|
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 March 21 2017 22:01 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. Islamic terrorists kill less Americans than falling vending machines, and less Germans than olive pits. You are being played by fearmongering politicians that have won your vote by emotional alarmism while ignoring statistical realities.
That is a thing though. Danger of being run over during rush hour vs. danger of being shot by a terrorist might be unambiguously answered by percentages, still the perceived fear of the latter is way higher and gets political priority 11 out of 10 times.
|
|
|
On March 21 2017 22:05 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 22:01 LightSpectra wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. Islamic terrorists kill less Americans than falling vending machines, and less Germans than olive pits. You are being played by fearmongering politicians that have won your vote by emotional alarmism while ignoring statistical realities. That is a thing though. Danger of being run over during rush hour vs. danger of being shot by a terrorist might be unambiguously answered by percentages, still the perceived fear of the latter is way higher and gets political priority 11 out of 10 times.
Yes. I'm aware it's a thing, you don't have to tell me.
Moreso than social Darwinists, moreso than racists and xenophobes, moreso than systemic problems with our elections and offices, moreso than any cause I can think of -- the number one problem in America is 24/7 cable and Internet news channels/sites that have decided to commercialize alarmism, scandal, ignorance, hysteria, outrage, and shock at the expense of real news and useful information. We are going to be doomed unless we turn the table on that one.
On March 19 2017 07:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:On March 19 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly I think that the past few years has seen the "fuck socialism" sentiment slowly but surely recede. It was prominent in 08, slightly less so in '12, and it was only kind of relevant to Sanders in '16. Sooner or later people will actually realize that healthcare isn't best when it's run for profit. Only when much later people forget the health plans they were able to pick and pay for before Obamacare. And that will be more of a mis-remembrance than an actual realization. Most of those were great if they were supplied by your employer, but utter trash unless your employer provided them. I do welcome the polling on that. I know if you took private-insurance plans as a group, more than three quarters of people were satisfied with their insurance plans. ~87-88%. And if we could ever get a true market for them and not this employer-favored tax treatment, we might even have made improvements on pricing and the issue of lapses in insurance aka pre-existing conditions back then. But health has always been a political football and Dems got the majority at the right time for a government takeover.
Health is a political football because parents like not going into major debt to prevent their kids from having tetanus and polio.
Insurance is a solved problem everywhere in the first world except for the USA. And what do we have to show for it? Tens of millions of people without access to affordable healthcare, yet we spend more per capita. We have a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy. Our poor are saddled with uncontrollable debts. Billionaires that are willing to pay out the ass for grandmaster-rank treatment don't even fly here for that, they mostly fly to France now.
Poor people have no insurance. Middle class and rich people are paying almost 2x the taxes they need to because our system is so disproportionately expensive. The only people getting a good deal out of this are those scumming profits from the private insurance companies, and the lobbyists and paid-for politicians to keep the system perpetually broken. Is that something to be proud of?
|
Attempting to address irrational of Muslims and being harmed by terrorism can’t be done through citing the odds or attempting to appeal to rational thought. It is about as effective as telling someone who is depressed that they should focus on being happy. There needs to be thoughtful discussion that appeals to peoples better nature and also addresses that the US cable news networks has made a great deal of money stoking the fears of terrorism. If there is one thing that brings the left and right together, it is a dislike for broadcast news networks.
|
I think citing the odds is a great counter-argument actually. If our true concern is the safety and longevity of American lives, why do news channels/sites spend such a wildly disproportionate amount of time covering terrorism as opposed to treatable medical conditions, car accidents, suicide, etc.? It's because they make more money from fearmongering than by rational informing. So if you really want to know what's best for America, start educating yourself instead of letting news corps make a fortune by dictating America's agenda.
|
On March 21 2017 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 22:05 Artisreal wrote:On March 21 2017 22:01 LightSpectra wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. Islamic terrorists kill less Americans than falling vending machines, and less Germans than olive pits. You are being played by fearmongering politicians that have won your vote by emotional alarmism while ignoring statistical realities. That is a thing though. Danger of being run over during rush hour vs. danger of being shot by a terrorist might be unambiguously answered by percentages, still the perceived fear of the latter is way higher and gets political priority 11 out of 10 times. Yes. I'm aware it's a thing, you don't have to tell me. Moreso than social Darwinists, moreso than racists and xenophobes, moreso than systemic problems with our elections and offices, moreso than any cause I can think of -- the number one problem in America is 24/7 cable and Internet news channels/sites that have decided to commercialize alarmism, scandal, ignorance, hysteria, outrage, and shock at the expense of real news and useful information. We are going to be doomed unless we turn the table on that one. Show nested quote +On March 19 2017 07:39 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:On March 19 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly I think that the past few years has seen the "fuck socialism" sentiment slowly but surely recede. It was prominent in 08, slightly less so in '12, and it was only kind of relevant to Sanders in '16. Sooner or later people will actually realize that healthcare isn't best when it's run for profit. Only when much later people forget the health plans they were able to pick and pay for before Obamacare. And that will be more of a mis-remembrance than an actual realization. Most of those were great if they were supplied by your employer, but utter trash unless your employer provided them. I do welcome the polling on that. I know if you took private-insurance plans as a group, more than three quarters of people were satisfied with their insurance plans. ~87-88%. And if we could ever get a true market for them and not this employer-favored tax treatment, we might even have made improvements on pricing and the issue of lapses in insurance aka pre-existing conditions back then. But health has always been a political football and Dems got the majority at the right time for a government takeover. Health is a political football because parents like not going into major debt to prevent their kids from having tetanus and polio. Insurance is a solved problem everywhere in the first world except for the USA. And what do we have to show for it? Tens of millions of people without access to affordable healthcare, yet we spend more per capita. We have a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy. Our poor are saddled with uncontrollable debts. Billionaires that are willing to pay out the ass for grandmaster-rank treatment don't even fly here for that, they mostly fly to France now. Poor people have no insurance. Middle class and rich people are paying almost 2x the taxes they need to because our system is so disproportionately expensive. The only people getting a good deal out of this are those scumming profits from the private insurance companies, and the lobbyists and paid-for politicians to keep the system perpetually broken. Is that something to be proud of?
Massive case in point, you pivot, spout rhetoric, and move on. If you could slow down for one second and wonder why so many Americans were satisfied, you might have a prayer of convincing me you're more than lies and bluster. But past behavior shows there's no chance. I'm no big supporter of the politicians that kept the private insurance market non-private and an inside game, just like I don't like the politicians that would rather ten million lose coverage so one million might gain it through destructive regulation and redistribution.
The good news is the GOP probably screwed up their shot at repeal, so the pendulum of political power will swing back enough to get your favored policies through.
|
I think you'd probably also be better off tackling the entirety of the sensationalization of violence/crime/general horribleness than Islamic terror as well. People shouldn't feel like crime is going up (at least people in the vast majority of places) compared to when they were children, but they do, especially children of the 70s and 80s who make up large chunks of the voting. People also shouldn't think there's an outbreak of teen pregnancy...but they do. People shouldn't have thought Ebola was going to kill us all...but they did.
It doesn't just affect politics, either. People cite these fears as reasons for limiting how far children can go from their home, which could easily change childhood obesity.
It also makes it a pain in the ass when actual outbreaks/epidemics/terrible things happen and they have to fight for headline space.
|
The thing about the odds and statistics is people can rationalize them away. More people killed by falling vending machines? That is fine I can stay away from vending machines or not rock vending machines over and problem solved for me, I can't however control when and where a terrorist strike happens.
I think a large part of the fear and why the news networks have been able to so easily sell it stems from the lack of control and the unknown factor of Terrorist vs say vending machine etc. It's unfortunate but big news companies have had decades of brainwashing impact on the general population so that isn't going to go away by just stating a few percentages at people.
|
On March 21 2017 22:51 LightSpectra wrote:
I think citing the odds is a great counter-argument actually. If our true concern is the safety and longevity of American lives, why do news channels/sites spend such a wildly disproportionate amount of time covering terrorism as opposed to treatable medical conditions, car accidents, suicide, etc.? It's because they make more money from fearmongering than by rational informing. So if you really want to know what's best for America, start educating yourself instead of letting news corps make a fortune by dictating America's agenda.
It is a great argument for you and you find it compelling. That does not make it compelling for everyone. From someone who has had to liberal/progressive voice in a community of folks that think most Muslims hate America, it’s not universally effective.
|
On March 21 2017 22:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:On March 21 2017 22:05 Artisreal wrote:On March 21 2017 22:01 LightSpectra wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. Islamic terrorists kill less Americans than falling vending machines, and less Germans than olive pits. You are being played by fearmongering politicians that have won your vote by emotional alarmism while ignoring statistical realities. That is a thing though. Danger of being run over during rush hour vs. danger of being shot by a terrorist might be unambiguously answered by percentages, still the perceived fear of the latter is way higher and gets political priority 11 out of 10 times. Yes. I'm aware it's a thing, you don't have to tell me. Moreso than social Darwinists, moreso than racists and xenophobes, moreso than systemic problems with our elections and offices, moreso than any cause I can think of -- the number one problem in America is 24/7 cable and Internet news channels/sites that have decided to commercialize alarmism, scandal, ignorance, hysteria, outrage, and shock at the expense of real news and useful information. We are going to be doomed unless we turn the table on that one. On March 19 2017 07:39 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:On March 19 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly I think that the past few years has seen the "fuck socialism" sentiment slowly but surely recede. It was prominent in 08, slightly less so in '12, and it was only kind of relevant to Sanders in '16. Sooner or later people will actually realize that healthcare isn't best when it's run for profit. Only when much later people forget the health plans they were able to pick and pay for before Obamacare. And that will be more of a mis-remembrance than an actual realization. Most of those were great if they were supplied by your employer, but utter trash unless your employer provided them. I do welcome the polling on that. I know if you took private-insurance plans as a group, more than three quarters of people were satisfied with their insurance plans. ~87-88%. And if we could ever get a true market for them and not this employer-favored tax treatment, we might even have made improvements on pricing and the issue of lapses in insurance aka pre-existing conditions back then. But health has always been a political football and Dems got the majority at the right time for a government takeover. Health is a political football because parents like not going into major debt to prevent their kids from having tetanus and polio. Insurance is a solved problem everywhere in the first world except for the USA. And what do we have to show for it? Tens of millions of people without access to affordable healthcare, yet we spend more per capita. We have a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy. Our poor are saddled with uncontrollable debts. Billionaires that are willing to pay out the ass for grandmaster-rank treatment don't even fly here for that, they mostly fly to France now. Poor people have no insurance. Middle class and rich people are paying almost 2x the taxes they need to because our system is so disproportionately expensive. The only people getting a good deal out of this are those scumming profits from the private insurance companies, and the lobbyists and paid-for politicians to keep the system perpetually broken. Is that something to be proud of? Massive case in point, you pivot, spout rhetoric, and move on. If you could slow down for one second and wonder why so many Americans were satisfied, you might have a prayer of convincing me you're more than lies and bluster. But past behavior shows there's no chance.
Here's my answer: most Americans are satisfied because the core of the middle class (white collar, unionized blue collar) can get good enough health care at affordable prices. The premiums and payroll taxes don't seem so egregious because most people don't take the time to go out and research what other countries are getting for the same buck. Plus there's that propaganda campaign that's been waged since the 1980s by the right-wing to try and tell people that government solutions are always inferior to private solutions, even though that's demonstrably not the case.
|
I dont get all of the rush to judgement on this. I think Trump is a douchebag of the highest order and there definitely is an appearance that something could of happened but can we at least wait until the investigation is over before we make these claims? A month from now a report could come out that this was much todo about nothing but the well will have already been poisoned. Look how much Hillarys emails polluted the conversation when it didnt turn out to be much of anything.
The rapid talk of impeachment does no good for anyone. If hypothetically a much larger issue that warrants impeachment comes up later the publics trust could be eroded and make it all the much more difficult to actually do something about it.
|
There is some magical thinking among democrats that think this specific investigation will lead to impeachment. They need to get past that and be in for the long haul. Even after Water Gate, it took 2 years for Nixon to fall far enough to be impeached.
|
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range.
|
On March 21 2017 23:06 Sadist wrote:I dont get all of the rush to judgement on this. I think Trump is a douchebag of the highest order and there definitely is an appearance that something could of happened but can we at least wait until the investigation is over before we make these claims? A month from now a report could come out that this was much todo about nothing but the well will have already been poisoned. Look how much Hillarys emails polluted the conversation when it didnt turn out to be much of anything. The rapid talk of impeachment does no good for anyone. If hypothetically a much larger issue that warrants impeachment comes up later the publics trust could be eroded and make it all the much more difficult to actually do something about it.
it's simple: a) many people in general rush to judgment rather than being properly cautious, simply a very common error most people make (most likely there's some sort of biological/evolutionary basis for it) and b) an article about people rushing to judgment and making bold claims gets far more money/readers than an article about someone calling for caution and reserving judgment. so you hear a lot more about the ones rushing to judgment than the ones holding back.
on the sensationalization issue, my main tack would be to convince people that their perceptions are often inaccurate, and they shouldn't vote based on their perceptions without either researching them to verify accuracy, or at least accepting that they might well simply be wrong. many people may simply be unaware of the extent to which their perceptions are inaccurate, and the vast amount of literature documenting such things.
|
On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range.
They need the house and senate. And the House is an easier get by far than the senate.
|
On March 21 2017 23:01 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 22:53 Danglars wrote:On March 21 2017 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:On March 21 2017 22:05 Artisreal wrote:On March 21 2017 22:01 LightSpectra wrote:On March 20 2017 05:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:26 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:22 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 20 2017 05:20 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2017 05:14 RealityIsKing wrote:
Donald Trump does have a point. Europe has been spending far too little on their defense in recent decades. They have relied on US protection, which has allowed them to cut military spending and use that money on other public services. repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. you need to get a better sense of the actual spending levels and military risks and scenarios. europe spends little on defense because it has few military threats. They'd have been fine without US military protection. "NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare." http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/Spin it however you want. Germany, who at the same time is boasting an economic surplus and willing to pay $100 billion for refugees, and most of the countries in NATO aren't contributing their fair share, and they know they're relying heavily on America's defense spending to make up for it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b006f0e42d040f09b23616275478780/report-germany-spend-106b-refugees-over-5-years it has an over-reliance because the US is overspending; not because there's an ACTUAL military risk. so again, you don't know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy) my point is they'd be fine without US protection, because they simply have very few enemies, and those enemies power isn't that high. you'd need to point to an actual military threat that they coudln't handle without US help. do you need it spelled out for you more clearly? Haha, you are making me laugh so hard. You are showing that you know jack (or choose to ignore it, and have a poor sense of military strategy). The threat is Islamic terrorism which USA have been helping to keep Europe safe, and then Merkel fucked it up by allowing them to get through Europe. Islamic terrorists kill less Americans than falling vending machines, and less Germans than olive pits. You are being played by fearmongering politicians that have won your vote by emotional alarmism while ignoring statistical realities. That is a thing though. Danger of being run over during rush hour vs. danger of being shot by a terrorist might be unambiguously answered by percentages, still the perceived fear of the latter is way higher and gets political priority 11 out of 10 times. Yes. I'm aware it's a thing, you don't have to tell me. Moreso than social Darwinists, moreso than racists and xenophobes, moreso than systemic problems with our elections and offices, moreso than any cause I can think of -- the number one problem in America is 24/7 cable and Internet news channels/sites that have decided to commercialize alarmism, scandal, ignorance, hysteria, outrage, and shock at the expense of real news and useful information. We are going to be doomed unless we turn the table on that one. On March 19 2017 07:39 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:On March 19 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On March 19 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly I think that the past few years has seen the "fuck socialism" sentiment slowly but surely recede. It was prominent in 08, slightly less so in '12, and it was only kind of relevant to Sanders in '16. Sooner or later people will actually realize that healthcare isn't best when it's run for profit. Only when much later people forget the health plans they were able to pick and pay for before Obamacare. And that will be more of a mis-remembrance than an actual realization. Most of those were great if they were supplied by your employer, but utter trash unless your employer provided them. I do welcome the polling on that. I know if you took private-insurance plans as a group, more than three quarters of people were satisfied with their insurance plans. ~87-88%. And if we could ever get a true market for them and not this employer-favored tax treatment, we might even have made improvements on pricing and the issue of lapses in insurance aka pre-existing conditions back then. But health has always been a political football and Dems got the majority at the right time for a government takeover. Health is a political football because parents like not going into major debt to prevent their kids from having tetanus and polio. Insurance is a solved problem everywhere in the first world except for the USA. And what do we have to show for it? Tens of millions of people without access to affordable healthcare, yet we spend more per capita. We have a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy. Our poor are saddled with uncontrollable debts. Billionaires that are willing to pay out the ass for grandmaster-rank treatment don't even fly here for that, they mostly fly to France now. Poor people have no insurance. Middle class and rich people are paying almost 2x the taxes they need to because our system is so disproportionately expensive. The only people getting a good deal out of this are those scumming profits from the private insurance companies, and the lobbyists and paid-for politicians to keep the system perpetually broken. Is that something to be proud of? Massive case in point, you pivot, spout rhetoric, and move on. If you could slow down for one second and wonder why so many Americans were satisfied, you might have a prayer of convincing me you're more than lies and bluster. But past behavior shows there's no chance. Here's my answer: most Americans are satisfied because the core of the middle class (white collar, unionized blue collar) can get good enough health care at affordable prices. The premiums and payroll taxes don't seem so egregious because most people don't take the time to go out and research what other countries are getting for the same buck. Plus there's that propaganda campaign that's been waged since the 1980s by the right-wing to try and tell people that government solutions are always inferior to private solutions, even though that's demonstrably not the case.
Also, apparently for those With good insurance, the American system is better in terms of results*.... the system as a whole gets bad results from the averages/medians being brought down by those without good insurance.
*better results and more expensive, (lots of expensive marginal benefits... but apparently they are net benefits for those that get them..ie the majority of middle class and up) The fact that the cost is hidden from those with good insurance also makes them like the system more.
|
I think it's likely, although not for granted, that the Dems will take a House majority next year.
The Senate is a much harder question. There will be 23 Democrat seats up for grabs and 8 Republican. Likely Trump will campaign on the very basis that the Dems are going to hijack the government and impeach the president if they win, so I would also venture to guess that there's going to be an unusually high turnout of both reds and blues. Unless the GOP's approval rates are truly abysmal, it's not likely the Dems will take a majority.
|
|
|
On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range.
Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol
|
On March 21 2017 23:29 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats are not going to have anything to do with the impeachment unless they win a Senate majority in 2018.
The trick here is to convince the Republican Senators that Trump is dragging everybody down with them and it's in their best interests to replace him with Pence. This will become easier if Trump's approval ratings continue to plummet, down to the 10-20% range. Doubt he'll go down to 10-20 range; his blind supporters are above that range, and will approve pretty much anything he does for sole fact that they are well trained to call any criticism 'fake news'. him staying indefinitely in the 30% is very likely though, which is terrible lol
Nixon never went below 40% approval.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
