2016 Presidential Election Discussion Thread

[JustRandy]

It will probably be revised lower... it always is.

Trump supporters on twitter can't understand the difference between quarter over quarter and year over year growth.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022877332858650624

Plus, a lot of the growth (besides changing how GDP is calculated) is folks freaking out over tariffs and buying stuff before prices go up.  I know I did.  Probably a big crash coming when the tariffs kick in and after folks have stocked up.  Hopefully that comes before the midterms, but maybe not.

 

[davefrombc]

Quote

Anyway, now you're on a slippery slope because we should ban males under the age of 25 from driving because they present a demonstrated risk to public safety (hence higher insurance premiums for them).

We should also ban seniors from driving.

We should ban any car that is not a volvo (or whatever the safest car is).

All motorcycles should be banned in the interest of safety.

Where do you want to draw the line?  Perhaps IQ tests in order to obtain drivers license?

Traffic signs are green because that is the easiest color to see, so all cars should be green.  Anyone with a red car is a public hazard endangering the lives of others.

Cars that do not look like fish bowls should be banned due to visibility restrictions.

Tinted windows - banned.

I could go on and on and on.  It's a slippery slope with no end.

By the same token  of taking "freedoms" to extremes , we should remove all speed limits  and traffic signs because we shouldn't  interfere with peoples " freedom" to  speed with reckless abandon   or their  "freedom"  to   speed through intersections  with  no consideration of others. We  should be  able to park  anywhere  we  want  and  how we  want. In any society  there  has to be  some reasonable  limits  to   "freedoms"  for the good  of  all. Freedom   is not  total  anarchy  and total  anarchy  grants  no-one any " freedoms". A  crash  because someone was  exercising his  "freedom" to  ignore  traffic rules and common sense is the ultimate  denier   of "freedom" for the  victims maimed, paralyzed or killed by that fool.

By the way , in many  jurisdictions there  is a ban  on tinted windows of the  drivers and  front seat  passengers   windows  and  limits the the amount of tint  in the  windshield.  Those  limits  to  "freedoms"  are there for the  "safety" of  LE officers so  they  can see the driver  and front seat passenger  . Admittedly  it  actually does  little  to protect  them, but it  is  a  law that  few take  as  any assault  on their  "freedoms".  I  draw  the  law  on  all limits to  "freedom" that  are unreasonably  extreme,  and to  definitions  of  "freedom" that  are  also taken to extremes.

[JustRandy]

32 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

we should remove all speed limits

Autobahn.

and

The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws. https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

33 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

and traffic signs

Removing Signals and Signs from Intersections Just Might Make Us Safer  https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/09/shared-spaces/116/

And just for kicks, the school with no rules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Y0cuufVGI

I get your point though, just saying.  As Molyneux put it, lack of coercion does not result in chaos, but spontaneous self-organization... or something like that.  Of course he's a hypocrite as his forum is filled with more rules than any online!

39 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

there  has to be  some reasonable  limits  to   "freedoms"  for the good  of  all

Right, but the problem is if you're using the distraction argument for cell phones, then you have to use it for eating and cb radios that millions of truckers and COPS use!  Every cop is guilty by virtue of being a cop! LOL

Maybe it's illegal to eat and drive in canada, but in the US such a law would cripple the fast food industry.  I remember I let my gf drive while I ate a hamburger when we were rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light.  I told the cop that I didn't want to eat and drive because it's illegal and he said "It is?  That's news to me."  I just figured it was illegal because it probably should be, but it isn't.

And now we have new Teslas coming with touchscreens which is a giant distraction while people drive on autopilot.

47 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

tinted windows

I think there is an epa law requiring all cars with AC to have some degree of tinting.  The degree of tinting you're allowed to have varies from state to state.  In AZ you're allowed more than most states.

But we've veered farther than I originally wanted to stray from the point of this issue which was republicans enacted the law specifically as another means to shakedown the public and expand the police state for their drug war because they are not interested in safety whatsoever, unless you think this is safe:

Believe it or not, that numbskull is going to get at least half the votes and he already has Trump's endorsement.

He talks like he's suffered a stroke https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/02/brian-kemp-pointing-gun-teen-daughters.hln

On his page he's shaking hands with a cop (and not because he's safety conscious but planning to launch a war on mexicans) http://www.kempforgovernor.com/issues

Another IQ95, like Trump, who likely had everything handed to him by daddy

Kemp was son in-law of the late longtime Georgia lawmaker and Athens insurance executive Bob Argo.^[6]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kemp}

Representatives like him only cement the already derogatory stereotype of Georgians being dumb hillbillies, but you know what they say about birds of a feather...

 

 

[davefrombc]

Quote

Right, but the problem is if you're using the distraction argument for cell phones, then you have to use it for eating and cb radios that millions of truckers and COPS use!  Every cop is guilty by virtue of being a cop! LOL

Eating or drinking  a non-alcoholic beverage while driving in itself  is not  illegal , but if a  cop sees you weaving or doing some other  driving errors that   can  be attributed to  distracted  driving you  could  get a ticket for  that.  Cops  here are exempted from some of the rules  on fiddling with electronics while  driving, and it  has  led  to  a few  cases of them  getting into  accidents while using  a cell phone or  checking their  on board computers.  Use of a  hand held  microphone  that  is  used as a microphone  only is exempt  from the   no  hand held electronics laws here.  That  covers   CB's, police radios  and  HAM  gear ..It is illegal to  use   the mike  to  tune  the radio  to a different  channel or any other  function than  push to talk  because it leads to the driver diverting  his  attention to  driving.  Yup,  it's a  fine  line ,  but  its there  to  allow  use of communication gear  not  held  and tuned in the  hand.

Yeah ,   in that campaign   photo   what   could  go  wrong ?..... Other  than  him  blowing a  new  navel  into  that  lad .

Your  mid terms are  going to  make for some interesting  watching this  coming  November.   The  Dems  need  to  really work  on getting the  vote  out and find  some very  good  candidates to  run  in the  red states  to  turn  them  as bright a shade of  purple as they  possibly  can.  Let  tRump  and the ERW carry  on  much  longer they  way they've been  going and  I can  see  a  lot of  Americans waking up  one  morning  wondering  "What  the  hell  happened"? I'm  afraid  they're putting  America  and   all  her trading partners  on a  path to  a repeat  of 1929.

Edited July 27, 2018 by davefrombc

[JustRandy]

17 hours ago, davefrombc said:

Yeah ,   in that campaign   photo   what   could  go  wrong ?

Stacey Abrams is actually really cool.  She comments on that photo in this interview

 

I was surprised at her intelligence: high school valedictorian and Yale doctorate in law.

So I suppose the strategy for both Abrams and Cortez is/was to find voters who don't usually vote and get them to vote.  There are enough voters to flip the election, but they have to be inspired to vote and I don't think a centrist can be inspirational.

Here is a graphic I edited from the democratic perspective:

Obama was different and look at the youth vote.  Kids won't do anything unless it's exciting.

And here is a Stanford study of the election:

Trump performed worse among the demographic groups most likely to use the internet and social media.  Republican share of the vote in 2016 was as high or higher among the groups least active online.  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199571#sec005

So then I headed over to socialblade to see how various news sites compared in terms of subscribers and found CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ESPN, and really anybody and everybody adding lots of subs.  Actually CNN is leading in terms of sheer numbers (not %) 

https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/msnbcleanforward/monthly

https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/cnn/monthly

https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/foxnes/monthly

Scroll to the bottom for the charts.

So more people online seems bad news for republicans and CNN added nearly 2 million subs since Jan while FoxNews only added 3/4 of a million.

[JustRandy]

17 hours ago, davefrombc said:

on a  path to  a repeat  of 1929

Things are going to get bad eventually because of the tax structure.  Money flows uphill due to profit and interest payments from the working class to the rich, so my question is: where will the money come from?

They say the problem with socialism is that we eventually run out of other people's money, but the irony is that it's the opposite: it's capitalism where we run out of other people's money because if the rich are in the business of getting richer, then where is the money coming from???  Are people dying and giving up their money to the rich?  Who is giving up their wealth?

The only way someone can get richer is if someone else is getting poorer or else new money is being created via the issuance of debt.

Without the redistributive taxes of the 50s , 60s, and 70s, the working class had to go into debt to replace that lost money ever since Reagan cut taxes on the rich.  And since money flows uphill via profits and interest on the debt, where will new money come from when their credit is finally tapped?

What caused the 2008 meltdown was oil and food prices getting so high that consumers couldn't pay their debt and then the whole house of cards came down.  Essentially, they ran out of money.... we ran out of other people's money to give to the rich.

That was the prime cause of the Revolutionary War according to Franklin.  King George demanded taxes paid in gold, but no one had gold because they were using Colonial Scrip.  People were starving, so they went to war.

Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold and silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the first "Bank War" in America, which ended in defeat for the Money Changers beginning with the Declaration of Independence, and concluded by the subsequent peace Treaty of Paris 1783.

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America's current monetary problems, look what happened to America after the Currency Act of 1764 was passed.

Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said: "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution.

As Franklin put it in his autobiography: "The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyMasters/Money_Masters_djvu.txt

Likewise in the Civil War the South was reliant on cotton and commodities, but the North had some spat with France over tariffs and the South had enough and wanted out because people were starving.  The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and Lincoln himself said if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so.  The SCOTUS had already ruled before the war even started, so slavery was a nonissue.  

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott case or Dred Scott decision, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",^[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court;^[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

So why would they be fighting over slavery 4 years later?  They weren't.  The fight was about individualism vs collectivism... states rights vs national rights... the same fight that is going on today in nationalism vs globalism.

There may have been a war in the 1930s as well since people were starving once again, but FDR saved the day.  The first thing he did was ban gold 1 month after taking office and 2 months later he started the FDIC which guaranteed banking deposits.  Then he jacked up taxes on the rich and started Social Security.  Unfortunately we had a World War in the 40s, but afterwards the US saw an unprecedented spurt of economic growth and birth of a Middle Class which endured until Reagan planted the seeds of its demise.

Trump is simply repeating history, undoing what FDR did, and returning us to conditions that existed before wars began.  He may have good intentions, but he's just too ignorant of history to avoid repeating it.

I doubt we'll see a war or mass starvation, but conditions will deteriorate one day and probably very quickly like a tornado from nowhere on a bright sunny day.  When consumers run out of money to give the rich, that will be the breaking point, just like 2008.

The fed has the tools to fight downturns as a result of legislation from 2008, but all they can really do is buy bonds, which does give money to the middle class through military spending and other gov programs if they buy directly from the treasury, but last time they bought bonds it was from Goldman Sachs.  Ideally they should print money and send it to the lower classes, but that would be a hard pill for people to swallow.  Not even the BOJ has done that!  Only the rich can have welfare and everyone else gets the scraps that fall from the table in trickle down.

When prices and interest rates go up, that will be the end because consumers can't bear it.

[laddneu]

 I like charts

[quadmaniac]

Its amazing to me that we havent seem the Mueller report yet today but dems like adam schiff basically say "whatever" even if no collusion, we are still going to investigate more. If nothing is found, enough already. If something is found then say something and have the president face it. But networks like cnn and msnbc are already moving along to other investigation. How pathetic..it really is. 

Here you go dems...from CNN just now!

[Frank Angerano]

I wonder what the cost of this investigation was ? Tax payers prob paid upward of 2 million for this 

[quadmaniac]

3 hours ago, Frank Angerano said:

I wonder what the cost of this investigation was ? Tax payers prob paid upward of 2 million for this 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/14/mueller-investigation-cost-25-million-in-first-16-months-report.html

$25 Million in only the first 16 months. Has to be upwards of $40 million if not more. What a joke.

[Frank Angerano]

Ok guess I was wrong. Dam.  

[quadmaniac]

I've been watching a few of the news channels this evening and its amazing to see democrats grasping at straws. Its like a not winning the lottery and trying to find a reason why the lotto machine may have given you the wrong numbers. I think the more they do this and act like this, the worse it'll be for them in future elections. They should just move on and focus on a real agenda for this country. 

[davefrombc]

48 minutes ago, quadmaniac said:

I've been watching a few of the news channels this evening and its amazing to see democrats grasping at straws. Its like a not winning the lottery and trying to find a reason why the lotto machine may have given you the wrong numbers. I think the more they do this and act like this, the worse it'll be for them in future elections. They should just move on and focus on a real agenda for this country. 

That can be said for both parties .. Look  at the millions  the GOP wasted trying to  find something ,  anything to  pin on the Clintons.  At least the Mueller  investigation did ferret out a  lot of  illegal activities  by a lot of people in  Trump's circle..  The  full results of the investigation aren't known  yet  either .

I must admit I'm  surprised they did not find any  direct collusion.

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by davefrombc

[quadmaniac]

I think a lot of non-trumpers feel the same way as @davefrombc where they can't believe there was no collusion. 

[GrizzlyRider]

Is anyone watching the democratic debates? Any favorites or front runners? Who do you think will go up against trump?

[JustRandy]

37 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

Is anyone watching the democratic debates? Any favorites or front runners? Who do you think will go up against trump?

I like Yang, Tulsi, and Bernie.

Biden is a Republican.  He supports the electoral college and defended states' rights on busing.  Supporting the idea of a republic over a democracy makes one a republican.  He also voted for war, is tough on crime, against drugs, favors private insurance to medicare for all, and told the rich not to worry because nothing would fundamentally change.  So he's a somewhat socially liberal, fiscally conservative republican.

Kamala gives me the impression she will say anything to get elected.  She's "open to discussion on the electoral college."  Why not take a position?  Does she support it or not?  She wants to be on both sides of the fence.  And Tulsi made a good point that Kamala was in a position to make a difference and she didn't.

Warren seems a bit ditsy to me, but I'm ok with her policies.

I don't think Yang has a chinaman's chance  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman's_chance  But I like his ideas.

Bernie is the only one of the progressives who actually has a shot at winning.

But Biden is who I'm projecting to win because he's seen as the safer candidate to beat Trump, so whether Biden fondles girls and is actually a republican doesn't matter if he can beat Trump.

I think Bernie has a better shot at beating Trump than Biden.  My reasoning for that is the fact that all 55 counties in WV wanted Bernie, but voted for Trump over Hillary.  What people do not want is another establishment democrat, so they're more likely to vote for Bernie over Biden.

So, Yang has the best ideas, but Bernie is the best one to win.

[GrizzlyRider]

Great points of view and breakdown on each candidate. I watched the debates. I think Biden has the best chance coming out of the primaries in the lead but I don't think any of them will beat trump. Hillary would have a better chance making another attempt. I kinda liked Corey Booker the last debate but he is a little out there also. Its funny to see them not supporting Obama policies. Warren I just don't connect with. There is a chance Mayor Pete comes ahead, Beto is toast at this point I think.

I just don't think there are enough votes for medicare for all, free college, and more government programs and Bernie's round 2 doesn't have as much steam because he's perceived as even older and more angry. Kamala will do anything, I agree. Yang has an interesting idea, but most working voters wont go for giving non workers free money or have taxes raised to pay for healthcare and free tuition. Most of the 160 million people with employer sponsored healthcare want there pre-obamacare plans back with $25 co-pays and no deductibles....I just don't see it happening and I think they are throwing out these big ideas because generally speaking the country is doing pretty well economically and its hard to unseat a president with a good economy. People I think vote with their pockets. I predict trump wins a second term but will watch it all play out because you never know!

Here's the latest polls, Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris. 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by GrizzlyRider

[JustRandy]

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

I think Biden has the best chance coming out of the primaries in the lead but I don't think any of them will beat trump.

I agree about Biden, but I'm curious how you see Trump being more popular.  He lost to Hillary by 3 million votes and his popularity has declined since then.  I mean, yeah, he has his hardcore fans, but the republican party is bleeding supporters.  George Will switched and is now a MSNBC contributor, of all things lol.  And Carl Cameron was with Fox News from the beginning, and he quit.  Justin Amash.  Richard Ojeda, the army major, voted Trump but now advocates for Bernie in WV.  There's a big list and Trump continues to offend people.  Ann Coulter is hanging by a thread.  People have to overlook a lot in order to stay in the republican party.  It's just hard to see republicans adding members since 2016.  How do you see it differently?

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

Hillary would have a better chance making another attempt.

I thought Hillary was the reason Trump got elected.  Originally Trump was a "not-Hillary" vote.  Most guys on forums and comments sections said they didn't really like Trump, but he was better than Hillary.  She had a laundry list of reasons not to like her and then Comey launched that investigation right before the election.  Plus she was a Clinton, which was a good reason for most conservatives not to like her. 

Bernie would have beat him in 2016 because he would have won the swing states that Hillary couldn't win (MI, WI, and PA).  The extra 46 electoral votes would have made 278 for Bernie and 260 for Trump instead of 232 for Hillary and 306 for Trump.  They say that no one can win without those 3 states, which is why they're the swing states. 

I think Trump has now lost those states.  He didn't do manufacturing any favors with the tariffs and he's having to give farmers handouts to fix what his tariffs caused.  So he lost MI and WI right there.  And coal mines are going bankrupt, so there goes PA.  That leaves Trump no path to win.  And on top of that, the states are circumventing the electoral college by forcing electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote.  https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

I kinda liked Corey Booker the last debate but he is a little out there also. Its funny to see them not supporting Obama policies. Warren I just don't connect with. There is a chance Mayor Pete comes ahead, Beto is toast at this point I think.

I never looked into Booker.  Seemed like a waste of time.  Obama is probably also a republican.  Obama and Biden are essentially the same.

You're gonna laugh at this, but I think Buttigieg's name doomed him.  People like short easy names, not short people with long names.

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

I just don't think there are enough votes for medicare for all, free college, and more government programs

They say they do.

 

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

and Bernie's round 2 doesn't have as much steam because he's perceived as even older and more angry.

People like angry Bernie.  "I wrote the damn bill!"  lol

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

Yang has an interesting idea, but most working voters wont go for giving non workers free money

Why would you turn down $1000/mo unconditional money?  It wouldn't even cause income taxes to go up because it would be funded by a national sales tax.  So it would transfer money from people who buy a lot to people who don't buy much (ie from rich to poor).  You'd be coming out way ahead if you save more than you spend.

But you're right, people would hurt themselves just to be sure someone doesn't get something for nothing.  That's a curious fact about human nature.

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

or have taxes raised to pay for healthcare and free tuition.

I think healthcare would be funded by an income tax and tuition by a tax on stock trades.

Eliminating insurance makes it more efficient since the gov doesn't take a profit.  All that profit that used to go to insurance companies could go somewhere else.  Eliminate the middle man.

Really I think the only valid argument against guaranteeing everyone healthcare is longer lines and reduced quality, but then I'd be saying that someone else needs to suffer so I can have shorter lines and better care.  I don't know if that's a moral position.  I don't think there is a moral way to deny anyone care.  That's why all the candidates in debate 1 were forced to raise their hands.

9 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:

Most of the 160 million people with employer sponsored healthcare want there pre-obamacare plans back with $25 co-pays and no deductibles....I just don't see it happening and I think they are throwing out these big ideas because generally speaking the country is doing pretty well economically and its hard to unseat a president with a good economy. 

The only problem is it's not very efficient.  Someone somewhere is paying the profits to the insurance companies.

[GrizzlyRider]

@JustRandy very nice write up and you have some great points. I also did not think Obama would get re-elected but he did. I just don't see the country going through huge transformation/change. "Hope and Change" killed that. Check out this article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/07/12/beat-trump-with-mainstream-ideas-not-far-left-fantasies-column/1703543001/

Far-left ideas will boost Trump 

Democrats could, however, easily expand this four-state map — for the Republicans. Want to put Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire in play? Easy. Just run on policies like eliminating private health insurance, reparations for slavery, legalizing drugs and decriminalizing prostitution. Every one of these projects has been pushed by one or more Democratic presidential candidates. There may be things to be said for all of these issues. And someday, we should have a serious policy debate about them. Today is not that day.

Those legendary soccer moms are still out there and, by and large, they have had enough of Trump’s antics. But if you want to run on far-left positions like, say, resurrecting forced busing, they’re going to stick with the devil they know rather than vote for someone who promises to do things like send their kids on 30-mile bus rides every day.  

This doesn’t mean Democrats can’t run on progressive policies. Talk about fixing and expanding Obamacare, if you want. Talk about universal pre-kindergarten. Talk about guaranteed parental leave. If it’s OK with those voters in Erie, it’s OK with me.

[davefrombc]

Here's a view  from  your  neighbour  from the north.

It's interesting to  watch the American  psyche  from outside.   Americans  have been  fed propaganda supporting fear  of  Communism / Socialism  at least  since the 1920's  and the  Russian  revolution.  Big  business doesn't like to  see any threats to their  cash  cows. Any time there is  a  push for social reform such as  Medicare /Medicaid  they scream  " SOCIALISM "  and far too many people start scrambling for cover.   Get this straight.  Medicare / Medicaid is NOT  free, but it is far cheaper for all than the mess healthcare  is in the US  now.  Those with top tier health plans through their  company  or  union have great  coverage,  but they  are a minority.  Most  have far less coverage with co-pays .  caps  and  "pre-existing condition" limits.   Medication  costs  are outrageous  unless you're in one  of those top plans .  Stop,  step  back   and  look  at  it. What does  your  top tier  plan really  cost you?  The  company is paying a pile of money to  cover you  and the rest of their employees  in the  plan  (  Company  socialism if you want to  look  at it this way) .  Those  costs  come out of your  potential  wages that  could be  negotiated idf the company  did  not have them . Ask yourself   why  the  US  is the  only one among  the   western  nations  and   many less developed  ones  that does not  have a  government  plan  covering everyone. It's a sign of mental  illness  when  one  has the attitude  " I am the only one  with  all the answers ,  everyone  else is wrong.   Only  I  can fix it, make it better".

All  medical  plans and systems have their problems and  things that could be  better,  but in  our   "Socialist" system    EVERYONE  is covered for  basic  healthcare. When  I say  basic ,  that  means all  surgeries  and  treatment  necessary  for  health. You are not denied care  because you  cannot pay for it ,  have reached  a cap  or  have "pre-existing " conditions. Extras  like  private rooms, wage replacement  and other  non-medical benefits   of   private  insurance  are not  part of the government  plans.  If you want them you  can  buy them   private  or negotiate coverage  through  your  union  or directly  with the company  you work  for. 

I  don't  know  how  the various  government plans work ,  but  ours  doesn't  cover "vanity" surgeries  or  other 
"not necessary  for  health" procedures.  Yes ,  waiting  lists  can be   too  long , in some cases  far too long,  for elective surgeries ( surgeries  not  immediately  necessary )  but  emergency procedures are  done immediately. With the electives  they  go  by triage.  You  go  on the list  by seniority , but those in most  need go to the  top  of the list.  Your  bank balance  does not figure into whether  you  get care  or not .

  As far  as who  to  choose among the  Dem  contenders, I really can't say  any  one  of them  is outstanding in my  view.  All  have  good points .  All  have their drawbacks .  Bernie  is  too  far  left  for   a  population  that   has been  fed  the " socialism  is  bad"  propaganda  for the  last  century.  Biden  is accused  of  being  a "Republican "  in disguise ,  but  he is the most realistic among the bunch.   There  is no way  the American  public is going to  make a  huge  swing to the left.  You do  what  you  can do  given the circumstances.  You  need a "Republican  in disguise"  President   just  as  you   need  a  "Democrat  in  disguise"  President  when electing   a President . . You need someone  who  is realistic and can work  with both sides of the  Congress  if   they really want to get  anything done  for the benefit of all.  Fot hgat reason   I  give my  outsiders  chops  to  Biden.

On another note,  Your economy  has been  doing well  for  most  despite  Trump ,  not because of  him.  I'm  afraid  it  won't  continue  and is in danger of a  crash  because of his idiotic  tariffs and refusal  to  face reality.

 

[GrizzlyRider]

I don't agree with that necessarily, I attribute the economy to the ease of corporate taxes by Trump. If companies do well in this country the economy does well. Its just that simple. Trump is so more "business friendly". You can't change that, its capitalism. (an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.)

With healthcare, same deal..."for profit" drives progress. No profit, no progress. Some people don't like it but here's the thing, anyone can start a small business with ease and make money. Some become big business. If "for profit" business stops or decreases in this country, it will be bad news.  

I would gladly take $1k a week and free healthcare, which would be a raise for me if I don't nee to pay $400 a month for medical from my job. But don't raise my taxes to take from one end to give to another...lol! Communism collapsed for a reason in Russia and I just don't think this country will ever move towards any form of socialism, even minor. Sounds good in the beginning until its no longer enough. The foundation of this country is the "American Dream", so if you work hard you can get it, but not be given it. Times are changing but if the country ever moves towards socialism, you may as well change the flag. Help the veterans, disabled, elderly and children in need, but the rest should really get a job. Until monster.com, indeed, and careerbuilder go out of business, nobody can say there are no jobs. Imagine if employers could attract workers based on the healthcare, tuition, they offer and not minimize it because health care providers raise their rates to those companies because they have to absorb those without. There is a reason people fly their sick for medical treatment to this country, that will all go away if you don't pay doctors, hospitals, medical centers, etc. and they stop being profitable. People debate it like its not good, shame on corporations for making money, too funny. Nothing is free, someone always pays. 

[davefrombc]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyRider said:

I don't agree with that necessarily, I attribute the economy to the ease of corporate taxes by Trump. If companies do well in this country the economy does well. Its just that simple. Trump is so more "business friendly". You can't change that, its capitalism. (an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.)

With healthcare, same deal..."for profit" drives progress. No profit, no progress. Some people don't like it but here's the thing, anyone can start a small business with ease and make money. Some become big business. If "for profit" business stops or decreases in this country, it will be bad news.  

I would gladly take $1k a week and free healthcare, which would be a raise for me if I don't nee to pay $400 a month for medical from my job. But don't raise my taxes to take from one end to give to another...lol! Communism collapsed for a reason in Russia and I just don't think this country will ever move towards any form of socialism, even minor. Sounds good in the beginning until its no longer enough. The foundation of this country is the "American Dream", so if you work hard you can get it, but not be given it. Times are changing but if the country ever moves towards socialism, you may as well change the flag. Help the veterans, disabled, elderly and children in need, but the rest should really get a job. Until monster.com, indeed, and careerbuilder go out of business, nobody can say there are no jobs. Imagine if employers could attract workers based on the healthcare, tuition, they offer and not minimize it because health care providers raise their rates to those companies because they have to absorb those without. There is a reason people fly their sick for medical treatment to this country, that will all go away if you don't pay doctors, hospitals, medical centers, etc. and they stop being profitable. People debate it like its not good, shame on corporations for making money, too funny. Nothing is free, someone always pays. 

You really need to  look into  health care and where a lot of advancements in health care drugs and  procedures/ equipment  come from .. Many do  come from the  for profit   US , but   many come from  other systems too..  You  already  have " Socialism"  in many of your  programs ..   It  just  is not recognized as such by  industry  and the public so   conditioned to  panic whenever  someone  says   "Socialism"..  It  is a Pavlovian  reaction to   a century or  more  of conditioning .  "Communism" collapsed in Russia for many reasons , but  communism  was not  one of them .. There  is no  real  communist  federal governments in any country,  and  any place  where there is cooperation  and support  between the communities  citizens  is a form  of socialism. The only place you would find  no   socialism is  in an  anarchy where it  everyone for himself. For  profit does not drive all the advances  in  medicine .  Most are driven  by  research in universities  and  other  supported research  groups  where the results are normally turned over to  business. That is  as true  in the US  as it is  elsewhere.

Edited August 3, 2019 by davefrombc

[GrizzlyRider]

31 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

You really need to  look into  health care and where a lot of advancements in health care drugs and  procedures/ equipment  come from .. Many do  come from the  for profit   US , but   many come from  other systems too..  You  already  have " Socialism"  in many of your  programs ..   It  just  is not recognized as such by  industry  and the public so   conditioned to  panic whenever  someone  says   "Socialism"..  It  is a Pavlovian  reaction to   a century or  more  of conditioning .  "Communism" collapsed in Russia for many reasons , but  communism  was not  one of them .. There  is no  real  communist  federal governments in any country,  and  any place  where there is cooperation  and support  between the communities  citizens  is a form  of socialism. The only place you would find  no   socialism is  in an  anarchy where it  everyone for himself. For  profit does not drive all the advances  in  medicine .  Most are driven  by  research in universities  and  other  supported research  groups  where the results are normally turned over to  business. That is  as true  in the US  as it is  elsewhere.

My bet is it will never happen. I just don't subscribe to the theory of anything free. Maybe my mindset will change but I would rather be rewarded monetarily for working hard, improving my skills, learning, and gaining increase through advancement. The more money you make the more you can buy. I don't expect to drive a corvette if I can't afford it. But if I can, I do expect I'll get one and not have the government give one away to everyone free. I want the government to stay out of my business and not tax me as much, leave me alone, minimize regulations, and stick to controlling the borders and keeping us safe. I don't need the government for anything else. I also absolutely do not agree with forgiving student debt. Is anyone gong to back pay me for what I paid in student debt, nope. Free community college with a a minimum gpa to have it paid and maybe interest free re-financing of student loads for 40-50 years based on age, but that's all I would be for. This notion of giving things free is a strategy to nowhere and produces complacency and laziness.

Edited August 3, 2019 by GrizzlyRider

[davefrombc]

What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing  free  under  our system , and those of the other ones with universal  care . We  pay through our  taxes, but what we pay  in taxes  is far less than what you  pay  in  your  private  systems either directly   or  as a company  paid "benefit" which you are really  paying  for ,  but the cost to  you  is hidden as it is not specified on your  pay stub.  The  bottom line is  more people are left with  more  spending cash in their pockets after all  the  premiums and taxes  are  paid and no  one goes without health  care . It is very difficult to explain systems different  from your  "Free  enterprise" system  so  constantly propagandized  by  American  big  business.  I  certainly  can't  explain the difference  between  what the  American  public has been  constantly  been barraged with and the facts of other systems . It takes an  open  mind willing to  reject propaganda  one way  or the other  and seek  out  facts without  built in  prejudice .

[JustRandy]

7 hours ago, GrizzlyRider said:

Far-left ideas will boost Trump 

That's the theory, but you have to wonder who will vote for Trump just because the alternative is too far left.  It seems to me that anyone who voted for Hillary in 2016 will definitely not vote for Trump regardless who he's running against.  I just can't picture the kind of person who voted for Hillary and then switched to Trump.

The same can't be said of Trump voters.  Most Trump voters in 2016 will probably vote for him again, but some of them will switch.  Richard Ojeda is one.  He's supporting Bernie, but might switch back to Trump if Biden is the alternative.  I think we can conclude that people who voted for Trump was mostly protesting establishment democrats.  Well, Bernie isn't a democrat.

So although his idea are farther left than Hillary and Biden, he's not an establishment democrat and that's probably more important to ex-Trump-voters.

The next question is what people will do who did not vote in 2016?  Well, they are probably young.

The 60+ group is almost maxed out.  Retired people vote with consistency, but the youth are volatile.  If the candidate doesn't excite them, they stay home and play video games.

And the youth are overwhelmingly democrat.

So if more people show up to vote, it favors democrats and it's hard to see the fact that a democrat candidate is too far left being a reason for a democrat to vote for Trump.

The way I see it (which is extremely unpopular) is it's monumentally important for Bernie to beat Biden, because if Biden wins, then he'll probably beat Trump and we'll have 8 years of Obama 2.0, which fixes nothing and helps no one except corporations.  The people will be happy because Trump is gone and the corporations can resume screwing us.  Biden is the worst that can happen because he'll pacify the people (remove their will to fight for change) while not fundamentally changing anything.  If Trump wins, then it preserves the will to fight and progressives still have a chance in 2024.

That logic is based on the fact the FDR needed Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover preceding him to cause the mess that FDR cleaned up.  If there is no calamity to fix, then we don't need a savior.  So if the great depression didn't happen, then FDR wouldn't have been elected.  That's why the "elites" support conservative democrats: they give the people just enough to shut them up while allowing the elites to retain power.  The elites are fine with Trump too, because he gives them lots of power, but the risk is that the people grab their pitchforks, so it's better to have Biden, Hillary, Obama, etc in office than risk having Bernie come to power because they got too greedy with Trump.

Bernie is who they're scared of.  He'll slaughter the military industrial complex.  He'll neuter the criminal justice system.  He'll strip the power from the oligarchs and they know it.

 

[JustRandy]

8 hours ago, davefrombc said:

Americans  have been  fed propaganda supporting fear  of  Communism / Socialism  at least  since the 1920's  and the  Russian  revolution. 

Yep, it's the Red Scare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

Chomsky describes the propaganda here:

 

There was no socialism in the USSR.  Since 1918 the USSR was the most anti-socialist place you could imagine.  It was the exact opposite on every point.

Same could be said of Venezuela today.

 

[JustRandy]

6 hours ago, GrizzlyRider said:

I attribute the economy to the ease of corporate taxes by Trump. If companies do well in this country the economy does well. Its just that simple.

Depends how you define "economy".  If the economy is the stock market, then giving corps money will boost buybacks, which is a way of inflating the shares that the boardmembers own.  It's essentially embezzlement.  They don't create jobs, they don't invest in equipment, they don't raise the wages of employees, they don't conduct more R&D (because that's taxpayer funded anyway), but all they do is buy their stock back to increase the wealth of the boardmembers.

If the rich get richer, where is the money coming from?

If there is a gold standard and the rich get richer, then it's obvious that the gold is coming from everyone else because there is no place else for the gold to come from.

Printing money doesn't change that fact because as more money is created to account for the increased wealth of the rich, it dilutes the money that everyone else has.  (Your money is devalued in terms of house prices, stock prices, bond prices, classic car prices, art prices, and other investment asset prices.  We could say the dollar went down in terms of those things since it takes more dollars to buy them now.)

So if Bezos is getting richer faster than you are, then his money is coming from you.

6 hours ago, GrizzlyRider said:

 its capitalism. (an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.)

Capitalism is a synonym for exploitationism, but sounds better.  If you capitalize on a situation, then you've exploited the situation to your benefit.

Capitalism leverages against a person their bad luck to compel them to work for low wages.  If people did not need to work to survive, they could demand higher wages.  If people have to work to survive, then they are in no position to bargain and the free market is gone.  Work is not voluntary, but forced, and that's enslavement for profit.  They are capitalizing on the fact that people must work to live.

6 hours ago, GrizzlyRider said:

anyone can start a small business with ease and make money.

As a former business owner, I'd say it's deliberately difficult to start and run a small business.  Taxes, insurance, accounting is all a nightmare.  They do not want you starting a business just like they don't want you collecting government checks because it does nothing to enrich the rich.  They want you working for a wage so that you can be exploited for profit.  Standing on your own through self-employment is not encouraged or it would be easier to do so.

[Kevin Connors]

Trump 2020

[JustRandy]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:48 AM, Kevin Connors said:

Trump 2020

For prison? lol

What I don't understand is how people who ordinarily despise liars are able to support the biggest documented liar in history; how people who usually defend women are able to support someone demeaning to women; how people who pride themselves on honest and fair play are able to support an unabashed cheater.  I don't know what to make of that contradiction.  How does one say: "You see that lying, cheating, womanizing dimwit over there?  Well, that's my man!  I will support him to my dying day!"   How does that happen?  How does one rectify that level of hypocrisy?

Everything that everyone complained about the Clintons are exponentially worse with Trump:  They said the establishment democrats don't represent the people and don't have the people's interests mind, and that they just lie to them to get elected.  Well hell, Trump said he could easily balance the budget, but instead ran us $1 trillion deeper in debt by giving huge tax cuts to the 1%.  He said trade wars are easy to win, then got us mired in a trade war requiring the farmers to get bailed out and prompted central banks around the world to make preemptive interest rate cuts to offset his dumbassery.  He said he was going to make Mexico pay for his useless wall, but then took money from the Pentagon to fund it.  Back when the fed was doing QE, he was complaining that low rates and cheap money would destroy America, but now he's wishing he could fire Powell because he won't cut rates fast enough to support his "strongest economy ever".  And he led us to believe he had some special talent for picking talented people, as exhibited in his Apprentice show, but everyone he hires, he fires or wishes he could fire them.  He's worse at picking people than flipping a coin!

Then he said he was going to drain the swamp, but instead filled the white house with swamp creatures:  He has a Goldman Sachs guy as Secretary of Treasury, an oil lobbyist as Secretary of Interior, a Rothschild as Secretary of Commerce, a pharma lobbyist as Secretary of Health, a coal lobbyist as Administrator of EPA, and to top it off: a confederate slavery advocate as Secretary of Veterans.  You couldn't make this crap up!  Essentially, he put Al Capone in charge of the cops.  And the rest of his cabinet are religious fundamentalists that believe the earth is 6000 yrs old and the rapture is coming any day now.  Well, no need for the rapture because Trump already claimed the title of the son of god!  The messiah has already returned and he's paying off po** stars!

In light of all that there is no choice but to conclude anyone supporting Trump at this point has drawn their integrity and intelligence into grave question.

The only remaining defense is spite, which is to concede that Trump is a lying cheating nitwit, but that's good because he makes other people mad.  Essentially, people are smearing feces onto their own walls to make other people mad.  They're destroying their own world just to see others in pain.

Once again I have to say it: support for Trump draws one's integrity and intelligence into grave question.

I supported him in the beginning because he fooled me, and I didn't like Hillary.  But I got off the sinking ship by admitting I was wrong after seeing what he did.

Honestly, I still don't think I could vote for Hillary because those establishment dems have to go, and maybe I could see voting for Trump over Hillary as having a noble spin to it, but "voting for" and being "supportive of" are two different things.  I might vote for the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean I have to support the evil that is lesser.

To advocate Trump without even knowing who his opponent will be is proof that one supports the evil unconditionally.  Blind loyalty should only be an attribute of dogs, not large-brained humans.  But even a dog is smart enough to abandon an owner who abuses it.

[JustRandy]

What would y'all think of me if I came on here saying nobody knows more about ATVs than me?  Would you worship me?  I really need people to worship me.

The super genius of all time!