The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
This could have easily been posted in the Fuck You thread......

It's probably a good thing this election is coming to an end now because the Obama-Care cold calls are starting up again because it's open enrollment.

I can remember getting 2 or 3 of those calls per day for a few weeks and no amount of "I've already got insurance"!, "Please stop calling me"! or "My grand-baby is ill and your calls keep waking him"! ever stopped them. I even contacted them directly but all they were interested in was trying to convince me to accept their help in locating a plan. All because I had signed in to look around back when you could only look around if you put in your demographics. Since I didn't sign up they kept calling and calling. Today, this afternoon to be exact, the flood gates opened again.

It isn't enough that I think the ACA is a puss filled pimple that should have been popped already...they have to make it worse by calling me all day!?!?!?

It's also a good thing I voted early for HRC today because that memory along with the new calls would have been aggravating enough for me to stay home on election day.
 

jay87

Well-Known Member
He doesn't want America to be world police for free, that is a risk-averse policy. It goes without saying he understands strongmen are gonna strong and that we really shouldn't be breaking military dictatorships to see if guns and soldiers stay put.

I also want to reiterate, wildcard Trump should be your choice if all you want is the least interference for drug reform. He's as straight-edged as the designated driver, but remains cosmopolitan. I actually think having a sobered person pitch the idea would prime people for it.
1462043119747.png

I feel as though whenever Donald Trump says something it takes a team of people to try improve what he said and to clarify "what he really meant was..." because convincing anyone to try and believe the words that actually come out of Donald Trump's mouth is a pretty ludicrous proposition.

It reminds me of the emperor that has no clothes but no one wants to tell him so.


I will say his drug legalization stance is the only silver lining I can see. If somehow trump is elected and the world does end at least I'll have the necessary drugs to enjoy it... :spliff:
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
"It doesn't matter who wins". I have heard that over and over. I can't believe people really think it, it is just another rationalization to allow you to vote for someone that makes you feel good right now, even if you know how temporary that feeling may be.

Let me tell you something. It matters. It matters a hell of a lot. For so many reasons I can't even count. So many it should be obvious from only a cursory look.

But here are a just a few to consider...

Trump Would Be a Radical Policy Disaster
by David Atkins
November 5, 2016 3:48 PM

This dyspeptic election is finally coming to an end in just a few days amid ugliness the likes of which has not been seen in modern American history. This nastiness has focused on the personal and the irrelevant, from the ridiculous non-scandal of Clinton’s emails to the revolting but ultimately superficial fact that Donald Trump apparently carried on an affair for years that we’re only just learning about.

With so much discussion of temperament, lawsuits, sex, indictments, investigations and nuclear launch codes, it’s easy to forget the dramatic policy consequences of the election in this environment, but it’s important not to. Because policy is really what it’s all about.

Matt Yglesias at Vox was kind enough to remind us of the stakes a few days ago:

The result would be a sweeping transformation of American life. Millions would be forcibly removed from their homes and communities as new resources and a new mission invigorate the pace of deportations. Taxes would drop sharply for the richest Americans while rising for many middle–class families. Millions of low–income Americans would lose their health insurance, while America’s banks would enjoy the repeal of regulations enacted in the wake of the financial crisis. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would end, likely collapsing global efforts to restrain emissions, greatly increasing the pace of warming.​

But it gets even crazier. Trump apparently wants to privatize new roads and bridges, too–which is something not even vulture capitalist Mitt Romney dared propose:

Under Trump’s plan—at least as it’s written (more on that in a minute)—the federal government would offer tax credits to private investors interested in funding large infrastructure projects, who would put down some of their own money up front, then borrow the rest on the private bond markets. They would eventually earn their profits on the back end from usage fees, such as highway and bridge tolls (if they built a highway or bridge) or higher water rates (if they fixed up some water mains). So instead of paying for their new roads at tax time, Americans would pay for them during their daily commute. And of course, all these private developers would earn a nice return at the end of the day.​

And he doesn’t just want to pull back from international climate change obligations. He would end renewable energy investment entirely:

In the last week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to zero out all federal spending on clean energy research and development. And the plan he released would also zero out all other spending on anything to do with climate change, including the government’s entire climate science effort…

What leaps off the screen is that the overwhelming majority of the money that was spent during the Obama years on “climate change” was in fact spent on clean energy technologies from solar energy to advanced batteries. In fact, CRS concluded, “more than 75 percent” of that total spending “funded technology development and deployment, mostly through the Department of Energy (DOE).”

If Trump isn’t planning to zero out federal funding for clean technology development and deployment, then there is no possible way of coming anywhere close to $100 billion dollars over eight years or $12.5 billion a year.​

Now, much of this is because Trump is all sizzle and no steak: he throws around impossible numbers to make his infrastructure plan budget-neutral, or to talk about redeploying “climate change funding” into urban communities, and then number crunchers try to make sense of it and determine the only way he can do those things is by killing all renewables funding and privatizing all new infrastructure.

But politicians have to be judged on the policy they propose, even if it’s gimmickry. Either Trump is serious about the policies he is proposing, in which case he’s a terrifying anti-science and plutocratic radical worse than Romney or Bush, or he’s a complete charlatan without policy convictions at all.

Either way, voters should be very worried about it. More worried, in fact, than about whatever personal sins he might commit. This stuff profoundly affects the planet, people’s lives and America’s economic future.
 

grokit

well-worn member
Ask me about living in a fantasy world, and I'll show you a giant douche...

Fraud Trump's income is a fraction of what he claims

GettyImages-615755970.jpg

Shhh! Don't tell anyone, or I'll sue.

Donald Trump’s net worth has never been a number strictly centered in reality. It’s more of an attitude.

“My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try.”

And as it turns out, the income reported on Donald Trump’s financial disclose forms is also a kind of feeling … no, an attitude … no a fantasy.

On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014. That figure accounted for the biggest share of what he described as his income for the year.

But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.

Donald Trump claimed $50 million of WIN! But it was actually $2.4 million of LOSE! The financial revenue forms that Trump insists are more important than this taxes aren’t just wrong, they’re a fraud—not worth the paper they’re printed on.

The same may be true of Donald Trump...

:myday:
 

gaseous_clay

Well-Known Member
Something political that just made me smile.

Obama is staying in D.C. for a bit when he leaves office. Recreational use is legal in D.C. Imagine that the weight of that position is off your shoulders. And it's perfectly legal to mellow out properly.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
I feel as though whenever Donald Trump says something it takes a team of people to try improve what he said and to clarify "what he really meant was..." because convincing anyone to try and believe the words that actually come out of Donald Trump's mouth is a pretty ludicrous proposition.
Whereas Clinton has a coterie of clarifiers who determine what she is to say only after it has been run through poll testing and focus groups. Then they go out and change narrative of what Trump said into what he "meant". Usually it is ALSO things they found the focus groups did not like.

Trump: I hate tacos.
Clintonistas: Trump hates Mexicans.
Media: Mr. Trump, why do you hate Mexicans with such a passion?

Trump: I like tacos.
Clintonistas: Trump likes the fact foreign workers pick taco fixings.
Media: Mr. Trump, why are you such a blazing hypocrite on immigration?

Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that server.
FBI: Yea, you did.
Media: FBI scandal on saying things before elections.

Clinton: There was no quid pro quo.
Everyone: You got stuff for doing stuff.
Media: Trump uses "accounting" to tell the story of his wealth. Accounting revenue is different from what we think income is. He must be lying.

Clintonistas: Trump only wants you to think of him and not his goals.
Trump: Make America Great Again
Clinton: I'm with Her.
Media (After "clarifying" message with Podesta.): Trump is Mussolini.

Now, it is clear Trump does not have the speaking style of what we expect from politicians. We might ask if wanting such a style has hurt or helped us. We know those who have tried to tow the line of PC talk in the past tend to have just as much 'splaining to do. The '80s called and they want their foreign policy back and all that.

We good with how things are in the country or do we want change? Both are bad, but one represents staying the course and insures substantive discord throughout (At least the early years.) any administration that will be dancing as fast as they can to avoid indictments.

mrz102516-color_orig.jpg
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23

Farid

Well-Known Member
^That would be way more applicable if it was 1 gun, and no Trump/Clinton. Nobody plays Russian Roulette with 2 guns, and the message would be more realistic.
 
Farid,

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I'm still baffled as to why the Bush administration could get away with this and very little is ever said about it.

A bunch of 'em even used their own aol accounts, but than again all this tech has come a long way since then.
Because the Republicans believe in running things as if slavery never went away, in commoditizing the American people (those NOT in the 'ownership class'), and in continuing 150 years of terrorism against the black community...and against the abolitionists who elected an activist president in 1860 (their own historical foundation).

Because the Republicans WILL NOT hold one of themselves nor one of their sponsors nor one of their sponsors' agents accountable for ANYTHING they can find a way to blame on someone else. Because they WANT to run the entire country like a plantation, not just the old-line Confederacy.

Because the Confederacy is the "country they want back" and the laws in this land since the Andrew Johnson administration have bulwarked their every effort, which is how racism became structurally embedded in how we do things - and this has gone supersonic since the Republicans (now the Confederate Party) discovered that they could commit 'structural treason', bring the nation to a standstill and the people of the nation to arms, refuse to perform their sworn duties and obligations - and their voters, the courts, and the media all LET THEM get away with it.

If they keep Congress and win the presidency, they will be able to roll back the laws against everything they like and intend to profit from, from debtors' prison to chain gangs to waterboarding to pre-emptory invasion to indentured servitude and penal slavery (just like in the 'Bible').

It WILL BE THE END for the USA we have known all our lives, the end of civil society as we've known it (virtually expired already), of the Democratic party (thanks to the DECADES of "Demon-rat"-style right-wing divide-and-conquer social engineering), ALL our high-minded "principles" such as 'E Pluribus Unum' (now replaced with "no nigger should EVER be called "sir"...") and the beginning of the worst and maybe longest period in our history. We will certainly no longer be 'the leader of the free world' as that will cease to have any meaning if we allow the Republicans to reverse the last 150 years of progressive evolution (tho we've done precious little in recent years to interfere with their plans), and I predict no more than ten years before the rest of the world decides we're a clear and present danger to world stability - and band against us as the world-dominating, self-righteous, super-militarized, future-compliant feudal state.

I'm an old man now, I've fought against this my whole life - and I will not live to see the end of those terrible years - but I don't want ANY of us to have to live through them. We're watching 40 years of political brainwashing, map-redrawing, and power-stealing bear bitter fruit in the form of a presidential candidate who only real flaw seems to be the way she attracts GOP hatred and attack: she's now presumed to be guilty of some selection of the false items manufactured to smear her in the first place, for no better reason than because they've gotten away with witch-hunting HER SPECIFICALLY since she was the First Lady of Arkansas.

Impressionable minds have formed the impression in all that time that "she must have done something really bad" because most people have trouble believing that the Confederates are so single-mindedly partisan as they proving themselves to be, are on the verge of actually WINNING the Civil War *NOW*, and much less that she has been specifically targeted for destruction; it will make the mutiny against her seem reasonable, because "she's a crook, no doubt" - even tho THIS is what they mean when they talk about being tried in the press, or 'the court of public opinion' - or when they talk about de-legitimizing, character assassination, and a host of others.

I've no doubt the "Grand" old party is ready to overthrow our government the very instant they get their willing stooge in office, to sign their remapping of American society and western civilization into law; they are willing to incite armed rebellion if Clinton wins, citing her win as "proof" of an unfair practice - yet it's just another fact-free attack on both freedom and popular self-government, a further dilution of US political and cultural values, a further erosion, not just of our justice system, but of our sense of justice as a nation.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Whereas Clinton has a coterie of clarifiers who determine what she is to say only after it has been run through poll testing and focus groups. Then they go out and change narrative of what Trump said into what he "meant". Usually it is ALSO things they found the focus groups did not like.

Trump: I hate tacos.
Clintonistas: Trump hates Mexicans.
Media: Mr. Trump, why do you hate Mexicans with such a passion?

Trump: I like tacos.
Clintonistas: Trump likes the fact foreign workers pick taco fixings.
Media: Mr. Trump, why are you such a blazing hypocrite on immigration?

Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that server.
FBI: Yea, you did.
Media: FBI scandal on saying things before elections.

Clinton: There was no quid pro quo.
Everyone: You got stuff for doing stuff.
Media: Trump uses "accounting" to tell the story of his wealth. Accounting revenue is different from what we think income is. He must be lying.

Clintonistas: Trump only wants you to think of him and not his goals.
Trump: Make America Great Again
Clinton: I'm with Her.
Media (After "clarifying" message with Podesta.): Trump is Mussolini.

Now, it is clear Trump does not have the speaking style of what we expect from politicians. We might ask if wanting such a style has hurt or helped us. We know those who have tried to tow the line of PC talk in the past tend to have just as much 'splaining to do. The '80s called and they want their foreign policy back and all that.

We good with how things are in the country or do we want change? Both are bad, but one represents staying the course and insures substantive discord throughout (At least the early years.) any administration that will be dancing as fast as they can to avoid indictments.

C'mon now...nobody needs to put words in Trump's mouth....and the number of times he has said what he means only to 'try' and walk that 'truth' back himself is public record. I'm not defending Clinton here....just trying to leak a little reality into the post. The conversational examples above need to be taken within the context of Trump quotes like calling Mexicans criminals and rapists and denying a respected AMERICAN judge could do his job because of his Mexican heritage. He doesn't need Clinton or the media to put words in his mouth or help him put his foot in it either. He's more than capable of handling that on his own and has.

Is the comparison between a polished politician who lies in the dark and has used her position for financial gain versus a man-child who is publicly a serial liar with no filter who 'evolves' in an attempt to retract what he actually meant in the first place?......I think so.
 
Last edited:

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
This could have easily been posted in the Fuck You thread......

It's probably a good thing this election is coming to an end now because the Obama-Care cold calls are starting up again because it's open enrollment.

I can remember getting 2 or 3 of those calls per day for a few weeks and no amount of "I've already got insurance"!, "Please stop calling me"! or "My grand-baby is ill and your calls keep waking him"! ever stopped them. I even contacted them directly but all they were interested in was trying to convince me to accept their help in locating a plan. All because I had signed in to look around back when you could only look around if you put in your demographics. Since I didn't sign up they kept calling and calling. Today, this afternoon to be exact, the flood gates opened again.

It isn't enough that I think the ACA is a puss filled pimple that should have been popped already...they have to make it worse by calling me all day!?!?!?

It's also a good thing I voted early for HRC today because that memory along with the new calls would have been aggravating enough for me to stay home on election day.

Yeah, that's a real bummer getting calls about insurance coverage. Glad you voted anyway in spite of that huge burden. What an intrusive government we have.

The only major problem with the ACA is the obstructionist Republican party who aren't motivated at all by delivering anything helpful to their constituents. Instead they vow to take no constructive part in the legislative process. What a surprise that a major overhaul to our healthcare system needs a tweak or two. Yet do we see any Republicans with a plan? No, of course not. They want to simply repeal the whole thing.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Yeah, that's a real bummer getting calls about insurance coverage. Glad you voted anyway in spite of that huge burden. What an intrusive government we have.

The only major problem with the ACA is the obstructionist Republican party who aren't motivated at all by delivering anything helpful to their constituents. Instead they vow to take no constructive part in the legislative process. What a surprise that a major overhaul to our healthcare system needs a tweak or two. Yet do we see any Republicans with a plan? No, of course not. They want to simply repeal the whole thing.

Walk a mile in my shoes? How about you PM me you're phone number and I'll call you a minimum of 3 times per day... using a different number each time, for about a month. Then let me know how you feel.

As far as the ACA itself....I had high hopes too when it first was proposed and implemented. Less than one year in I started telling it's future and anyone who read those posts would have to agree that I was spot on and actually it turned out worse. Most of us democrats, including the soon to be First Gentlemen, are honest enough to admit it is crazy how bad it is and that it was/is a noose around HRC's run. Tweak or two is not even close. Complete overhaul or overboard are the only two choices - The insurance corporations have the ACA figured out to their advantage and simply won't play....and they still make a ton of money so there is no incentive. It didn't work and I voted for HRC in spite of the ACA not because of it.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Because the Republicans believe in running things as if slavery never went away, in commoditizing the American people (those NOT in the 'ownership class'), and in continuing 150 years of terrorism against the black community...and against the abolitionists who elected an activist president in 1860 (their own historical foundation).

Because the Republicans WILL NOT hold one of themselves nor one of their sponsors nor one of their sponsors' agents accountable for ANYTHING they can find a way to blame on someone else. Because they WANT to run the entire country like a plantation, not just the old-line Confederacy.

Because the Confederacy is the "country they want back" and the laws in this land since the Andrew Johnson administration have bulwarked their every effort, which is how racism became structurally embedded in how we do things - and this has gone supersonic since the Republicans (now the Confederate Party) discovered that they could commit 'structural treason', bring the nation to a standstill and the people of the nation to arms, refuse to perform their sworn duties and obligations - and their voters, the courts, and the media all LET THEM get away with it.

If they keep Congress and win the presidency, they will be able to roll back the laws against everything they like and intend to profit from, from debtors' prison to chain gangs to waterboarding to pre-emptory invasion to indentured servitude and penal slavery (just like in the 'Bible').

It WILL BE THE END for the USA we have known all our lives, the end of civil society as we've known it (virtually expired already), of the Democratic party (thanks to the DECADES of "Demon-rat"-style right-wing divide-and-conquer social engineering), ALL our high-minded "principles" such as 'E Pluribus Unum' (now replaced with "no nigger should EVER be called "sir"...") and the beginning of the worst and maybe longest period in our history. We will certainly no longer be 'the leader of the free world' as that will cease to have any meaning if we allow the Republicans to reverse the last 150 years of progressive evolution (tho we've done precious little in recent years to interfere with their plans), and I predict no more than ten years before the rest of the world decides we're a clear and present danger to world stability - and band against us as the world-dominating, self-righteous, super-militarized, future-compliant feudal state.

I'm an old man now, I've fought against this my whole life - and I will not live to see the end of those terrible years - but I don't want ANY of us to have to live through them. We're watching 40 years of political brainwashing, map-redrawing, and power-stealing bear bitter fruit in the form of a presidential candidate who only real flaw seems to be the way she attracts GOP hatred and attack: she's now presumed to be guilty of some selection of the false items manufactured to smear her in the first place, for no better reason than because they've gotten away with witch-hunting HER SPECIFICALLY since she was the First Lady of Arkansas.

Impressionable minds have formed the impression in all that time that "she must have done something really bad" because most people have trouble believing that the Confederates are so single-mindedly partisan as they proving themselves to be, are on the verge of actually WINNING the Civil War *NOW*, and much less that she has been specifically targeted for destruction; it will make the mutiny against her seem reasonable, because "she's a crook, no doubt" - even tho THIS is what they mean when they talk about being tried in the press, or 'the court of public opinion' - or when they talk about de-legitimizing, character assassination, and a host of others.

I've no doubt the "Grand" old party is ready to overthrow our government the very instant they get their willing stooge in office, to sign their remapping of American society and western civilization into law; they are willing to incite armed rebellion if Clinton wins, citing her win as "proof" of an unfair practice - yet it's just another fact-free attack on both freedom and popular self-government, a further dilution of US political and cultural values, a further erosion, not just of our justice system, but of our sense of justice as a nation.
THAT was very well said. Thanks.
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
Something political that just made me smile.

Obama is staying in D.C. for a bit when he leaves office. Recreational use is legal in D.C. Imagine that the weight of that position is off your shoulders. And it's perfectly legal to mellow out properly.
Yes, but we in DC really like to ship your politicians back to you after their term in office. We have enough of a litter problem in the city as it is. :-)

Because the Republicans believe in running things as if slavery never went away, in commoditizing the American people (those NOT in the 'ownership class'), and in continuing 150 years of terrorism against the black community...and against the abolitionists who elected an activist president in 1860 (their own historical foundation).

Because the Republicans WILL NOT hold one of themselves nor one of their sponsors nor one of their sponsors' agents accountable for ANYTHING they can find a way to blame on someone else. Because they WANT to run the entire country like a plantation, not just the old-line Confederacy.

Because the Confederacy is the "country they want back" and the laws in this land since the Andrew Johnson administration have bulwarked their every effort, which is how racism became structurally embedded in how we do things - and this has gone supersonic since the Republicans (now the Confederate Party) discovered that they could commit 'structural treason', bring the nation to a standstill and the people of the nation to arms, refuse to perform their sworn duties and obligations - and their voters, the courts, and the media all LET THEM get away with it.

If they keep Congress and win the presidency, they will be able to roll back the laws against everything they like and intend to profit from, from debtors' prison to chain gangs to waterboarding to pre-emptory invasion to indentured servitude and penal slavery (just like in the 'Bible').

It WILL BE THE END for the USA we have known all our lives, the end of civil society as we've known it (virtually expired already), of the Democratic party (thanks to the DECADES of "Demon-rat"-style right-wing divide-and-conquer social engineering), ALL our high-minded "principles" such as 'E Pluribus Unum' (now replaced with "no nigger should EVER be called "sir"...") and the beginning of the worst and maybe longest period in our history. We will certainly no longer be 'the leader of the free world' as that will cease to have any meaning if we allow the Republicans to reverse the last 150 years of progressive evolution (tho we've done precious little in recent years to interfere with their plans), and I predict no more than ten years before the rest of the world decides we're a clear and present danger to world stability - and band against us as the world-dominating, self-righteous, super-militarized, future-compliant feudal state.

I'm an old man now, I've fought against this my whole life - and I will not live to see the end of those terrible years - but I don't want ANY of us to have to live through them. We're watching 40 years of political brainwashing, map-redrawing, and power-stealing bear bitter fruit in the form of a presidential candidate who only real flaw seems to be the way she attracts GOP hatred and attack: she's now presumed to be guilty of some selection of the false items manufactured to smear her in the first place, for no better reason than because they've gotten away with witch-hunting HER SPECIFICALLY since she was the First Lady of Arkansas.

Impressionable minds have formed the impression in all that time that "she must have done something really bad" because most people have trouble believing that the Confederates are so single-mindedly partisan as they proving themselves to be, are on the verge of actually WINNING the Civil War *NOW*, and much less that she has been specifically targeted for destruction; it will make the mutiny against her seem reasonable, because "she's a crook, no doubt" - even tho THIS is what they mean when they talk about being tried in the press, or 'the court of public opinion' - or when they talk about de-legitimizing, character assassination, and a host of others.

I've no doubt the "Grand" old party is ready to overthrow our government the very instant they get their willing stooge in office, to sign their remapping of American society and western civilization into law; they are willing to incite armed rebellion if Clinton wins, citing her win as "proof" of an unfair practice - yet it's just another fact-free attack on both freedom and popular self-government, a further dilution of US political and cultural values, a further erosion, not just of our justice system, but of our sense of justice as a nation.

Well, no doubt you are indeed very blue, Lou
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
It isn't enough that I think the ACA is a puss filled pimple that should have been popped already...they have to make it worse by calling me all day!?!?!?
@His_Highness I absolutely understand your frustration with the ACA. I have read your complaints and I don't find them unreasonable (for the most part). You are one of the (many) folks who have been damaged be the program and you need relief. There are many flaws in the ACA that need to be corrected to make it what we hoped it would be. But your suggestion that it is a terrible program that should never have been put in force and implication that it provides no benefit to Americans is false on its face.

There are millions of people that have health insurance in this country now who never had it before. Many many of those millions now getting healthcare had previously been denied coverage because the insurance companies thought they might lose money on them. God forbid they should include people in their programs that would actually cost money to care for. How anti capitalist.

Prior to the ACA, for example, I was considered in uninsurable person. Because of my medical history and because of the medications I’m on the insurance companies were allowed to say I couldn’t have insurance even at high cost. My state created a “insurance of last resort” program but with that program they were allowed to charge me whatever they wanted to, so as a single person I could get insurance at about $1100 a month which I was unable to pay.

The ACA made it POSSIBLE for me to get insurance that I could afford to pay for. Even though it is not yet actually brought down the cost of care in America, the program helps by paying a portion of my premiums so they don’t end up being a ridiculously high proportion of the money I make. The LONG term goal of the program is to reduce the actual COST of care, but the short term goal is just to make it accessible. We are still working on the short term goals as well.

Now, the Republicans want to kill the ACA. They’ve been trying to kill it since the day it was born. They have voted to kill it more than 60 times. They have no concern for the people who can’t afford insurance for whatever reason, even though many, possibly more people who benefit from Obama care are Republicans. But they are mostly poor Republicans, so they don’t really matter. And if they are able to destroy Obama care than those millions of people who have it for the first time will lose it again. And poor people will go back to dying off like they’re supposed to.

Far be it from me to try and understand how Republicans feel but it sure looks like Republicans believe that if your employer doesn’t provide you insurance and you can’t afford to buy insurance on your own or the insurance companies don’t think you should be able to get it, and you don’t have the hundreds of thousands of dollars it may cost to get the medical care you need to survive, then you should just be allowed to die rather than the country making any effort to supplement your medical costs. If genetics or an accident or anything created a circumstance in which your health is jeopardized than that's your problem not ours. And you shouldn’t expect any help from your government.

The Democrats, on the other hand, want to fix the ACA. They recognize that with any major new program there are flaws and errors that occur that can’t be anticipated and must be fixed after they are found. There is no huge government program that has ever gone into effect that was perfect on arrival. That’s just not possible. We still make changes to medicare and social security and the VA program, for example. So everyone knew things would come up that needed to be addressed, and the assumption was that the government, knowing the above, would be cooperative in making changes to make the program better and help reduce its costs. Instead the Republicans have done everything they could to kill it including eliminating the risk corridor program that helps protect insurance companies in places where the percentage of people with expensive care was higher than other areas of the country. The image we’ve been seeing of insurance companies fleeing states is a direct result of the Republican effort to kill the program, in this case by refusing to protect insurance companies hurt by the ACA. And those optics have helped to make the program look bad, again by design.

But the Republicans don’t want to make any effort to fix the ACA they just want to destroy it. For whatever reason, and you will have to make your own assessment as to what those reasons may be, the Republicans just think your well-being is not their problem. Of course that’s not just medically, they think all of your problems are your problems and your own fault and government isn’t supposed to help you with them, but that’s really a bigger conversation; we’re just talking about healthcare here.

So, @His_Highness, I have to ask you, do you really believe that this solution to medical care in America is to completely destroy the ACA and to go back to a time when people were uninsurable and only wealthy people could have insurance if their employers didn’t provide it? Is that really a solution in your eyes? Or do you think that the idea of health insurance for all is a good one and that maybe we could make an effort to repair this program and make it work for everybody, including you? Is it really appropriate for the wealthiest country in the world to make no effort to make sure that people who can’t afford the ridiculous costs of healthcare in this country are not just left to die or forced to go in to excruciating debt and eventual bankruptcy?

Somehow I don’t think that is what you believe. But that is what you get if you shut down the ACA, because there are no alternatives proposed and the Republicans aren’t even interested in creating them. There is no reason to kill this program other than Republican fuckyouism, and I really don’t think that should be part of the American social compact.

The program is flawed, and needs to be repaired, but it is absolutely essential to the American efforts to create some level of fairness in our medical and mental health care philosophy in America.
 

jay87

Well-Known Member
Whereas Clinton has a coterie of clarifiers who determine what she is to say only after it has been run through poll testing and focus groups. Then they go out and change narrative of what Trump said into what he "meant". Usually it is ALSO things they found the focus groups did not like.

Trump: I hate tacos.
Clintonistas: Trump hates Mexicans.
Media: Mr. Trump, why do you hate Mexicans with such a passion?

Trump: I like tacos.
Clintonistas: Trump likes the fact foreign workers pick taco fixings.
Media: Mr. Trump, why are you such a blazing hypocrite on immigration?

Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that server.
FBI: Yea, you did.
Media: FBI scandal on saying things before elections.

Clinton: There was no quid pro quo.
Everyone: You got stuff for doing stuff.
Media: Trump uses "accounting" to tell the story of his wealth. Accounting revenue is different from what we think income is. He must be lying.

Clintonistas: Trump only wants you to think of him and not his goals.
Trump: Make America Great Again
Clinton: I'm with Her.
Media (After "clarifying" message with Podesta.): Trump is Mussolini.

Now, it is clear Trump does not have the speaking style of what we expect from politicians. We might ask if wanting such a style has hurt or helped us. We know those who have tried to tow the line of PC talk in the past tend to have just as much 'splaining to do. The '80s called and they want their foreign policy back and all that.

We good with how things are in the country or do we want change? Both are bad, but one represents staying the course and insures substantive discord throughout (At least the early years.) any administration that will be dancing as fast as they can to avoid indictments.

mrz102516-color_orig.jpg


You're following the Trump supporter handbook step by step, whenever someone mentions a legitimate issue about Donald, the Trump handbook says you just ignore the issue and deflect to talk about Hillary ;)

I don't have an issue with Donald's speaking style because he isn't politically correct; I have an issue with his speaking style because it provides every indication that he has no idea what he's talking about because everything is "Tremendous, I know the best of those things, my things will make America great again!!!"

What kind of change are we talking about here? What exactly would Donald do differently to make things better?

I ask this because we are literally at the end of the election and Donald has not shown any amount of substantive evidence that would lead me to believe he could do anything beneficial.

Change is not always good, it simply means different. Even if I'm slowly dying in this hospital bed we call the political system, just waiting and hoping for any solution, I'm not going to take some lunatic's advice to shoot myself in the head "just for a change". :lol:
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@His_Highness I absolutely understand your frustration with the ACA. I have read your complaints and I don't find them unreasonable (for the most part). You are one of the (many) folks who have been damaged be the program and you need relief. There are many flaws in the ACA that need to be corrected to make it what we hoped it would be. But your suggestion that it is a terrible program that should never have been put in force and implication that it provides no benefit to Americans is false on its face.

There are millions of people that have health insurance in this country now who never had it before. Many many of those millions now getting healthcare had previously been denied coverage because the insurance companies thought they might lose money on them. God forbid they should include people in their programs that would actually cost money to care for. How anti capitalist.

Prior to the ACA, for example, I was considered in uninsurable person. Because of my medical history and because of the medications I’m on the insurance companies were allowed to say I couldn’t have insurance even at high cost. My state created a “insurance of last resort” program but with that program they were allowed to charge me whatever they wanted to, so as a single person I could get insurance at about $1100 a month which I was unable to pay.

The ACA made it POSSIBLE for me to get insurance that I could afford to pay for. Even though it is not yet actually brought down the cost of care in America, the program helps by paying a portion of my premiums so they don’t end up being a ridiculously high proportion of the money I make. The LONG term goal of the program is to reduce the actual COST of care, but the short term goal is just to make it accessible. We are still working on the short term goals as well.

Now, the Republicans want to kill the ACA. They’ve been trying to kill it since the day it was born. They have voted to kill it more than 60 times. They have no concern for the people who can’t afford insurance for whatever reason, even though many, possibly more people who benefit from Obama care are Republicans. But they are mostly poor Republicans, so they don’t really matter. And if they are able to destroy Obama care than those millions of people who have it for the first time will lose it again. And poor people will go back to dying off like they’re supposed to.

Far be it from me to try and understand how Republicans feel but it sure looks like Republicans believe that if your employer doesn’t provide you insurance and you can’t afford to buy insurance on your own or the insurance companies don’t think you should be able to get it, and you don’t have the hundreds of thousands of dollars it may cost to get the medical care you need to survive, then you should just be allowed to die rather than the country making any effort to supplement your medical costs. If genetics or an accident or anything created a circumstance in which your health is jeopardized than that's your problem not ours. And you shouldn’t expect any help from your government.

The Democrats, on the other hand, want to fix the ACA. They recognize that with any major new program there are flaws and errors that occur that can’t be anticipated and must be fixed after they are found. There is no huge government program that has ever gone into effect that was perfect on arrival. That’s just not possible. We still make changes to medicare and social security and the VA program, for example. So everyone knew things would come up that needed to be addressed, and the assumption was that the government, knowing the above, would be cooperative in making changes to make the program better and help reduce its costs. Instead the Republicans have done everything they could to kill it including eliminating the risk corridor program that helps protect insurance companies in places where the percentage of people with expensive care was higher than other areas of the country. The image we’ve been seeing of insurance companies fleeing states is a direct result of the Republican effort to kill the program, in this case by refusing to protect insurance companies hurt by the ACA. And those optics have helped to make the program look bad, again by design.

But the Republicans don’t want to make any effort to fix the ACA they just want to destroy it. For whatever reason, and you will have to make your own assessment as to what those reasons may be, the Republicans just think your well-being is not their problem. Of course that’s not just medically, they think all of your problems are your problems and your own fault and government isn’t supposed to help you with them, but that’s really a bigger conversation; we’re just talking about healthcare here.

So, @His_Highness, I have to ask you, do you really believe that this solution to medical care in America is to completely destroy the ACA and to go back to a time when people were uninsurable and only wealthy people could have insurance if their employers didn’t provide it? Is that really a solution in your eyes? Or do you think that the idea of health insurance for all is a good one and that maybe we could make an effort to repair this program and make it work for everybody, including you? Is it really appropriate for the wealthiest country in the world to make no effort to make sure that people who can’t afford the ridiculous costs of healthcare in this country are not just left to die or forced to go in to excruciating debt and eventual bankruptcy?

Somehow I don’t think that is what you believe. But that is what you get if you shut down the ACA, because there are no alternatives proposed and the Republicans aren’t even interested in creating them. There is no reason to kill this program other than Republican fuckyouism, and I really don’t think that should be part of the American social compact.

The program is flawed, and needs to be repaired, but it is absolutely essential to the American efforts to create some level of fairness in our medical and mental health care philosophy in America.

Very well written. More importantly I appreciate your viewpoint and I'm glad the ACA has benefited you. I do feel empathy for your situation.

Unfortunately I believe that the ACA has not lived up to it's promises and is hurting more than it has helped and not in a small way. If it were otherwise then the ACA would be a plus in HRC's campaign instead of the weight around her neck it has become.... it is one of the only areas both parties agree on although most of us Democrats would prefer it not be brought up for obvious reasons. I'm not imagining that things were still getting worse for this program as the election wore on.... to the point where many democrats were afraid it would sink the HRC ship it is so bad.

In answer to your questions.....I do believe that the ACA should be dismantled and replaced with something that will work. This will never work as long as the profit motive is allowed to be part of the equation. The ACA is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't tweak it ... it is based on corporate health AND THEIR PROFIT MOTIVES and thus....the foundation is too weak to hold up the house.

There is no doubt this is helping some .... but it is helping the few at the expense of the many and if you need proof....take a look at Florida and the states like it.

In short....My problem with the ACA is that it will never work for the many, stops us from looking for a real solution and will eventually fail unless we remove the profit motive from the ACA. I'm sure there are those who believe the ACA can be fixed. These are probably the same folks who thought I was wrong when I looked into the crystal ball years ago and prognosticated today's result.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
His_Highness,

grokit

well-worn member
The ACA would be doing a LOT better if marco fucking rubio hadn't sabotaged it with a last-minute amendment to a budget bill that the rethuglicans were holding hostage, in yet another treasonous attempt to shut down our federal government. That amendment let congress welsh on it's mandated by law risk-corridor payments. This was the poison pill that drove insurers out of the very medical insurance markets where they were most needed. It was a death-blow to these markets, and it's easily fixable.

edit: Chris christie did something right for once when he took rubio down during the primaries :2c:

:myday:
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Trump is whining that Hillary has stars singing for her in a concert. He said, "its almost like cheating". Remember stars like Chachi and Bobby Knight? It sounds like jealousy to me.

I couldn't sleep last night. Thinking about the election and some other things. Everything always seems worse in the middle of the night.:freak:
 

jay87

Well-Known Member
Trump is whining that Hillary has stars singing for her in a concert. He said, "its almost like cheating". Remember stars like Chachi and Bobby Knight? It sounds like jealousy to me.

I couldn't sleep last night. Thinking about the election and some other things. Everything always seems worse in the middle of the night.:freak:

Just relax and read this over and over, it certainly makes me feel better :tup:

Here is the latest Pollster.com topline. They are incredibly bullish on Hillary winning the presidency as of just a minute ago, also on the Senate switching hands:

pollster7.jpg


Trump is dropping like a rock. Now down to a 1.3% chance of winning, while Hillary Clinton has surged all the way to 98.6%. Both of these measures are new highs and lows for Pollster.com Projections (for Hillary and Trump, respectively.)

When you vote, you don’t elect the president: You tell your state’s electoral-college electors how to vote. In most states, all electors vote with the state’s popular opinion. If 51 percent of voters in California choose Hillary Clinton, all 55 of California’s electors will vote for Clinton — and none will vote for Donald Trump.

(Historically, a few so-called faithless electors have voted against popular opinion. They never changed the outcome of an election, so we don’t model them.)

We simulated a Nov. 8 election 10 million times using our state-by-state averages. In 9.9 million simulations, Hillary Clinton ended up with at least 270 electoral votes. Therefore, we say Clinton has a 98.6 percent chance of becoming president.

pollster8.jpg


much more:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...te-strongly-out-of-GOP-chance-Wang-now-at-100

:myday:
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
The ACA would be doing a LOT better if marco fucking rubio hadn't sabotaged it with a last-minute amendment to a budget bill that the rethuglicans were holding hostage, in yet another treasonous attempt to shut down our federal government. That amendment let congress welsh on it's mandated by law risk-corridor payments. This was the poison pill that drove insurers out of the very medical insurance markets where they were most needed. It was a death-blow to these markets, and it's easily fixable.

:myday:

Hope you're right. But again....we'll have to a agree to disagree.

Risk-corridor or not the horse has left the barn....2017 is going to be a rude awakening for states like Florida and whatever the fix you are thinking will be made...it won't happen in time for 2017 and probably not 2018 either.

I've run the numbers .... If I were to use the ACA for 2017 I'm not going to be subsidized and will have a deductible of over 13,000 for the family (wife and I). My premium would be $1200 a month not including dental. This is apples to apples. I am middle class by demographic. To top it off....I will have lost my doctor and..... my carrier, United Health, has dropped out among others. My doctor had told me that under no circumstances should I choose BCBS. Wanna guess who's left?

The punchline for me is ...... I didn't get to keep my doctor, my plan, my carrier or......my money.

Easily fixable is not the term I would use here.

EDIT: I just got my first ACA cold call of the day about an hour ago :lmao:
 

grokit

well-worn member
Hope you're right. But again....we'll have to a agree to disagree.

Risk-corridor or not the horse has left the barn....2017 is going to be a rude awakening for states like Florida and whatever the fix you are thinking will be made...it won't happen in time for 2017 and probably not 2018 either.

I've run the numbers .... If I were to use the ACA for 2017 I'm not going to be subsidized and will have a deductible of over 13,000 for the family (wife and I). My premium would be $1200 a month not including dental. This is apples to apples. I am middle class by demographic. To top it off....I will have lost my doctor and..... my carrier, United Health, has dropped out among others. My doctor had told me that under no circumstances should I choose BCBS. Wanna guess who's left?

The punchline for me is ...... I didn't get to keep my doctor, my plan, my carrier or......my money.

Easily fixable is not the term I would use here.

EDIT: I just got my first ACA cold call of the day about an hour ago :lmao:
Are you a costco member? It's not in my state and probably never will be (one can still hope), but they are already running their own alternative health care enrollment network. If it's available in your state, maybe you should look into it. I have lost my doc and my insurer, they're both fleeing my state so I feel your pain; to a lesser degree of course since it's just me, and my income is low enough for a decent subsidy. My new issue is there's only one ACA insurer left in my state, because of rubio's brilliant legislative treason.

As far as fixes being made to the ACA I have to disagree, because if killary gets a democratic congress in this election, probably just the senate, that would give her a two-year window 2017-2018 before the senate threatens to flip back to rethuglican control, resulting in renewed gridlock for the rest of her term. I'm sure there are many other tweaks to improve the ACA, but this just needs a reversed budget amendment.

edit: For robo-calls, this is a brilliant little gizmo:



:myday:
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
In short....My problem with the ACA is that it will never work for the many, stops us from looking for a real solution and will eventually fail unless we remove the profit motive from the ACA. I'm sure there are those who believe the ACA can be fixed. These are probably the same folks who thought I was wrong when I looked into the crystal ball years ago and prognosticated today's result.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I know this will be a shock, but I agree with you. That is exactly what we have to work towards (removal of profit motive), but it is the LONG term goal. The Republicans, all the way up the ass of the insurance companies, will do everything they can to stop that from happening. And they will succeed, in the short term. It is just not possible to make the insurance companies go from complete control of the American health system to Zero control in one step. Their lobby is WAY too powerful.

But it CAN be done in smaller steps, starting with a public option that they can't stop without a republican majority. When that is shown to work at reducing costs (as the ICs will have to compete) we will be on the way towards Medicare for all, which is probably a good way to describe the fulfillment of the efforts towards universal coverage.

There is NO reason why this can't be accomplished over time, but it is not something that can be accomplished with the flip of a switch. Not in a country almost completely controlled by the wealthy and corporate interests. It is a process that will take some time, but we must keep working towards it. We certainly can't start over with what we had before the ACA...
 
Top Bottom