant of the laws they are supposed to be upholding. And that ignorance never seems to have any consequences. It is perfectly legal to video record police in the public. Even if she hadn't been asked to do so she was doing nothing wrong. Plus the desire to have authority over your fellow humans is a character flaw IMO. Much like political leaders anyone who WANTS to be one probably shouldn't be. Yes they are a necessary evil. But still an evil. 

  • Like 1

"I care nothing for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it"

Abraham Lincoln

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hickenlooper is in: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/john-hickenlooper-presidential-campaign/index.html

 

How many does that make now? I lost count. All I know is right this moment no one running for President at this moment in 2020 is getting my vote. 


"I care nothing for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it"

Abraham Lincoln

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/01/indy-woman-arrested-for-recording-police

 

To be honest I'm a little surprised they didn't smash her phone, beat the holy hell out of her then shoot her while handcuffed on the ground. You know the problem with police? They are often utterly ignorant of the laws they are supposed to be upholding. And that ignorance never seems to have any consequences. It is perfectly legal to video record police in the public. Even if she hadn't been asked to do so she was doing nothing wrong. Plus the desire to have authority over your fellow humans is a character flaw IMO. Much like political leaders anyone who WANTS to be one probably shouldn't be. Yes they are a necessary evil. But still an evil.

And cops pout about people not respecting them.


Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gore had won his own home state he would have been President. Only two Presidents were ever elected having lost their home state: James Polk and Woodrow Wilson. In Gore's case, outside of college towns he was persona non grata at home over the whole Georgia Pacific thing in the early 90's. 

 

Trump lost in New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hickenlooper is in: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/john-hickenlooper-presidential-campaign/index.html

 

How many does that make now? I lost count. All I know is right this moment no one running for President at this moment in 2020 is getting my vote. 

 

CNN article says 14, but it feels bigger than that, and yeah, you'd only vote for Libertarian. Or maybe independent or Democrat turned Libertarian, but even then, they'd be LINO's (Libertarian In Name Onlys).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

If Gore had won his own home state he would have been President. Only two Presidents were ever elected having lost their home state: James Polk and Woodrow Wilson. In Gore's case, outside of college towns he was persona non grata at home over the whole Georgia Pacific thing in the early 90's. 

 

Trump lost in New York

 

 

As I said though, it's one thing to lose a state which is solidly for the other party and one to lose a state which should have been a feaseable win for that candidates party. And of course, both candidates had the same state as their home state (Clinton as adopted New Yorker, Trump as New York born and bred), so, one of them is going to lose it regardless.

 

A check on wiki and a bit of google fu shows that in Polks case, it was that the Democrats had lost ground in Tennesee quite recently and there was some dynamics with a third party appearing and possibly stuff with the big issue of the day, Texas annexation. He also lost his birth state of North Carolina.

 

As for Woodrow Wilson, I can't seem to find out exactly why, but I think I'm getting hints that he alienated a lot of people in NJ despite once being a popular governor. That loss was in 1916 though, not his initial run in 1912.

Edited by smjjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant help but to feel like my brain is Benjamin Button-ing me: "If a person is not liberal when he is 20, he has no heart; if he is not conservative at 40, he has no head".

 

I am living exactly the opposite. The older I get, the softer I get, and now Im all like "F-it! I want free healthcare / housing / living allowance / wipe my hiney, too. LETS BURN THIS MOTHER DOWN!" So long as me and mine get some, the whole place can sink into the ocean in 70 years. :lol:


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free healthcare isn't a liberal ideal, it's a realistic reaction for anyone who who looks at all the crap our health insurance companies do and how much money we give them every month. Add that to an incomprehensible medical provider billing system and I don't get why anyone thinks the current system is any good, progressive or conservative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as 'free healthcare'. It is make believe. Trust me on this. We Kanadians brag about our 'free health care'. It's anything but. MFAO


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am not, and never will be, "the rich". They can raise taxes sky high and would be hard pressed to affect my bracket in any meaningful way. Illinois need to find our version of AOC so I can vote this into existence in time for my kid, at least. :lol:

 

 

And weirdly, while all you free stuff are belong to me, Im getting less tolerant of "society" and the free-for-all its becoming. Sometimes I think "maybe the Chinese are on to something with social credit score system". Am I a nazi?


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as 'free healthcare'. It is make believe. Trust me on this. We Kanadians brag about our 'free health care'. It's anything but. MFAO

 

Sure. But the US still pays ridiculously more than everyone else. 

 

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

 

full.png

Edited by Hurlshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So using the chart, healthcare cost increases had already plateaued before ACA kicked in (2010) and then have been steadily rising again? Has ACA kept that rise lower than it would have been without it? I dunno, Im legitimately asking here. Is it WAI?


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wonder how it'd look when adjusted for population size? Obviously part of the reason why we pay so much more is because we have so many more people, but that doesn't mean it can't be less expensive.

 

@Gifted1: No idea either. It'd require a deeper analysis. The average of comparable country averages shows a similar plateu-rise-plateu-rise pattern, if less pronounced and it happens at about the same time as the US one, so... theres some factor that influences the US one more than the other countries. Drug companies maybe?....

Edited by smjjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how it'd look when adjusted for population size? Obviously part of the reason why we pay so much more is because we have so many more people, but that doesn't mean it can't be less expensive.

 

@Gifted1: No idea either. It'd require a deeper analysis. The average of comparable country averages shows a similar plateu-rise-plateu-rise pattern, if less pronounced and it happens at about the same time as the US one, so... theres some factor that influences the US one more than the other countries. Drug companies maybe?....

 

Ask and ye shall receive:

 

full.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a real world example, I have $8,882 deducted a year for my family plan, my employer kicks in another $19,998 for the year. Then we have a $10,000 deductible that we have to hit, which we did last year. Add in co-pays we hit $40k for a healthy active family of 4 pretty easily. That doesn't include dental or eye care.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they even medicining in the UK? :p


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHS in Britain performing badly is a meme thanks to the Daily Fail/ The Scum and the other garbage daily papers, but it does its job fine especially when it isn't being deliberately hamstrung by Tory politicians for ideological (and donor, financial type) purposes. It does have one fundamental advantage over the US in providing healthcare- far higher average population density.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick observation:

 

am not knowing what trump meant by threatening to enforce free speech on campuses by executive order with fed funds being held hostage as the means o' enforcement, but am not liking.  first amendment already applies on public and, to a lesser degree, private campuses. understandably, and for what should be obvious reasons, public forum free speech ain't the same as academic free speech, so perhaps it is at such gaps the President seeks to bolster first amendment protections on campus. biology professor wanna teach creationism at UCSD? first amendment is not gonna be used to force board o' regents to allow professor wingnut to teach bible version o' evolution. however, am admitting the deplorable lack o' spine and integrity which has ubiquitous developed 'mongst University presidents and boards is disheartening.  'cause a bunch o' oversensitive children wanna be safe from unpleasant or unpopular ideas is hardly a valid academic reason for cancelling speaking engagements and presentations.  fear of student safety is all too often the knee-jerk excuse for caving to infantile pleas for safe zones. *snort* that being said, the notion the WH should be taking on the role o' Constitutional interpretation offends us more than a little. the idea o' the wh generating guidelines for free speech on campus is as idiotic as it is misguided.  then again, attempts at Constitutional overreach by this chief executive is no longer surprising.  

 

HA! Good Fun!


"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthcare even in the most wealthy and equally distributed countries still ends up push beyond capacity, I remember reading with the NHS impossible demands being made to meet certain quotas lead the doctors having to game the numbers. The expectation was to see more patients and reduce their time in waiting. The result was that patience would be "seen," but never by the doctor. Their wait times actually increased. Rescheduling of the next appointment grew to be further out. On paper everything looked better, in actually the system became even more inefficient and over burdened. Those that couldn't or wouldn't game their numbers faced fines and penalties that could loose them their practice. All so that the politicians could look good, though you might not cynically turn this on them, that is of course until nothing is done after the mistake goes public. When the news of the story broke, I recall little being done to change things. It's hard to allow stats to start looking worse, because then real malpractice might be allowed to creep back in under a guise.

 

This really has nothing to do with socialized medicine, but it is one start account of the NHS performing badly in a way that is more than a meme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick observation:

 

am not knowing what trump meant by threatening to enforce free speech on campuses by executive order with fed funds being held hostage as the means o' enforcement, but am not liking.  first amendment already applies on public and, to a lesser degree, private campuses. understandably, and for what should be obvious reasons, public forum free speech ain't the same as academic free speech, so perhaps it is at such gaps the President seeks to bolster first amendment protections on campus. biology professor wanna teach creationism at UCSD? first amendment is not gonna be used to force board o' regents to allow professor wingnut to teach bible version o' evolution. however, am admitting the deplorable lack o' spine and integrity which has ubiquitous developed 'mongst University presidents and boards is disheartening.  'cause a bunch o' oversensitive children wanna be safe from unpleasant or unpopular ideas is hardly a valid academic reason for cancelling speaking engagements and presentations.  fear of student safety is all too often the knee-jerk excuse for caving to infantile pleas for safe zones. *snort* that being said, the notion the WH should be taking on the role o' Constitutional interpretation offends us more than a little. the idea o' the wh generating guidelines for free speech on campus is as idiotic as it is misguided.  then again, attempts at Constitutional overreach by this chief executive is no longer surprising.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I think Trump is just playing up to his base here, because you know, 'owning the libs'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from personal experience, England and Germany both had some rather outrageous taxes that are not included in the "official" tax rates if you check google for what their respective tax rates are. England (possibly the UK, not sure) has this thing called Council Tax, which is calculated on the councils estimated monthly rent value of a property. Germany has compulsory health care insurance, calculated based on your monthly income. Adding an extra 250-500 Euro (yes, for one person) monthly tax to the officially listed national tax rates. No idea what the monthly medical insurance is in other countries or how they are calculated.


“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

quick observation:

 

am not knowing what trump meant by threatening to enforce free speech on campuses by executive order with fed funds being held hostage as the means o' enforcement, but am not liking.  first amendment already applies on public and, to a lesser degree, private campuses. understandably, and for what should be obvious reasons, public forum free speech ain't the same as academic free speech, so perhaps it is at such gaps the President seeks to bolster first amendment protections on campus. biology professor wanna teach creationism at UCSD? first amendment is not gonna be used to force board o' regents to allow professor wingnut to teach bible version o' evolution. however, am admitting the deplorable lack o' spine and integrity which has ubiquitous developed 'mongst University presidents and boards is disheartening.  'cause a bunch o' oversensitive children wanna be safe from unpleasant or unpopular ideas is hardly a valid academic reason for cancelling speaking engagements and presentations.  fear of student safety is all too often the knee-jerk excuse for caving to infantile pleas for safe zones. *snort* that being said, the notion the WH should be taking on the role o' Constitutional interpretation offends us more than a little. the idea o' the wh generating guidelines for free speech on campus is as idiotic as it is misguided.  then again, attempts at Constitutional overreach by this chief executive is no longer surprising.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I think Trump is just playing up to his base here, because you know, 'owning the libs'.

 

how many times have we heard the same?  started with doomed-from-the-start muslim ban.  during the campaign, moderate republican trump supporters defended trump muslim ban comments 'cause of course trump weren't serious 'bout an obvious unconstitutional muslim ban. posturing.  playing to the crowd. once he gets elected, all the bluster will evaporate. then trump got elected and he went and did it.  sure, the Courts knocked the stuffing outta his first couple attempts at a muslim ban (with worked in preferential treatment for christians no less,) but his base cheered 'cause trump did what he said he was going to do, or something like that.

 

trump is exact as cohen described in his testimony, but his base knows what trump is.  they don't care what trump is. the problem is, the base thinks all politicians is liars and cheats.  get a piece in the new yorker revealing just how intertwined is fox and trump?  the base doesn't care 'cause from their point o' view, all media sources lie and is biased.  the difference: trump is their cheat and their liar and he is fighting the dirty politicians and fake media with his own brand o' dirty tricks and biased media.  the base is gonna cheer him all the way, and perhaps cheer louder when he acts outrageous or underhanded 'cause is 'bout time somebody went after the dastardly nogoodniks in washington with a dose o' their own medicine, yes?

 

*groan*

 

is insane, but is happening. as long as trump keeps trying to do what he claims he is gonna do, no matter how asinine and doomed, his base is gonna keep cheering him forward, 'cause he is their guy. 

 

HA! Good Fun!


"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...