Political Roundtable Part XVI

[Wizardspride]

.

I guess when you start posting nine or ten in a row, one of them is bound to reference Minimalism, with a sly reference to basketball and a subtle critique of the Wizards continual malaise.

I think Pine used to have a standard wherein three posts in a row was the equivalent of quoting yourself, either one indicative of a blog diary than a message board. You have a blog STD?

never critiqued the wizards and i cant find the delete button.

keep in mind, i do get asked questions and often the same question over and over. my one and 2 liners aren't enough. they want more. they pretend they dont. but they do. they dig it man.

anyhow, blog did you say? should i really start a blog? hmmm?

in terms of a candidate for 2020. Honestly, i dont think Obama himself could beat Trump. Impeachment is D's only path to victory in 2020 and thats why they wont let up. CNN is at 98% negative coverage. think about that. with the economy booming CNN wont talk about. or if they briefly mention it they spin it in a negative light for trump.

One of the points, I keep making over and over in this thread is that for D's have almost no chance to win in 2020.

You wont have a chance until 2024 and even then Ivanka might run, and she's no kitty kat, D's need to come back to jesus/God/Allah. not literally(but that might not hurt). but they need to do a complete 180 on many policy and platform ideologies. And you need a good candidate who can debate with trump. As of right now in 2020 , Trump would devour Obama himself in a debate. In that theoretical debate all trump would need to keep coing back to is the economy, jobs, GDP, stock market, foriegn policy, trade renegotiations. and there is nothing Obama could say. Nothing.

So you're saying Obama wouldn't have a chance against a president with an approval rating in the mid 30s?

Perhaps that approval rating will change but for now it sucks.

For Obama to lose to Trump you'd have to believe that Trump would retain the loyalty of every Obama voter who voted for him and every Obama voter who sat out the election because they disliked HRC would do so again.

Look, you have a habit of accusing liberals of living in a bubble...well, in this case I think that applies to you.

I understand YOU really like Trump and that's fine.....but you're in the minority.

Other than his core supporters the man is not popular at all. Not among liberals and most importantly, not among independents.

A pet peeve of mine: You talk constantly about how bad things were under Obama for the people you know, and I'm sorry if that's iftrue....but you speak as if that was everyone's reality. Let me tell you something: It wasn't....

You talk about the unemployment rate/stock market etc etc as if they were just horrible under Obama and the moment Trump entered office they miraculously took off when that's not the case.

When President Obama left office the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent. That's 4.8 from a high of around 10%. It's currently 4.1.

When President Bush (43)left office the unemployment rate was 7.8

When President Obama left office the stock market had almost tripled under his watch.


Trump has had it easy compared to the disaster President Obama faced when he came into office.

Tell me I'm wrong.....

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[cammac]

Well we agree that the long-term costs and social ramifications are the keys. And neither party has kept their eye on those balls.

[u]But Bernie's proposals, are they irresponsible - absolutely, [/u]IMO. And populist - yep (his was the message of a chicken in every pot).

BTW, why does a fiscal conservative need to be about slashing government? That is the purview of social conservatives.

I would definitely say that the Rs are not the party of the fiscal conservative - and even more so now. I would say the fiscal conservative is a person without a party right now - just my opinion.

Now this is completely inaccurate. Bernie Sanders is absolutely not proposing anything radical at all. All of his policies are being used NOW in other countries around the world with varying degrees of success. People look at the immediate expenditures without looking at the long-term cost savings within Bernie's budget.

The United States is on track to spend 49T on healthcare over the next 10 years. Medicare 4 All would cost 32T over the next ten years, which results in a 17T savings. The rapacious middle-man healthcare insurance scam would be ended immediately. That's way more fiscally responsible than the BS plans the republicans have been spewing for the past few years (i.e. the ridiculous "competition" argument that absolutely does not work). Not only that, but by getting rid of the burden of healthcare on businesses, you spur growth in small business ownsership.

Bernie Sanders would cut military spending dramatically. Again, that is way more responsible than our current bloated and silly military budget.

He would give tax cuts to the middle class, the segment of the country that drives the economy, while raising taxes on the rich, closing loopholes in the tax code, and forcing corporations to pay their fair share, thus destroying the crony capitalist system. Again, that is way more fiscally responsible than blind tax cuts for everybody, which has proven to be disastrous (just look at the 1920's).

If anything, Bernie Sanders is the most fiscally responsible candidate in existence.

Yes Bernie is fiscally irresponsible while I applaud him giving single payer a forum he is taking the universal healthcare to the extreme! If you take the Canadian System and OHIP which is administered by Ontario he is adding to it dental, prescription drugs for all, (Ontario offers Seniors Drugs for a small dispensary fee),Optometrists so it encompasses all healthcare. It is totally not fiscally sound. I have lived in both the UK and NZ and neither are near that amount of service.

DCK is right that you can be fiscally responsible and not be a conservative its adjusting priorities and getting realistic tax reform as well as closing loopholes within the system. It is not always how low my taxes are but the value you receive for those taxes.

[Wizardspride]

Out of curiosity, has anyone paid attention to the Al Franken situation?

Growing chorus (including some republicans) feel he got railroaded for political reasons.

Basically some folks feel the allegations are questionable and he should have gotten the ethics investigation he asked for.

Kirsten Gillibrand who seems to have spearheaded his ouster, isn't very popular among many on the left right about now.

[FAH1223]

Out of curiosity, has anyone paid attention to the Al Franken situation?

Growing chorus (including some republicans) feel he got railroaded for political reasons.

Basically some folks feel the allegations are questionable and he should have gotten the ethics investigation he asked for.

Kirsten Gillibrand who seems to have spearheaded his ouster, isn't very popular among many on the left right about now.

Yeah, he got railroaded.

[dckingsfan]

There are no fiscal conservatives in existence anymore. Republicans pretend like they are the responsible budgetary party, but they are far from. Republicans want to de-fund social programs, but bloat our military industrial complex with unlimited funds. They give subsidies to corporations and allow loopholes in the tax code for the richest Americans. That's not fiscal conservatism...that's crony conservatism.

If an actual conservative Republican came out with the balls to actually take on special interest groups, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex, while fixing our broken justice system (i.e. a tea partier without the racist undertone), then I would consider that candidate. Someone like a Rand Paul, except less cooky.

Yup - Rs don't even pretend any longer.

I think the Rs are to broken to do anything logical at this point - they are the populist party of Trump/Bannon now and all that goes with it...

[dckingsfan]

There are no fiscal conservatives in existence anymore. Republicans pretend like they are the responsible budgetary party, but they are far from. Republicans want to de-fund social programs, but bloat our military industrial complex with unlimited funds. They give subsidies to corporations and allow loopholes in the tax code for the richest Americans. That's not fiscal conservatism...that's crony conservatism.

If an actual conservative Republican came out with the balls to actually take on special interest groups, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex, while fixing our broken justice system (i.e. a tea partier without the racist undertone), then I would consider that candidate. Someone like a Rand Paul, except less cooky.

disagree. trump is going to balance the budget. and likely before 2020. I guarantee it.

[TGW]

Well we agree that the long-term costs and social ramifications are the keys. And neither party has kept their eye on those balls.

[u]But Bernie's proposals, are they irresponsible - absolutely, [/u]IMO. And populist - yep (his was the message of a chicken in every pot).

BTW, why does a fiscal conservative need to be about slashing government? That is the purview of social conservatives.

I would definitely say that the Rs are not the party of the fiscal conservative - and even more so now. I would say the fiscal conservative is a person without a party right now - just my opinion.

Now this is completely inaccurate. Bernie Sanders is absolutely not proposing anything radical at all. All of his policies are being used NOW in other countries around the world with varying degrees of success. People look at the immediate expenditures without looking at the long-term cost savings within Bernie's budget.

The United States is on track to spend 49T on healthcare over the next 10 years. Medicare 4 All would cost 32T over the next ten years, which results in a 17T savings. The rapacious middle-man healthcare insurance scam would be ended immediately. That's way more fiscally responsible than the BS plans the republicans have been spewing for the past few years (i.e. the ridiculous "competition" argument that absolutely does not work). Not only that, but by getting rid of the burden of healthcare on businesses, you spur growth in small business ownsership.

Bernie Sanders would cut military spending dramatically. Again, that is way more responsible than our current bloated and silly military budget.

He would give tax cuts to the middle class, the segment of the country that drives the economy, while raising taxes on the rich, closing loopholes in the tax code, and forcing corporations to pay their fair share, thus destroying the crony capitalist system. Again, that is way more fiscally responsible than blind tax cuts for everybody, which has proven to be disastrous (just look at the 1920's).

If anything, Bernie Sanders is the most fiscally responsible candidate in existence.

Yes Bernie is fiscally irresponsible while I applaud him giving single payer a forum he is taking the universal healthcare to the extreme! If you take the Canadian System and OHIP which is administered by Ontario he is adding to it dental, prescription drugs for all, (Ontario offers Seniors Drugs for a small dispensary fee),Optometrists so it encompasses all healthcare. It is totally not fiscally sound. I have lived in both the UK and NZ and neither are near that amount of service.

DCK is right that you can be fiscally responsible and not be a conservative its adjusting priorities and getting realistic tax reform as well as closing loopholes within the system. It is not always how low my taxes are but the value you receive for those taxes.

lol so you're telling me because he wants to add dental and prescription coverage, that makes it extreme?

I just got back from Cuba...there prescriptions are dirt cheap. You know why? The government controls the costs. Same with dental.

I don't understand why regular healthcare is perfectly accetpable to you under a single payer system, but not dental/vision/prescription drugs, which is actually the cheaper portions of healthcare.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Wait... Cuba? Yeah, there are some things to be learned, but this has more layers than that. I can't meet you there, sorry.

I think Bernie's proposals are largely possible, not exactly the way he proposes them, but the larger idea is possible. As he's suggesting it? It needs some, uh, tweaks, though, which is where more diverse voices than just his are needed on that end. Not to entirely dismiss Cuba, as they do some things very right, but they definitely aren't the first example I'd be trying to emulate.

[cammac]

Now this is completely inaccurate. Bernie Sanders is absolutely not proposing anything radical at all. All of his policies are being used NOW in other countries around the world with varying degrees of success. People look at the immediate expenditures without looking at the long-term cost savings within Bernie's budget.

The United States is on track to spend 49T on healthcare over the next 10 years. Medicare 4 All would cost 32T over the next ten years, which results in a 17T savings. The rapacious middle-man healthcare insurance scam would be ended immediately. That's way more fiscally responsible than the BS plans the republicans have been spewing for the past few years (i.e. the ridiculous "competition" argument that absolutely does not work). Not only that, but by getting rid of the burden of healthcare on businesses, you spur growth in small business ownsership.

Bernie Sanders would cut military spending dramatically. Again, that is way more responsible than our current bloated and silly military budget.

He would give tax cuts to the middle class, the segment of the country that drives the economy, while raising taxes on the rich, closing loopholes in the tax code, and forcing corporations to pay their fair share, thus destroying the crony capitalist system. Again, that is way more fiscally responsible than blind tax cuts for everybody, which has proven to be disastrous (just look at the 1920's).

If anything, Bernie Sanders is the most fiscally responsible candidate in existence.

Yes Bernie is fiscally irresponsible while I applaud him giving single payer a forum he is taking the universal healthcare to the extreme! If you take the Canadian System and OHIP which is administered by Ontario he is adding to it dental, prescription drugs for all, (Ontario offers Seniors Drugs for a small dispensary fee),Optometrists so it encompasses all healthcare. It is totally not fiscally sound. I have lived in both the UK and NZ and neither are near that amount of service.

DCK is right that you can be fiscally responsible and not be a conservative its adjusting priorities and getting realistic tax reform as well as closing loopholes within the system. It is not always how low my taxes are but the value you receive for those taxes.

lol so you're telling me because he wants to add dental and prescription coverage, that makes it extreme?

I just got back from Cuba...there prescriptions are dirt cheap. You know why? The government controls the costs. Same with dental.

I don't understand why regular healthcare is perfectly accetpable to you under a single payer system, but not dental/vision/prescription drugs, which is actually the cheaper portions of healthcare.

Well one thing is right that Cubans do have the same life expectancy as the USA.
But it is a communist country doctors are underpaid and drugs are manufactured by not conforming to patent protection. Do you believe that SD20 would or could work at the same wages as a Cuban Dentist? On second thought I will willing pay the flight to send him there.
TGW you can't compare a 3rd world country to a advanced Democracy.

[TGW]

^^I can cammac. Folks tend to make simple things more complicated than they need to. If a third world country can have good, cheap healthcare/dental/prescription system, the U.S. can to. I'm not buying the whole "it's too expensive and complicated" thing. It's only complicated because you have greedy people who like the system and don't want it to change.

And I still don't get why you think doctors can operate freely in a single payer system, but not dentists. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

It's only complicated because you have greedy people who like the system and don't want it to change...

This. Including politicians on both sides of the aisle. And they aren't only people who are greedy but really believe it is the right way to do it.

So, yes. It is complicated - very.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=17

[cammac]

TGW universal healthcare has many benefits but you can't go from zero to a 100 right away and expect it to succeed.
But many opponents of universal healthcare always have what they call death boards making decisions and taking those out of doctors hands. it is blatantly untrue but the myth persists. Republicans are fond of saying that one of the strength of free market system is these problems don't exist.
"Cara Pressman sobbed in the big red chair in her living room. The 15-year-old tried to absorb the devastating news relayed by her parents: that their insurance company, Aetna, denied her for a minimally invasive brain surgery that could end the seizures that have haunted her since she was 9 years old.

[...]

"In the six weeks since the denial, Cara has had more than two dozen seizures affecting her everyday life. Her message to Aetna is blunt: "Considering they're denying me getting surgery and stopping this thing that's wrong with my brain, I would probably just say, 'Screw you.' ''

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/11/1723318/-Girl-hits-back-at-Aetna-after-they-deny-brain-surgery-insurance-request-Screw-you

[verbal8]

Read on Twitter

If the first thing you are going to do is try and kick him out(or pretend), why not keep him out in the first place.

They don't want Moore, what the Repub establishment want's is for Moore to win, then be forced to resign so they can have Luther Strange appointed.

If that isn't party over country, then I don't know what is.

[verbal8]

The last thing I’d say is that Trump is an example of how the cult of personality is destroying a party. The Republican Party is now the party of Trump/Bannon/Moore and time will determine how much damage it has done. On the other side you can see how the Bernie cult of personality hurt Democrats in 2016 and how leaning too heavily on Obama hurt the Democrats down the ballot over the years. Build a team of stars that complement each other like Golden State opposed to the Cavs model with one superstar expected to do everything.

This - just as the Ds looked like the party of the Clintons. This will be a very deep hole for the Rs to dig out of...

The Republicans are already paying the price in terms of party identification. I thought George Will was a bit of an outlier, a conservative who left the Republican Party, but he seems to be a start of a trend. While I would imagine the former Republicans would tend to vote Republican, it would probably be less reliable both in voting that way and voting in general.

[stilldropin20]

I guess when you start posting nine or ten in a row, one of them is bound to reference Minimalism, with a sly reference to basketball and a subtle critique of the Wizards continual malaise.

I think Pine used to have a standard wherein three posts in a row was the equivalent of quoting yourself, either one indicative of a blog diary than a message board. You have a blog STD?

never critiqued the wizards and i cant find the delete button.

keep in mind, i do get asked questions and often the same question over and over. my one and 2 liners aren't enough. they want more. they pretend they dont. but they do. they dig it man.

anyhow, blog did you say? should i really start a blog? hmmm?

in terms of a candidate for 2020. Honestly, i dont think Obama himself could beat Trump. Impeachment is D's only path to victory in 2020 and thats why they wont let up. CNN is at 98% negative coverage. think about that. with the economy booming CNN wont talk about. or if they briefly mention it they spin it in a negative light for trump.

One of the points, I keep making over and over in this thread is that for D's have almost no chance to win in 2020.

You wont have a chance until 2024 and even then Ivanka might run, and she's no kitty kat, D's need to come back to jesus/God/Allah. not literally(but that might not hurt). but they need to do a complete 180 on many policy and platform ideologies. And you need a good candidate who can debate with trump. As of right now in 2020 , Trump would devour Obama himself in a debate. In that theoretical debate all trump would need to keep coing back to is the economy, jobs, GDP, stock market, foriegn policy, trade renegotiations. and there is nothing Obama could say. Nothing.

So you're saying Obama wouldn't have a chance against a president with an approval rating in the mid 30s?

Perhaps that approval rating will change but for now it sucks.

For Obama to lose to Trump you'd have to believe that Trump would retain the loyalty of every Obama voter who voted for him and every Obama voter who sat out the election because they disliked HRC would do so again.

Look, you have a habit of accusing liberals of living in a bubble...well, in this case I think that applies to you.

I understand YOU really like Trump and that's fine.....but you're in the minority.

Other than his core supporters the man is not popular at all. Not among liberals and most importantly, not among independents.

A pet peeve of mine: You talk constantly about how bad things were under Obama for the people you know, and I'm sorry if that's iftrue....but you speak as if that was everyone's reality. Let me tell you something: It wasn't....

You talk about the unemployment rate/stock market etc etc as if they were just horrible under Obama and the moment Trump entered office they miraculously took off when that's not the case.

When President Obama left office the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent. That's 4.8 from a high of around 10%. It's currently 4.1.

When President Bush (43)left office the unemployment rate was 7.8

When President Obama left office the stock market had almost tripled under his watch.


Trump has had it easy compared to the disaster President Obama faced when he came into office.

Tell me I'm wrong.....

Re: Comparison: Obama was not ready to be president. and definitely not ready in 2008. Trump would have been far more prepared for what happened in 2008. Trump would have let certain things burn. possibly even the federal reserve as we know it. But yes, there is no doubt Obama had it harder in terms of economy.

But trump has it 10 million times harder in that he has the entire establishment media 100% against him...greasing the skids for an impeachment. And Trump has a completely emboldened lunatic in N Korea as well as Iran and in large part thanks to Obama for both. I would say Trump has it completely harder than Obama. and Trump would have handled the economy stuff much better than Obama did. I would even say Trump would have Crushed that recession and crash with his fist and in months. Just look at what he's done on those fronts in these past 10 months.

Obama however was a media darling. And why? Why would the main stream media (which is owned by billionaires and billionaire corporations) why would they be so in love with Obama???? Have you guys ever asked yourselves that? and wondered? Because you should.

I am happy that the MSM(main steam media) hates trump so much. It makes me trust trump more. he's doing something that they are clearly afraid of. and it is NOT harming the good citizens of the united states. Rather he is helping them greatly with strong Growth, jobs growth, manufacturing growth, energy growth, approaching historic lows in unemployment, etc etc.

Re: approval rating: trump is a divisive figure. and the MSM has been trashing him daily for over 1 year straight. What do you expect? This aint a guy trying to win a popularity contest. He is trying to turn the country around and for the long haul. And he's doing it.

Re election: I think there was historic primary turnout for both parties in 2016, no? From Pew, It was the highest ever for Republicans since 1980 at 14.8% the next highest was . HRC/bernie got 14.4% compared to HRC/Obama 14.5%.

so where are you going to get all these extra votes, that obama got vs HRC???

a record 137.5 million total voters turned out in 2016.

by percentage 61.4% in 2016 vs 63.6%-you think this is where you are going to get the votes??? come on! you are just going to win NY, Illinois, and california by larger margins but not move the electoral college. Electorally, I'll concede you Michigan though. Obama would have won Mich for sure in 2016. And only on identity politics. NOT ON POLICY AND REAL ISSUES. But In this theoretical 2020 election we are cooking up? Trump is finally bringing jobs back to Mich and Ohio. Depending on how well detroit does in the nest 2 years trump may take 2020 from Obama in this theoretical.

Re unemployment: Obama was at 8% (or higher!!)for 4 straight years!!!!!! as high as 11%!!!!!! for 2 of those years!!! sickening rates!!!!! a society can die in that range and ours almost did. Obama did not get below 5% until 2015!!!!!! In July!!!! when Trump announced his candidacy!!!!! I'm joking, but seriously!!!! 2 terms above 5 and most of it above 9%!!!!!! as high as 11%!!

come on man. get real here. Obama was not ready for that. he had no business being president in that year. And its too bad. Obama would have been a great president in 2024 had he not run in 2008. He would have been way wiser and will be gift wrapped a MAGA USA from Trump. Then Obama could have done his appology tour and hopefully he wouldn't screw things up too badly.

RE: everyone else: how could 10 and 11% unemployment rates not have hurt everyone??? and he let americans lose their homes. 10 million families lost their homes!!!!!!!! Come on man!! I from the south side, and i live downtown and I was a realtor throughout this entire period. Barrack Obama let middle america lose their homes and allowed hedge funds and people liek Warren Buffet buy these homes up en masse in bulk and for pennies on the dollar!!!!!!!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Why!!!!!!!!!???????^^^^^^^^^^^ why was this acceptable? and then these same people who once had equity in their homes have now, 5 and 6 laters bought new homes and forgone their equity!! It was a massive transfer of wealth!!!!!

Why would obama allow this??? He doesn't kick illegal immigrants out of the country? why kick americans out of their own homes!!??? Obama could have simply not enforced bank forclosure evictions by sheriff departments and made banks renegotiate those loans with the original owner. I bought these homes!!! lots of em!!! I know what im talking about!! why allow a guy like me and moreso warren buffet come in buy these homes up for pennies on the dollar and rent them out/sell them for profit!!?? Why?

Like i said, Obama was in over his head. He had no idea what he was doing. He was really cool though! and dressed really sharp. very well spoken! even I believed him? Seriously, i did.

[stilldropin20]

If the first thing you are going to do is try and kick him out(or pretend), why not keep him out in the first place.

They don't want Moore, what the Repub establishment want's is for Moore to win, then be forced to resign so they can have Luther Strange appointed.

If that isn't party over country, then I don't know what is.

that's party over!!??? this little nonesense??

we got the liberal left and main stream media trying to over turn a presidential election and they are now over 1 solid year on the war path!!!

and this little nonsense in alabama is party over, country?

we got a not-so-silent coup going on broad daylight, bruh.