Political Roundtable Part XVI

[TGW]

Glad you're doing well, cammac. Wish we had that system here in the states. You might have died if you were here in the states...I used to work for a cardiologist in Washington D.C. (actually one of the individuals who invented the stent) and that procedure costs $30,000. If you don't have the cash, they don't operate.

Yup,camas would be dead here, or he would have a Go Fund Me account going to raise money for the operation...hoping he doesn't die before he can raise the cash.

If it wasn't for universal healthcare I would have had insurance.
But my story was in response to popper about a example of universal healthcare.
I could afford private insurance but many couldn't thats why single payer is a better solution.

I remember many an insurance company rejecting that treatment when I was working at Washington Hospital Center. Private insurance companies do not want to cover procedures that expensive, and will do anything to get out of it. Seen it first hand. So yea, single payer is definitely a better solution.

[gtn130]

Tesla and Spacex are two different companies

Remember, they said the same about Amazon.

And you think a bureaucracy would move faster?

They are two different companies, but they share a lot of common traits. My point was that Elon Musk claiming to having a solution for something means basically nothing.

And yeah, building public municipal broadband would be faster than SpaceX building global satellite internet by many orders of magnitude. This isn't debatable.

Of course it is debatable. And you don't need net neutrality to build municipal broadband or for Elon to do something or for someone else to do the work.

The cost of service, IMO, would rise faster with the taxes that would be applied under net neutrality than on its own. But I guess, if your point is that we could use those taxes (which will inevitably come) to redistribute bandwidth then okay. I just don't think it would be cost effective - nor do I think the FCC could react fast enough to changing market conditions to not be a burden.

I'm not talking about Net Neutrality. I'm talking about the government intervening and actually allowing for a free market instead of the current cartel system we have which is enabled via government regulatory capture.

[Pointgod]

They are two different companies, but they share a lot of common traits. My point was that Elon Musk claiming to having a solution for something means basically nothing.

And yeah, building public municipal broadband would be faster than SpaceX building global satellite internet by many orders of magnitude. This isn't debatable.

Of course it is debatable. And you don't need net neutrality to build municipal broadband or for Elon to do something or for someone else to do the work.

The cost of service, IMO, would rise faster with the taxes that would be applied under net neutrality than on its own. But I guess, if your point is that we could use those taxes (which will inevitably come) to redistribute bandwidth then okay. I just don't think it would be cost effective - nor do I think the FCC could react fast enough to changing market conditions to not be a burden.

I'm not talking about Net Neutrality. I'm talking about the government intervening and actually allowing for a free market instead of the current cartel system we have which is enabled via government regulatory capture.

I don’t think you can make a reasonable argument for repealing net neutrality. The whole religious dedication to anti regulation makes no sense because the government is responsible to the public good and its citizens not corporations. The broadband providers are extremely profitable and enjoy high barriers to entry in the industry. Repealing net neutrality could actually stifle up start companies.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Of course it is debatable. And you don't need net neutrality to build municipal broadband or for Elon to do something or for someone else to do the work.

The cost of service, IMO, would rise faster with the taxes that would be applied under net neutrality than on its own. But I guess, if your point is that we could use those taxes (which will inevitably come) to redistribute bandwidth then okay. I just don't think it would be cost effective - nor do I think the FCC could react fast enough to changing market conditions to not be a burden.

I'm not talking about Net Neutrality. I'm talking about the government intervening and actually allowing for a free market instead of the current cartel system we have which is enabled via government regulatory capture.

I don’t think you can make a reasonable argument for repealing net neutrality. The whole religious dedication to anti regulation makes no sense because the government is responsible to the public good and its citizens not corporations. The broadband providers are extremely profitable and enjoy high barriers to entry in the industry. Repealing net neutrality could actually stifle up start companies.

I agree with this. There's no real argument for it. I can see a pathway in the future wherein wireless technology catches up and the Comcasts of the world have to go away, but I see no reason to sit around and wait for 'innovation' to happen, when as of right now there is no competing force in the market compelling Comcast or Verizon to change their ways.

[dckingsfan]

They are two different companies, but they share a lot of common traits. My point was that Elon Musk claiming to having a solution for something means basically nothing.

And yeah, building public municipal broadband would be faster than SpaceX building global satellite internet by many orders of magnitude. This isn't debatable.

Of course it is debatable. And you don't need net neutrality to build municipal broadband or for Elon to do something or for someone else to do the work.

The cost of service, IMO, would rise faster with the taxes that would be applied under net neutrality than on its own. But I guess, if your point is that we could use those taxes (which will inevitably come) to redistribute bandwidth then okay. I just don't think it would be cost effective - nor do I think the FCC could react fast enough to changing market conditions to not be a burden.

I'm not talking about Net Neutrality. I'm talking about the government intervening and actually allowing for a free market instead of the current cartel system we have which is enabled via government regulatory capture.

Sorry, I thought this was started as a discussion about Net Neutrality being shelved.

I agree with enforcing a free market - but that isn't what that ruling did. Anything but - the compliance end of that ruling was incredibly burdensome and itself a barrier to entry.

I think this is akin to the Rs tax plan. I am for a better tax policy - there tax policy isn't better. Nor was the implementation of Net Neutrality.

In the new ruling providers will be required to publicly disclose any instance of blocking, throttling or paid prioritization. It will then be evaluated based on whether or not the activity is anti-competitive.

I think that is the better way to go - well, if that is enforced.

[stilldropin20]

signature legislation in about 3 weeks. you may not like it. but trump gets stuff done. like no one else that has taken this office in the modern era. I dont think 2018 elections will matter much. Trump and R's are going to get all the big stuff done before then and trump will govern via executive order until 2020.

Economy should continue to cruise until then. I am expecting a boom economy combined with global conflict to keep trump in office in 2020.

Read on Twitter

[TGW]

I don’t think you can make a reasonable argument for repealing net neutrality. The whole religious dedication to anti regulation makes no sense because the government is responsible to the public good and its citizens not corporations. The broadband providers are extremely profitable and enjoy high barriers to entry in the industry. Repealing net neutrality could actually stifle up start companies.

This was one of the biggest arguments against the repeal of net neutrality. Many youtube personalities and independent proprietors who depend on internet traffic for their revenue streams were arguing that this will restrict traffic, and therefore kill their revenue, which is accurate.

On a bigger scale, you have smaller companies who will not be able to competitively challenge the big monopolies that control the internet. I really don't see how an argument for greater competition can be made in defense of the repeal of NN.

[closg00]

signature legislation in about 3 weeks. you may not like it. but trump gets stuff done. like no one else that has taken this office in the modern era. I dont think 2018 elections will matter much. Trump and R's are going to get all the big stuff done before then and trump will govern via executive order until 2020.

Economy should continue to cruise until then. I am expecting a boom economy combined with global conflict to keep trump in office in 2020.

Read on Twitter

The Trump show is toxic and Americans tired of it quickly, the only thing that can save him is a war and he would love to have one.
I do expect his approval rating to finally get out of the 30's if they can sell the tax plan as something good for most American's, but everyone knows that the plan favors the donor class and the wealthy, the plan is as unpopular as Trump.

[stilldropin20]

signature legislation in about 3 weeks. you may not like it. but trump gets stuff done. like no one else that has taken this office in the modern era. I dont think 2018 elections will matter much. Trump and R's are going to get all the big stuff done before then and trump will govern via executive order until 2020.

Economy should continue to cruise until then. I am expecting a boom economy combined with global conflict to keep trump in office in 2020.

Read on Twitter

The Trump show is toxic and Americans tired of it quickly, the only thing that can save him is a war and he would love to have one.
I do expect his approval rating to finally get out of the 30's if they can sell the tax plan as something good for most American's, but everyone knows that the plan favors the donor class and the wealthy, the plan is as unpopular as Trump.

Trump was a divisive candidate and now president. So his approval rating was never going to be above 48%.

Trump is a love or hate president. Just the way it is. 35-40% is actually his high water mark because he doesn't mince words and is not a politician.

Seasoned politicians however are really good at mincing words and selling his dirty deals to the american public. I am quite happy Trump is not one of those types of presidents and i take his 32% approval with that grain of salt.

The other grain of salt is the far left liberal hysteria over trump. Started with taxes gate, then Trump holdings gate, then Russia collusion gate For 12 months), then obstruction(of collusion which doesn't exist), then back to puxxy gate, now on to net neutrality gate. main stream media has had as high as a 96% negative "news" coverage and averages 91% negative. So there's that grain of salt as well.

The left simply doesn't like trump and will give him no credit for anything. liberal represent nearly 60% of the country. so 40% approval ratings is about as high as trump can go.

[stilldropin20]

speaking of sexual harassment gate. checking CNN. yep. its not covered on CNN

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

SD, you're posting Bill O'Reilly tweets as some kind of evidence... really? Dude... no. You're quoting some of the worst of the worst - well worst that doesn't include Newt Gingrich level larvae. Call yourself something bad so I don't have to. Thanks.

[stilldropin20]

SD, you're posting Bill O'Reilly tweets as some kind of evidence... really? Dude... no. You're quoting some of the worst of the worst - well worst that doesn't include Newt Gingrich level larvae. Call yourself something bad so I don't have to. Thanks.

tomi lauren???? liberal media wont cover this stuff. CNN wont tell you about this. the same way they are not going to cover the lack of collusion. They will simly just jump to the next thing to lie about and not cover the truth.

This story has been out for 3 days now. I was waiting for one of you guys to mention it. You libs wont mention it, either. By choice or just unaware because CNN not covering it? So i mention it here. also The Hill broke the story. they've been pretty harsh on trump. so im starting to think they might be the one bastion of hope for journalism?

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

They've been harsh on Trump? Nobody in the history of the world is harsher on people than Trump's been - particularly on women. I've never heard a grown man insult women to the extent he has. And no President in history has whined and whined and whined more about criticisms levelled at him. I've never heard a little girl whine more than he has, tbh. Pretty pathetic for a grown man, don't ya think? Basically... he's a little b... grown up to look like a man, so he gets away with temper tantrums - like Will Robinson in that Twilight Zone episode - where all the grownups are afraid to upset the little boy because he might use his powers against them. Danger Will Robinson.

[closg00]

signature legislation in about 3 weeks. you may not like it. but trump gets stuff done. like no one else that has taken this office in the modern era. I dont think 2018 elections will matter much. Trump and R's are going to get all the big stuff done before then and trump will govern via executive order until 2020.

Economy should continue to cruise until then. I am expecting a boom economy combined with global conflict to keep trump in office in 2020.

Read on Twitter

The Trump show is toxic and Americans tired of it quickly, the only thing that can save him is a war and he would love to have one.
I do expect his approval rating to finally get out of the 30's if they can sell the tax plan as something good for most American's, but everyone knows that the plan favors the donor class and the wealthy, the plan is as unpopular as Trump.

Trump was a divisive candidate and now president. So his approval rating was never going to be above 48%.

Trump is a love or hate president. Just the way it is. 35-40% is actually his high water mark because he doesn't mince words and is not a politician.

Seasoned politicians however are really good at mincing words and selling his dirty deals to the american public. I am quite happy Trump is not one of those types of presidents and i take his 32% approval with that grain of salt.

The other grain of salt is the far left liberal hysteria over trump. Started with taxes gate, then Trump holdings gate, then Russia collusion gate For 12 months), then obstruction(of collusion which doesn't exist), then back to puxxy gate, now on to net neutrality gate. main stream media has had as high as a 96% negative "news" coverage and averages 91% negative. So there's that grain of salt as well.

The left simply doesn't like trump and will give him no credit for anything. liberal represent nearly 60% of the country. so 40% approval ratings is about as high as trump can go.

Dude!!! Come-one, Liberals do not make-up 60% of the U.S.

[stilldropin20]

The Trump show is toxic and Americans tired of it quickly, the only thing that can save him is a war and he would love to have one.
I do expect his approval rating to finally get out of the 30's if they can sell the tax plan as something good for most American's, but everyone knows that the plan favors the donor class and the wealthy, the plan is as unpopular as Trump.

Trump was a divisive candidate and now president. So his approval rating was never going to be above 48%.

Trump is a love or hate president. Just the way it is. 35-40% is actually his high water mark because he doesn't mince words and is not a politician.

Seasoned politicians however are really good at mincing words and selling his dirty deals to the american public. I am quite happy Trump is not one of those types of presidents and i take his 32% approval with that grain of salt.

The other grain of salt is the far left liberal hysteria over trump. Started with taxes gate, then Trump holdings gate, then Russia collusion gate For 12 months), then obstruction(of collusion which doesn't exist), then back to puxxy gate, now on to net neutrality gate. main stream media has had as high as a 96% negative "news" coverage and averages 91% negative. So there's that grain of salt as well.

The left simply doesn't like trump and will give him no credit for anything. liberal represent nearly 60% of the country. so 40% approval ratings is about as high as trump can go.

Dude!!! Come-one, Liberals do not make-up 60% of the U.S.

but doesn't it feel like it? It feels to me that "the 25% or so of the middle" has moved to support the left since the election. Or at least have become anti-trump.

I mean in this thread alone. What are the real percentages here pro vs anti trump. because 4 of us claim to be independent yet 3 of them are clearly anti-trump.

but seriously, on this board what are the percentages?

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

it cost almost nothing(the cost to notarize and file with your county) and 2 pages of paperwork to "quit claim" your personal real estates holding from your personal name to an LLC(that you own).

[Pointgod]

SD, you're posting Bill O'Reilly tweets as some kind of evidence... really? Dude... no. You're quoting some of the worst of the worst - well worst that doesn't include Newt Gingrich level larvae. Call yourself something bad so I don't have to. Thanks.

Bill Oreilly paid a woman 30 million to keep quiet about his sexual harassment. This is an admission of guilt and he's an absolute scumbag. Lisa Bloom' s actions don't absolve Riley of guilt.