|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc.
I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure.
|
On January 13 2017 04:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:28 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:20 xDaunt wrote:Did you even read the details? That article reeks of fake news. It basically boils down to "we journalists didn't get to see what's in the folders, so we're presuming that there's nothing in there." really, you're going to outright lie about what the raticle said? i did read the article, and that's not what it said. it said the pages that were lose that we could see were entirely empty, without even page numbers, and that the folders were unlabelled. it of course could still be a trash article, but you're outright lying about wha tthe article said. You need a refresher course in reading comprehension: Show nested quote +And the pages themselves appear to be blank. While the majority of the sheets were hidden, some of them were visible – and there was no sign of page numbers or the sticky notes that lawyers tend to use to mark places in large documents.
The paper itself also appeared to be the wrong size, printed on A4 rather than legal size sheets, and appears to have fallen like fresh sheets of paper. And the folders themselves were also entirely blank, despite Mr Trump suggesting that each of them related to a different business that Mr Trump was moving himself away from.
It is possible that the documents had been printed precisely for the press conference, but the fact that reporters weren't allowed to check the details of the documents led to concern that they didn't include any information at all. Here's the evidence presented in support of the presumption that the pages are blank: 1) No sticky notes 2) No page numbers on any part of the sheets of paper that were visible (pay close attention to how they word this one) 3) A4 paper rather than legal paper (I find this one particularly funny) 4) Folders are unmarked. 5) Reporters couldn't look inside the folders
apologies, I did misread that part, I thought there was no visible text on the pages.
I still wouldn't put it past trump to do something funny like this though, it'd be so easy to let the reporters verify things a bit. or for trump to be more open and honest in general (hah, as if he could manage that).
ofc, you still need to work on you rreading comprehension too, as what you said was a terribly inaccurate summary of the article..
so we're the same! :D
|
On January 13 2017 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 03:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat. She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense. Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things. I have not argued for the win being legitimate or illegitimate, I am arguing that despite Hillary having more votes, she was unable to take advantage of doing well on non-social media mediums (debates, policy, media, polls, etc...) but word of mouth popularity usually determines your GOTV costs (volunteers vs paid staff) which meant that "safe states" like Michigan and Pennsylvania were underfunded due to poll predictions telling the Hillary team to shift expenditures to other states. You don't have a 3 million popular vote lead because people are dissatisfied with you. You don't get the 2nd most votes in American history because people are dissatisfied with you. You lose despite the popular vote when you mismanage the street presence of your campaign in the last month. She has a 3 million popular vote lead because a lot of people hate her opponent. She has fewer votes than Obama whereas Trump gained two million on Romney. And the 3million more votes she got over Bernie Sanders? Was that Trump also? What about the 200k more votes she got over Obama? Was that Trump also? What about her Senate runs? Did she also win that because of hatred for Trump? What about passing the bar? Did they only give her points because of hate for Trump? Sanders isn't a competitive candidate. She turned what should be a 5% walk-over into a 40% almost-threat, even after DNC collusion. Though he was my favorite choice of the four "viable" candidates it does not escape my attention that his policies as put forth are not viable and he is clueless on FP. 2016 Election Clinton 65,844,954 wiki2012 Election Obama 65,915,795 wikiOr did you mean in the primaries, where that's only true if you count that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan? And sure, that's some solid votes - but she was also fighting a charismatic nobody in that race while being herself very well known. Sure, she won handily in her home state, the Democratic stronghold of New York - in a noncompetitive primary and a safe general. You will find a historical trend that she doesn't win competitive races - and if she retires now, she never will. Indeed, she turns easy walk-overs into competitive races in order to be able to say that she won a competitive race - or in the case of Obama or Trump, lost them. She won the popular vote in the last 3 elections she ran in. In her most recent run, only one person has ever gotten more votes than her--Obama. That is consistency stretching just the last 8 years--more if you include her senate runs. She lost to Delegate Counts vs Obama, and she lost to Electoral Counts vs Trump. But if we count raw votes--she's always won. I understand you want a narrative that fits your opinion of her, but that's not what the popular votes show. What it shows is that she does not know how to build a team that gives her the best strategic chance at winning. Obama had a massive delegate lead against her despite her small popular vote lead, which is why she stayed until the convention--being that its an actual decision of "should delegates vote based on states or should delegates vote based on votes." This was different from when Bernie tried to argue that neither the popular vote nor the state votes should matter, and that delegates should vote for him because he's Bernie "motherfucking" Sanders. With Trump her team got misled by polls and constrained from lack of word-of-mouth/social media popularity. Budgets got tighter than it should have been for GOTV and polls misdirected their spending. Not only that, but the team then decided to go all-in on Texas and Florida; huge wins if the gamble had paid of, and would have 180'd the national dialogue for many elections to come. But they made the wrong play and lost 100k or less in some key states, some of them perceived safe states that they refused to send funding to (Michigan) despite requests from the local unions for more help. Hillary never had problems getting most people to vote for her, her problem has always been getting the correct voters to vote for her.
She wins the wrong things consistently - that may be impressive in its own right. And she only won against Obama if you count the one state he wasn't on the ballot in. Take that state out and he wins the popular vote easily.
Poor, poor Hillary, who was on a shoestring budget of $1.2b, just couldn't manage to fund a victory against Trump. Seriously?
At the end of the day, she has a long string of losses to her name. Ultimately, losers are losers.
|
On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure.
perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work.
|
On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work.
Neither does Obamacare.
|
On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare.
The funny thing is that Obamacare doesn't have an effective mandate, which is a large part of why it doesn't work. I'm highly amused that so many of Obamacare's defenders don't grasp this.
|
On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare.
that's inapt and you know it. the extent to which obamacare doesn't work isn't remotely nearly to the same extent.
|
On January 13 2017 04:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. that's inapt and you know it. the extent to which obamacare doesn't work isn't remotely nearly to the same extent.
At the very least, would you concede that Obamacare is politically unfeasible?
|
Common sense would dictate that the paperwork was a prop, given that there is absolutely no reason to have that much printed out unmarked, unlabeled, unsorted paperwork. Are there documents somewhere detailing what he was referring to? I would sure hope so, but I wouldn't give it a chance in hell that those were them.
|
On January 13 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see any viable replacement for the absurd slop of compromise that is Obamacare other than universal healthcare. Don't think we're there yet though. So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise? Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. The funny thing is that Obamacare doesn't have an effective mandate, which is a large part of why it doesn't work. I'm highly amused that so many of Obamacare's defenders don't grasp this.
The fact that people are retarded and more willing to pay a high fine then a lower insurance cost is not the fault of the ACA.
|
On January 13 2017 04:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:45 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise?
Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. that's inapt and you know it. the extent to which obamacare doesn't work isn't remotely nearly to the same extent. At the very least, would you concede that Obamacare is politically unfeasible?
yes, I would certainly concede that. and moan about it only being because of scummy politicians not interested in the welfare of the people.
|
On January 13 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 03:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat. She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense. Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things. I have not argued for the win being legitimate or illegitimate, I am arguing that despite Hillary having more votes, she was unable to take advantage of doing well on non-social media mediums (debates, policy, media, polls, etc...) but word of mouth popularity usually determines your GOTV costs (volunteers vs paid staff) which meant that "safe states" like Michigan and Pennsylvania were underfunded due to poll predictions telling the Hillary team to shift expenditures to other states. You don't have a 3 million popular vote lead because people are dissatisfied with you. You don't get the 2nd most votes in American history because people are dissatisfied with you. You lose despite the popular vote when you mismanage the street presence of your campaign in the last month. She has a 3 million popular vote lead because a lot of people hate her opponent. She has fewer votes than Obama whereas Trump gained two million on Romney. And the 3million more votes she got over Bernie Sanders? Was that Trump also? What about the 200k more votes she got over Obama? Was that Trump also? What about her Senate runs? Did she also win that because of hatred for Trump? What about passing the bar? Did they only give her points because of hate for Trump? Sanders isn't a competitive candidate. She turned what should be a 5% walk-over into a 40% almost-threat, even after DNC collusion. Though he was my favorite choice of the four "viable" candidates it does not escape my attention that his policies as put forth are not viable and he is clueless on FP. 2016 Election Clinton 65,844,954 wiki2012 Election Obama 65,915,795 wikiOr did you mean in the primaries, where that's only true if you count that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan? And sure, that's some solid votes - but she was also fighting a charismatic nobody in that race while being herself very well known. Sure, she won handily in her home state, the Democratic stronghold of New York - in a noncompetitive primary and a safe general. You will find a historical trend that she doesn't win competitive races - and if she retires now, she never will. Indeed, she turns easy walk-overs into competitive races in order to be able to say that she won a competitive race - or in the case of Obama or Trump, lost them. She won the popular vote in the last 3 elections she ran in. In her most recent run, only one person has ever gotten more votes than her--Obama. That is consistency stretching just the last 8 years--more if you include her senate runs. She lost to Delegate Counts vs Obama, and she lost to Electoral Counts vs Trump. But if we count raw votes--she's always won. I understand you want a narrative that fits your opinion of her, but that's not what the popular votes show. What it shows is that she does not know how to build a team that gives her the best strategic chance at winning. Obama had a massive delegate lead against her despite her small popular vote lead, which is why she stayed until the convention--being that its an actual decision of "should delegates vote based on states or should delegates vote based on votes." This was different from when Bernie tried to argue that neither the popular vote nor the state votes should matter, and that delegates should vote for him because he's Bernie "motherfucking" Sanders. With Trump her team got misled by polls and constrained from lack of word-of-mouth/social media popularity. Budgets got tighter than it should have been for GOTV and polls misdirected their spending. Not only that, but the team then decided to go all-in on Texas and Florida; huge wins if the gamble had paid of, and would have 180'd the national dialogue for many elections to come. But they made the wrong play and lost 100k or less in some key states, some of them perceived safe states that they refused to send funding to (Michigan) despite requests from the local unions for more help. Hillary never had problems getting most people to vote for her, her problem has always been getting the correct voters to vote for her. She wins the wrong things consistently - that may be impressive in its own right. And she only won against Obama if you count the one state he wasn't on the ballot in. Take that state out and he wins the popular vote easily. Poor, poor Hillary, who was on a shoestring budget of $1.2b, just couldn't manage to fund a victory against Trump. Seriously? At the end of the day, she has a long string of losses to her name. Ultimately, losers are losers.
Obama only has a lead if you include guesswork numbers from Caucus states who did not give their popular vote numbers. RealClearPolitics had to estimate what those number could possibly be and then add those guesses to Obama's count (This is assuming we ignore Michigan voters, its more lopsided if we also include them)
And by string of losses, do you mean her string of 1 loss that followed a prior win? Or do you mean in her career where she only lost twice and has won the popular vote for all them regardless? Which measure are you trying to intentionally obfuscate?
|
On January 13 2017 04:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise?
Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. The funny thing is that Obamacare doesn't have an effective mandate, which is a large part of why it doesn't work. I'm highly amused that so many of Obamacare's defenders don't grasp this. The fact that people are retarded and more willing to pay a high fine then a lower insurance cost is not the fault of the ACA.
the full penalties for obamacare aren't even in effect yet. so from an individual perspective, for many healthy people it is cheaper to pay the penalty, and cover all thier healthcare costs as they come up, than it is to pay for the health insurance. snice the health insurance they receive is far less than the actuarial value they're paying for.
until the penalty fully kicks in that problem would continue.
|
On January 13 2017 04:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
So you agree that repealing Obamacare is a terrible idea, despite it being an absurd slop of compromise?
Because insofar as I have understood absolutely nobody, not even Obama, thinks Obamacare is a good solution. It's just something that could be put into place that was better than what came before and would work until an actual solution could be crafted. But repealing that stopgap plan without actually having put in the work to come up with a real solution seems shortsighted and prone to cast a large percentage of the population into incertitude, and probably uninsured status. I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth. I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. The funny thing is that Obamacare doesn't have an effective mandate, which is a large part of why it doesn't work. I'm highly amused that so many of Obamacare's defenders don't grasp this. The fact that people are retarded and more willing to pay a high fine then a lower insurance cost is not the fault of the ACA.
The fine is less than the cost of insurance. It's that way by design, because democrats understood how angry people would be if the penalty was too severe.
|
On January 13 2017 04:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 03:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat. She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense. Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things. I have not argued for the win being legitimate or illegitimate, I am arguing that despite Hillary having more votes, she was unable to take advantage of doing well on non-social media mediums (debates, policy, media, polls, etc...) but word of mouth popularity usually determines your GOTV costs (volunteers vs paid staff) which meant that "safe states" like Michigan and Pennsylvania were underfunded due to poll predictions telling the Hillary team to shift expenditures to other states. You don't have a 3 million popular vote lead because people are dissatisfied with you. You don't get the 2nd most votes in American history because people are dissatisfied with you. You lose despite the popular vote when you mismanage the street presence of your campaign in the last month. She has a 3 million popular vote lead because a lot of people hate her opponent. She has fewer votes than Obama whereas Trump gained two million on Romney. And the 3million more votes she got over Bernie Sanders? Was that Trump also? What about the 200k more votes she got over Obama? Was that Trump also? What about her Senate runs? Did she also win that because of hatred for Trump? What about passing the bar? Did they only give her points because of hate for Trump? Sanders isn't a competitive candidate. She turned what should be a 5% walk-over into a 40% almost-threat, even after DNC collusion. Though he was my favorite choice of the four "viable" candidates it does not escape my attention that his policies as put forth are not viable and he is clueless on FP. 2016 Election Clinton 65,844,954 wiki2012 Election Obama 65,915,795 wikiOr did you mean in the primaries, where that's only true if you count that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan? And sure, that's some solid votes - but she was also fighting a charismatic nobody in that race while being herself very well known. Sure, she won handily in her home state, the Democratic stronghold of New York - in a noncompetitive primary and a safe general. You will find a historical trend that she doesn't win competitive races - and if she retires now, she never will. Indeed, she turns easy walk-overs into competitive races in order to be able to say that she won a competitive race - or in the case of Obama or Trump, lost them. She won the popular vote in the last 3 elections she ran in. In her most recent run, only one person has ever gotten more votes than her--Obama. That is consistency stretching just the last 8 years--more if you include her senate runs. She lost to Delegate Counts vs Obama, and she lost to Electoral Counts vs Trump. But if we count raw votes--she's always won. I understand you want a narrative that fits your opinion of her, but that's not what the popular votes show. What it shows is that she does not know how to build a team that gives her the best strategic chance at winning. Obama had a massive delegate lead against her despite her small popular vote lead, which is why she stayed until the convention--being that its an actual decision of "should delegates vote based on states or should delegates vote based on votes." This was different from when Bernie tried to argue that neither the popular vote nor the state votes should matter, and that delegates should vote for him because he's Bernie "motherfucking" Sanders. With Trump her team got misled by polls and constrained from lack of word-of-mouth/social media popularity. Budgets got tighter than it should have been for GOTV and polls misdirected their spending. Not only that, but the team then decided to go all-in on Texas and Florida; huge wins if the gamble had paid of, and would have 180'd the national dialogue for many elections to come. But they made the wrong play and lost 100k or less in some key states, some of them perceived safe states that they refused to send funding to (Michigan) despite requests from the local unions for more help. Hillary never had problems getting most people to vote for her, her problem has always been getting the correct voters to vote for her. She wins the wrong things consistently - that may be impressive in its own right. And she only won against Obama if you count the one state he wasn't on the ballot in. Take that state out and he wins the popular vote easily. Poor, poor Hillary, who was on a shoestring budget of $1.2b, just couldn't manage to fund a victory against Trump. Seriously? At the end of the day, she has a long string of losses to her name. Ultimately, losers are losers. Obama only has a lead if you include guesswork numbers from Caucus states who did not give their popular vote numbers. RealClearPolitics had to estimate what those number could possibly be and then add those guesses to Obama's count (This is assuming we ignore Michigan voters, its more lopsided if we also include them) And by string of losses, do you mean her string of 1 loss that followed a prior win? Or do you mean in her career where she only lost twice and has won the popular vote for all them regardless? Which measure are you trying to intentionally obfuscate?
Let's just go through her record of holding elected office:
Senate 2000 Primary: Noncompetitive, won
Senate 2000 General: Noncompetitive, won
Senate 2006 Primary: Noncompetitive, won
Senate 2006 General: Noncompetitive, won
President 2008 Primary: Competitive, lost but won popular vote (arguably by a technicality)
President 2016 Primary: Mildly competitive, won
President 2016 General: Competitive, lost but won popular vote
There is a trend here - real competition means loss.
|
Insurance and can't discriminate based on a persons health are incompatible. In fact, they're an oxymoron. There's 2 problems and no one besides some of us schmucky libertarians address the main one (namely cost): Cost & Expectation.
It seems like people only bitch over coverage and insurance, but the fact that healthcare now requires insurance where before it didn't just completely skips over 99.9% of the general populace. You can thank the FDA and AMA for high costs of medication. You can thank antiquated protectionist drivel for high cost of medications. You can thank Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and the rest of the Government-programs for setting a huge cost-floor to treatments and care. You can thank federal regulations for increasing costs of care and you can thank licensing and the AMA for healthcare worker shortages (they've essentially created an artificial scarcity). In 1920 healthcare workers did not make the per-capita income they do now.
I assume people will then throw in the anecdotes of snake-oil salesman, problems with "trust" or competency, etc. Fine, you can make that argument (one in which I disagree, but that's ok), but then you can't turn around and bitch about healthcare coverage/costs. The same goes with the FDA. You want companies to spend minimum 800 million-1-2+ billion on R&D and tests for 15 years. Fine. Don't complain about medication prices and long-waits for cures "wah, we haven't had a medical breakthrough in medicine for a long time!". All of these things compound the costs of healthcare, and now we've been saddled with a situation for a while now where the cost is so high that insurance is required. Then you bitch about insurance coverage and high prices. Of fucking course. Have you seen how enormously difficult it is to open a hospital or clinic in this country? Good lord. The Government has done just about all it can to crush healthcare competition, increase costs, and impose pricey mandates that have dubious "public safety" effects. Now, after the entire industry has been crushed into a conglomerate of semi-nationalization, the answer is more of the same. We just haven't done enough - we need to fully nationalize healthcare. Yeah, that'll reduce costs, because the one thing the Government is known for is efficiency, cost-control, and quality care just ask the Pentagon, or the USPS, or the VA.
Nothing is going to change for the better if you don't target healthcare costs - which means rolling back Government regulations, the FDA, licensing, zoning (new hospitals in the inner city? Good luck!), coverage mandates, and Government subsidization through national and state programs. Make it easier for companies, investors, and religious institutions to open hospitals. Just yelling - Nationalization uber alles does nothing to decrease costs. Whatever, I just hate this subject.
|
On January 13 2017 04:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:45 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:45 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth.
I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. that's inapt and you know it. the extent to which obamacare doesn't work isn't remotely nearly to the same extent. At the very least, would you concede that Obamacare is politically unfeasible? yes, I would certainly concede that. and moan about it only being because of scummy politicians not interested in the welfare of the people.
The ultimate "saboteurs" of the bill were the so-called "conservative Democrats" who didn't want the public option because socialism.
|
On January 13 2017 04:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:46 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I see a repeal as a possible means to the end of a real universal healthcare system in a decade. Obamacare is arguably better than non-Obamacare (but certain aspects of it are highly unproductive) but it is a political basket case that is more trouble than it's worth.
I certainly hope Trump at least keeps the most unarguably important aspects of the law - coverage to 26, and no discrimination for previous conditions, etc. how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate. I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. The funny thing is that Obamacare doesn't have an effective mandate, which is a large part of why it doesn't work. I'm highly amused that so many of Obamacare's defenders don't grasp this. The fact that people are retarded and more willing to pay a high fine then a lower insurance cost is not the fault of the ACA. the full penalties for obamacare aren't even in effect yet. so from an individual perspective, for many healthy people it is cheaper to pay the penalty, and cover all thier healthcare costs as they come up, than it is to pay for the health insurance. snice the health insurance they receive is far less than the actuarial value they're paying for. until the penalty fully kicks in that problem would continue.
Boy, gotta kick those young and healthy people into dirt. How dare they not subsidize the sickly and elderly! That person who smoked for 40 years, who was an alcoholic, who ate too much and now as atherosclerosis, who took risks and has high associated costs - can't discriminate (e.g. different cost-structure) based on their life decisions and associated conditions! That'd be downright immoral. Suck it up you 16-35 year olds. In fact, the problem here, isn't that you're required to do so, it's that the penalty for you saying fuck that - that shit ain't fair - is that we just haven't kicked you in the nuts hard enough. Don't worry though, we'll get right on that, so you can give the bureaucracy more of your limited hard-earned money - oh and also the healthcare companies, because, coverage uber alles (I'm sure the healthcare companies really hate that mandate!). Don't make me chuckle too much.
|
On January 13 2017 05:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 04:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:45 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:45 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:30 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
how can you keep the no discrimination for previous conditions? that's essentially impossible to keep without keeping the mandate.
I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. that's inapt and you know it. the extent to which obamacare doesn't work isn't remotely nearly to the same extent. At the very least, would you concede that Obamacare is politically unfeasible? yes, I would certainly concede that. and moan about it only being because of scummy politicians not interested in the welfare of the people. The ultimate "saboteurs" of the bill were the so-called "conservative Democrats" who didn't want the public option because socialism.
yeah, they're scummy, as would be the republicans, since if the repubs were on board, you wouldn't care about the conservative dems.
|
On January 13 2017 05:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:45 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:45 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 04:31 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I'll let the legislature figure that out. their track record of figuring things out isn't good. also it's pretty close to categorically impossible iirc. I continue to think that universal healthcare is the only sane long term solution for that reason. But perhaps they will throw together a new, smaller scale political compromise that will fill a few gaps in the healthcare structure. perhaps they will, but still pretty sure you can't keep no discrimination on previous conditions without having a mandate. it just doens't work. Neither does Obamacare. that's inapt and you know it. the extent to which obamacare doesn't work isn't remotely nearly to the same extent. At the very least, would you concede that Obamacare is politically unfeasible? yes, I would certainly concede that. and moan about it only being because of scummy politicians not interested in the welfare of the people. The ultimate "saboteurs" of the bill were the so-called "conservative Democrats" who didn't want the public option because socialism. yeah, they're scummy, as would be the republicans, since if the repubs were on board, you wouldn't care about the conservative dems.
No argument there. I have frequently talked about how less-than-pleased I am with Congressional Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
7380
1999
1671
EPT
