Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ernest-Panda said:

http://qklnk.co/esc24d

"He's gonna build a giant egg! To keep all the disgusting animals in there."

"You're a FOX!"

"Other animals, Sonic. Other animals."

"But I thought it was dem other immigrants!"

I feel bad for her husband, no sympathy for her though.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to talk about health care a little more.  There was a comment posted earlier which said something along the lines of "you're not likely to get so ill you require hospitalization."  This is what we call the fallacy of youth.  Your body is like a computer.  With proper maintenance, you can prolong problems but no matter what, hardware deteriorates overtime.

This is especially true for women.  With menstration, childbirth, and other functions, even healthy women are at risk for a variety of bodily issues that require a doctor's input.

Even if you don't have a family history of breast disease, regular mammograms become an integral part of your life at a certain age.

This impacts you regardless of race, regardless of minority status, regardless of income, etc.  We were ultimately born to this fate, our personal decisions having marginal influence on the matter.

One of my friends is only in her mid 20s, eats like a nutrition PSA from the 90s and exercises regularly but still loses so much blood once a month that she comes very close to passing out.  She shouldn't have to spend an arm and a leg for medicine, especially when mainstream doctors ignore her and tell her it's normal (rule of thumb: anything that almost makes you die isn't normal) which is frankly rubbish.

Universal health care would help her and other people in her position and it would allow all women to live to their better potential as opposed to paying for medication that is priced inequivalent to the laws of supply/demand.  There is none object with a greater demand than life, and the medical industry takes full advantage of that.  Not to say that doctors don't deserve good payment for what they do, but most medicines are dramatically overpriced, and whence your life literally depends on it, you're not in a position to call them out on it.  This is something that's got to stop.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further on the point of the maintenance analogy, people don't even go to the doctor for their annual check-ups or minor procedures because they can't afford to pay even those initial upfront costs and deductibles, which inevitably compounds onto problems over time and increases the chances of more catastrophic health problems. If we had a more progressive health care system, I'd personally be in and out of the dentist all the time trying to keep my oral health on the up and up. But we don't, so I have to put a buffer time between procedures I know I need right now, because even with insurance I can't constantly fork out the money needed to catch me back up.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from experience, I haven't gotten my eyes checked in like 5 goddamn years because of the costs involved. I really should, because I'm diabetic.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/25/521499081/oops-pac-runs-tv-ads-thanking-some-republicans-for-repealing-obamacare

PAC ran ads during the basketball games thanking various Congresspeople for successfully repealing Obamacare, having purchased the ads well in advance.

You would think after 2016, we'd know no political outcome is a given, no matter your base of support or money you have, but apparently not.

I'm hoping the GOP's overconfidence destroys them in every election cycle these next 4 years.

 

On 3/24/2017 at 6:38 PM, Meta77 said:

Oh come off your high horse. Never said I didn't like it. What I don't like are people that sit and say glad it failed but

Hey now, no need to get hostile.

Your comment just sounded like you were a bit annoyed at seeing all the talk about this on your social media is all.

On 3/24/2017 at 6:38 PM, Meta77 said:

offer noting that could replace Obama care that can be helpful without being the piece of crap it is now

This thread is full of people saying the end goal is a single payer system.

 

21 hours ago, Patticus said:

I'd like to see the Democrats take a slightly different tack, crafting core policies and bills on hot button issues super early, getting really good at selling them (they really need a propaganda wing...) and getting them into people's political wishlists, and actually unifying as a party around them for a change. If Trump is going to be in campaign mode for the next 4-8 years, so too must the Democrats.

This is actually something Michael Moore was talking about on MSNBC the other night. He said the key difference between the Democrats and Republicans making symbolic plans that won't pass under the current President is the Democrats are likely to have the support of the masses when the time comes for expansion.

But the time is now to take the single payer plan proposed in the 2016 platform and work on promoting it for 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020's races. The fact the AHCA was even being considered gives serious ammo to the Democrats if they make a point that they're interested in healthcare expansion.

It might help to go the Bill Clinton route and say Obamacare has plenty of problems (while emphasizing a lot of them stem from the realities Obama had to work with), but the solution is to expand the system, not shrink it.

21 hours ago, Meta77 said:

Who pays for it. Noting in this world comes for free and we all know the Government does not have money.

The wealthy, the same as in any government spending plan.

Thanks to the nature of taxes on income vs. investments, the wealthy pay far less as an effective rate than many Americans.

20 hours ago, Meta77 said:

 Still that raises another question why is it so expensive to carry out operations. Why after so many years does it still cost an arm and a leg. Instead of looking for ways to lower prices. Like that epi pen mess where they raised prices because they could.

Because price controls can have potential ramifications, never mind the wealthy have a lot of politicians on their payroll and this means there's no real government will to move towards such a thing.

20 hours ago, Meta77 said:

The repubs could get a lot done but they are to busy trying to do each other in.

It's less that and more that the majority coalition always has a harder time doing things than when it was out of power.

See the Democrats in 2009. They had a huge amount of power, being close to a filibuster-proof Senate majority (circumstances made it so they very rarely had all 60 votes on the floor), but things like the public option were sunk by guys like Lieberman.

The "party line" becomes less powerful once everyone's actually in power.

20 hours ago, Meta77 said:

But all I usually see is we hate you you hate us. Lets just stick to that.

This actually really isn't the norm. The House has always been a shitshow (as the Framers intended) but the Senate is normally pretty civilized and diplomatic; Cabinet appointments tend to pass with overwhelming majorities regardless of President, for example.

Strangely, though, this all broke down with the election of the first black President (who is for all practical purposes the same as a white American, even being raised by a white woman, he just happens to have darker skin). Given how much of American politics has hinged on racism, it's not a stretch to say this wasn't a coincidence.

 

10 hours ago, Patticus said:

They're going to try to ensure that the ACA marketplaces enter a death spiral (as opposed to the phantom death spiral they've been talking about for years), premiums skyrocket, lives get ruined etc and pin it on the Democrats. This is the next stage in the healthcare fight, and it will not be pretty.

I think our greatest hope is he will be served a lot of court injunctions.

While Obama relaxed enforcement of federal marijuana laws (exercising the President's hidden check and balance to not enforce the law), he did so in response to states legalizing marijuana, and with a strict caveat that states had to take steps to prevent children from gaining access to it. He also never relinquished the right of the federal government to enforce it freely, so much as diplomatically working things out with each state government.

Trump unilaterally going "lol no exchanges" or the like could very well get him served some injunctions. On the other hand, if he works it out as an agreement with each particular state's government, he'd have more precedent. Plenty of GOP state governments have declined to participate in Medicaid expansion and the like, so this would hardly be anything new.

current-status-of-the-medicaid-expansion

This gives a rough idea of where the looney tune Republicans are and where the sane ones are. Most of the South, continually languishing in poverty as a result of conservative policies, will no doubt cooperate with gutting the exchanges, as they will continue to vote GOP until the end of time.

However, there's enough moderate Republicans that executive actions could run into serious trouble. If they go for cutting subsidies, as I have no doubt they will, there's always a possibility for a class action suit against some power broker or another.

Given Trump's terrible record with the courts... it likely wouldn't go his way.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible breaking news on Flynn, and by extension, Russia, this evening:

The rest of the Tweet thread, quoted to save space - also accessible via the original Tweet above:

Quote

(1) First, as an attorney I want to make clear that, if this @CNN analyst's sources are correct, the #Russiagate scandal is blown wide open.
(2) The FBI flips witnesses, turning them into cooperating individuals, _only_ when they can help secure conviction of a bigger "target."
(3) Michael Flynn was the National Security Adviser for the President of the United States. The only _bigger_ target is Donald J. Trump.
(4) But Flynn also held a clandestine meeting with Russian ambassador/spy Sergey Kislyak and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner in December '16.
(5) And Flynn coordinated with infamous Iran-Contra figure and Russian oil/gas pipeline advocate Bud McFarlane in hiring Trump's Deputy NSA.
(6) And of course Flynn had the highest possible clearance and greatest possible access to POTUS in discussing matters of national security.
(7) Flynn's hire as NSA was controversial--even suspicious--when it was made due to Flynn's absolutely _terrible_ reputation in Washington.
(8) This suggests the hire wasn't based on merit, but rather the fact that Flynn is _known_ to have ties (in-person ties) to Vladimir Putin.

This all hinges on the professor / CNN analyst's sources being correct, of course, but if it's accurate then the Russia scandal is only going to grow - and I personally expect that Trump himself could be subpoena'd at some point during the investigation now, alongside other key figures. His presidency's continuation depends on whether there is a fire beneath all this billowing smoke.

Flynn's Turkish ties are also in the news, potentially also relating to Russia:

The subsequent thread is enormous, and I'm having difficulty piecing it all together, but here's the latest:

So, Nunes could be compromised by the entire affair now as well, and shouldn't be anywhere near being in charge of investigating Trump. Anyone who watched his bizarre behavior last week, running to Trump as soon as a possible out on the wiretap thing came up, should have felt this already. Bring on the Special Prosecutor!
 

Oh, and then the Russians started issuing threats!

Quote

Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for example, things that happened during President Obama’s terms in office. Believe me, this could be very interesting information.

Our American colleagues must decide if they respect the diplomatic procedure, if they keep their word on the arrangements made between us, primarily arrangements made at their own request, or we create a few very nice surprises for each other

Source.

Russia to the leakers:

I tell you, this must rank among the most farcical periods in American political history - truly the grandest comedy of errors of our time. I can't wait for the tell-all books and TV shows!

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Patticus said:

I tell you, this must rank among the most farcical periods in American political history - truly the grandest comedy of errors of our time. I can't wait for the tell-all books and TV shows!

I just hope there's still some kind of civilisation left for those books and TV-shows to be made. The size and width of this Russian conspiracy to subvert the US has stopped being funny to me a long time ago.

It's honestly horrifying. Watergate was a domestic conspiracy. This, on the other hand, is much, much worse. It's an attempted hostile takeover by a foreign government.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325814-sanders-says-he-will-introduce-medicare-for-all-bill

Meanwhile, Sanders says he will introduce a Medicare for All bill. It would of course take Hell freezing over to pass, but let's note the key detail here: the Democrats are putting together actual plans in the span of 9 weeks when Republicans couldn't do it in 8 years.

Once Bernie does this, provided the bill is solid and is only shot down by partisanship, the Democrats will have a really strong campaign point come future election cycles. The bill was there, offering expansion, but the GOP shot it down due to their insistence on a broken free market system.

The majority of Americans are receptive to single payer, represented both in Gallup polls as well as the fact Clinton won the popular vote. Unfortunately, the nature of American government means minorities in the red states are able to hold the entire country hostage.

Once more, the idea of an economic populist Democratic Party could not be floated enough. The Democrats would benefit enormously from backing strong candidates who are socially conservative yet receptive to a few liberal economic policies. Given that this is exactly the slant that Catholicism tends to take, this is particularly necessary given the growing Latino population and the likely effects that will have on the political and religious landscape.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-defence-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html

Never say never about Trump ceasing to surprise you.

He presented German Chancellor Angela Merkel with an invoice for $375 billion dollars, ostensibly the money Germany has "underpaid" NATO since 2002 with interest on top.

Merkel, for her part, was basically "fuck off troll," and sources close to her say she will not respond to such outrageous moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Trump not know that the spending target is due in like 2024? Like, what is even his aim there?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-defence-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html

Never say never about Trump ceasing to surprise you.

He presented German Chancellor Angela Merkel with an invoice for $375 billion dollars, ostensibly the money Germany has "underpaid" NATO since 2002 with interest on top.

Merkel, for her part, was basically "fuck off troll," and sources close to her say she will respond to such outrageous moves.

This explains why Trump avoided eye contact and even refused a handshake.

He must have been really surprised to see her rebuff him

9 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

Does Trump not know that the spending target is due in like 2024? Like, what is even his aim there?

Of course Trump doesn't know. This is the guy who demands his security report to be one page only, with pictures.

 

EDIT:

As I expected, Trump is now attacking GOPers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-defence-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html

Never say never about Trump ceasing to surprise you.

He presented German Chancellor Angela Merkel with an invoice for $375 billion dollars, ostensibly the money Germany has "underpaid" NATO since 2002 with interest on top.

Merkel, for her part, was basically "fuck off troll," and sources close to her say she will respond to such outrageous moves.

I'm kinda confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And kaepernick is out of a job now and of course peopke are apparently rejoicing the bad guy was defeated. Oh wait. He did what white people wanted from a black protest...and still got shit on.

IMG_7888.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder for how long tho?

This looks more like a setback if I were to be real about it. His activism isn't going to go unnoticed, so it's hard to think this will hurt him that badly in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are shitty players that get away with despicable acts, and they still are playing. So it's a big ass double standard for people to suddenly grow morals and concern when a minority decides to express himself in ways white people fucking asked us to do and pull that "well he's not good" reason. Hell the tweet I posted even calls bullshit ok the "he's not good so that's why people are mad" justification you used.

Another relevant pic

IMG_7897.JPG

But he's just not a good player so his acts and points made are lessened and irrelevant and he's more subject to getting booted vs a player that's bad and beat his wife or raped so...

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any more points you want to argue against that I didn't actually make, or are you good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna make another needless post about the quality of the player in the sport which is irrelevant to his message, or are /you/ good?

 

Edit: and I doubt even if he was "good", the reactions would have been that different to what he said and did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not irrelevant to his message when the idea you're trying to push is that his message is why a team hasn't stepped up to sign him. What even is your point if not that? That some people on the internet are glad Kaepernick is out of a job because they are assholes? How enlightening do you think that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What even is your point?"

That the NFL won't step up in support of the fight against racial injustice and will fire those that protest but will allow for players that rape and beat people to stay? And that all this controversy, including him not getting signed, out of a protest, in the way conservative white people said is how we should protest, is bullshit? I mean how hard do you have to go to ignore basic issues like that? How is it whenever a minority makes some complaint or brings up some hypocritical act, suddenly people jump to the defensive or acts like what they're doing is somehow the worst thing in earth and they can't see the issue being had? Or weee you just looking at the first sentence of my original post and nothing else after that and assuming my only point was "people are happy he's fired"

Edit: Regarding your "he's not good" line, that's been a genuine response by many in why his protest is bs or not credible. So if that's your point of contention, it's not relating to him getting fired because he's not good. (Though again, bad players that do worse still keep their jobs even when caught.) It's that people use that as some reasoning to devalue his cause and protest as if it has anything to do with that. I associated that point with how it's usually used regarding this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, KHCast said:

That the NFL won't step up in support of racial injustice and will fire those that protest but will allow for players that rape and beat people to stay?

"The NFL" didn't fire Colin Kaepernick because he protested. The team he was on, which is ultimately a separate business that operates underneath the NFL's guidelines but decide their own staffing, didn't fire Colin Kaepernick because he protested. Colin Kaepernick asked for, and was granted, release from the NFL team that he most likely would have played for in 2017.

Roger Goodell is an asshole and the league has a horrendous recent history with player conduct as a direct result of it, but that's not relevant to Colin Kaepernick not yet getting signed by an NFL team after he willingly left the one that probably valued him the most. People on the internet who threw fits about Kaepernick kneeling and being outspoken and are cheering that he hasn't been signed yet are also assholes, but that's not relevant to Colin Kaepernick trying to test his luck in a weak free agency when only a few teams were actually looking for starting quarterbacks to begin with, and two of them are holding out for a specific player. And while owners like Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones are assholes who wouldn't have signed Kaepernick even if he was Peyton-level talent because of his protesting, those teams definitely weren't going to be looking at Colin Kaepernick for the 2017 season anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, there are much more worse players than Collin, and there were tons of teams that "supported" him. (Looking at the Seahawks specifically, as I think they'd be able to work great with him, plus I thought there was talk at one point about them being interested in him. Hell even teams like the Steelers I think could be neat interesting if they were looking .) So this'll really show people and teams true colors this next few months. Him leaving isn't my issue, but the fact things really started getting heated after this debacle to begin with and drove things to this point is showing how the NFL and many of their teams tend to treat players and cherry pick issues. I highly doubt this controversy had no impact on this result, and players keep certain issues secret or hidden all the time. Wouldn't surprise me if his request to leave was more than what he lets on. And like you've said given, the NFL's history as of late, I'm not gonna treat that company like some innocent bystander 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Him not voting in the election was far more disastrous to the meaning of his protest than his talent, because his talent was only relevant insofar as it simply gave him a platform to communicate his intent to a larger audience. Whether or not he was the absolute best at his job doesn't really matter beyond that.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Him not voting in the election was far more disastrous to the meaning of his protest than his talent, because his talent was only relevant insofar as it simply gave him a platform to communicate his intent to a larger audience. Whether or not he was the absolute best at his job doesn't really matter beyond that.

That I will agree with. The man wasn't perfect, and was prone to idiocy like anyone. I'm mainly referring to his original core message and point.

 

Edit: looking it up looks like I was right haha, there's talk, rumors at the moment, of the Seahawks being interested in acquiring Kaepernick, which I'd genuinely enjoy seeing as both the coach and team seem pretty decent and welcoming(and are no stranger to contreversey)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.