2020 US Presidential Election

[PeteJ]

I hear you, I'm tired too and we're going to heck in a hand basket. Debt is exploding, reasoning is lacking, speech is being censored. Hard not to feel hopeless sometimes, but that's often where the best leaders come from.

But, I can't discuss this with the majority here. They are too far gone. I called them brainwashed for a reason. I think the parties are more or less the same. They have traditional viewpoints that citizens have held for years. There is no way I can have a discussion with them. I didn't always think like this. I was just stupid like them a while ago but I eventually learned. I am tired of people asking to have their hands held though. Like the other poster who wanted sources. Can't people figure it out for themselves? I know YouTube and social media sites remove videos and posts that go contrary to the Establishment and mainstream but the internet isn't *fully* censored yet. They should be able to do SOME research on their own, right???!?

I still remember a YouTube video (was removed) that illustrated how Kerry and Bush were the same. It was well done. It was so blatantly obvious. Also, whenever you do discuss politics with these leftists, they ignore your points anyway or they are really selective to which they respond to.

A few here think it doesn't matter what their debt is at or what administrations have done except nitpicking certain policies. I guess I am also like that because of my tinnitus. Policies that impact healthcare, disability and related topics impact me so I concede I have that self-centric attitude too. But, that's my justification. I admit it but I used to look at everything, the entire picture, when I was healthy enough and didn't have this hell to experience.

 

[Watasha]

I've read there was corruption in the Chicago in the 1960 election that could very well have swung the election to John Kennedy. But I'm not convinced--https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/10/was-nixon-robbed.html. I think what isn't in dispute is that the Republicans stole the 2000 election by voter suppression in Florida. The Republican controlled Secretary of State apparently "purged" the rolls of something like 150,000 voters leading up to the election. Funny that the purged voters were those most likely to vote Democratic.

Funny also, that almost all of those 150K voters were found to have been "purged" illegally. -- One dirty trick after another for the last several decades for Republicans to show their pervasive disdain for voting rights and the values of the Constitution. -- In my mind, they're nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, and the whole party deserves to be relegated to the dustbins of history. I think this November could result in a wave election that might just get things started down that path. And the country would be the better for it. -- BTW, I'm no Obama apologist. They way his justice dept. hassled reporters and threatened the free press was reprehensible.

Well you certainly took a dark and partisan turn here, what triggered you if I may ask? It's amazing Bush had a chance given the media called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the western part of the state. The number I am familiar with is more like 12,000, not 150k. It's a shame the party of Lincoln, the party that abolished slavery, helped pass the civil rights act, you think should be disbanded. I will reserve my judgement of the Democrat party in the spirit of bi-partisanship. Sad you didn't heed my advice and stick strictly to policy issues. You're falling into the party trap that Washington warned us about. An argument over who has politically sinned is an endless and fruitless endeavor.

 

[Watasha]

Policies that impact healthcare, disability and related topics impact me so I concede I have that self-centric attitude too. But, that's my justification. I admit it but I used to look at everything, the entire picture, when I was healthy enough and didn't have this hell to experience.

I hear that, it irks me when I hear we are spending 8 billion to combat opioid crisis but have to beg for a few million for this gosh forsaken condition that we suffer. If only we could voluntarily decide where we want our money to go...

 

[aot]

The Trump administration just finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in health care and health insurance.

...During Pride month... ON THE ANNIVERSERY OF THE PULSE NIGHTCLUB SHOOTING.

Vote this facist shitbag out of office.

 

[PeteJ]

I hear that, it irks me when I hear we are spending 8 billion to combat opioid crisis but have to beg for a few million for this gosh forsaken condition that we suffer. If only we could voluntarily decide where we want our money to go...

Or at least vote on it. I think Direct democracy has its good points. In Canada, politicians do things that no one voted for them to do. That is, the government unilaterally decides on things that had no mandate. The electorate didn't give them the right. Politicians "vote" for their salary increases and no one can stop them. All the parties and politicians do it so it doesn't matter who you vote for. This is just one example.

None of the posters here care what I have to say. It's a herd or mob mentality. Thus, it doesn't matter what I say or what my argument is. It's not theirs. It's not close enough to theirs.

 

[FGG]

They turned on McCain most largely because he torpedoed the Obamacare repeal, which was a campaign process for 8 years.

With regard to AOC, you are actually re-framing my point. AOC is not a Democrat. She is a far-left socialist, of course she's going to challenge Pelosi. She's also voted almost exclusively down the party line.

As far as the last few points, yeah yeah we get it, there are hypocrites everywhere. We've both provided examples that counter each others points. Ironically, the end of the article you provided actually quotes a Republican Senator slamming Trump's position. Anywho, I think at least on my part I've endeavored enough into the politics of hypocrisy (which is never ending!). Happy to discuss the merits of specific policies anytime though! Thanks for being civil.

PS Conservative Principles:

1) 2 conservative supreme court justices, and a plethora of circuit court judges
2) rolled back burdensome regulations across many industries
3) Pro-growth tax reform that incentives saving and investment
4) Free market healthcare reform
5) Pro-life regulation
6) Pro-school choice by increasing funding for charter schools by more than 30% since taking office

I could also name so not so conservative, but such is the nature of compromise.

Well if 1-6 are your values, I can respect you voting for those who align with them.

I think I would be considered "far-left" to you because my values are:

1) Healthcare for all is a fundamental human right.

2) Environmental damage can not be reverted in many lifetimes and clean air, water and land should be prioritized over corporate profits. With some infrastructure changes, green technologies could provide many new jobs and long-term economic growth.

3) Prisons should never be privatized.

4) I'm fine with pro-school choice if educational funding was increased across the board and made to go towards metrics that improve education (vs "good ol' boy network" new building contracts etc) if access to the good schools was truly equal.

5) Legalize marijuana federally, especially medically.

6) Affordable college for all.

7) Fair immigration policy, in particular for dreamers.

8) Equality for homosexuals, women and minorities.

Oops, I picked 8. But I think if you are arguing against disparate values, it's hard to "debate."

Thanks for being civil also.

 

[Lane]

Well you certainly took a dark and partisan turn here, what triggered you if I may ask?

Well, I certainly disagree with that assessment. You brought up the topic of stolen elections, and similarly to you neglecting to mention Mitch McConnell refusing to bring up Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, you also neglected to mention what happened in Florida in 2000 when the election was most definitely stolen.

You're correct about the 12,000 votes. However, that total was 44% black voters, who only made up 11% of the population. Given blacks vote Democratic 90% of the time, it's easy to see that that purge was determinative of the 2000 Presidential election. There were other shenanigans as well. -- It turned out to be a watershed moment for the Republicans when they realized what they had accomplished. Here's a snippet from THIS LINK:

"The 2000 election in Florida forever changed American politics and kicked off a new wave of GOP-led voter disenfranchisement efforts. "Other people began to see that in very competitive elections, you could make a difference by keeping certain voters from participating," Hailes said. Bush's election empowered a new generation of voting-rights critics, who hyped the threat of voter fraud in order to restrict access to the ballot, and remade a Supreme Court that would eventually gut the centerpiece of the VRA."
​

Racially motivated voter disenfranchisement efforts--that's my trigger. You may say "I" took a dark turn, but all I was doing was pointing out the dark turn Republicans took back then, and have systematically built on their voter suppression efforts ever since. Place the blame where the blame is due.

It's a shame the party of Lincoln, the party that abolished slavery, helped pass the civil rights act, you think should be disbanded.

You seem to be implying I think the Civil Rights Act should be abandoned. I'm not sure where you came up with that preposterous idea. Again, you brought the topic of stolen elections, which is dependent on (mostly black) voter disenfranchisement. It not only continues, but seems to be intensifying--with complicity from the Supreme Court.

You seem to give credit to Republicans to help pass the Civil Rights Act. The truth is, there were a few Republicans who only very reluctantly voted for it. But it was only after a lot of wheeling and dealing by Lyndon Johnson, which entailed a lot of carrot and stick approaches. The truth is, Republicans have a long history of racist behavior and attitudes, and it shows up in consequential ways that have greatly negatively affect the U.S., including voter suppression efforts.

If Bush had not become President in 2001, almost assuredly, no disastrous Iraq war. Probably no ISIS. No incredibly irresponsible tax cut and fiscal policy that ballooned the national debt, and on and on. The 2000 election outcome was a tragic event for the country, and we're still paying a huge price for it. Ironically, I long considered myself an Independent, but during the 1980's was so pro-Republican, I considered joining the Republican Party. But I've since come to believe they and their efforts to undermine our democratic processes and norms pose a serious threat to the stability of the U.S.

 

[FGG]

You know if they wanted to change Ft Bragg to Ft Trump, suddenly he'd be enthusiastically for a name change.

 

[Watasha]

Well if 1-6 are your values, I can respect you voting for those who align with them.

I think I would be considered "far-left" to you because my values are:

1) Healthcare for all is a fundamental human right.

2) Environmental damage can not be reverted in many lifetimes and clean air, water and land should be prioritized over corporate profits. With some infrastructure changes, green technologies could provide many new jobs and long-term economic growth.

3) Prisons should never be privatized.

4) I'm fine with pro-school choice if educational funding was increased across the board and made to go towards metrics that improve education (vs "good ol' boy network" new building contracts etc) if access to the good schools was truly equal.

5) Legalize marijuana federally, especially medically.

6) Affordable college for all.

7) Fair immigration policy, in particular for dreamers.

8) Equality for homosexuals, women and minorities.

Oops, I picked 8. But I think if you are arguing against disparate values, it's hard to "debate."

Thanks for being civil also.

Plenty of room for compromise in that list and plenty of room for debate. I'd like to leave more of this up to the states than the federal government, then we could all move to states that align with our beliefs in the role of government (make exceptions for basic civil rights of course at a federal level). I'll leave it with this quote now from Thomas Jefferson.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

 

[Watasha]

Well, I certainly disagree with that assessment. You brought up the topic of stolen elections, and similarly to you neglecting to mention Mitch McConnell refusing to bring up Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, you also neglected to mention what happened in Florida in 2000 when the election was most definitely stolen.

You're correct about the 12,000 votes. However, that total was 44% black voters, who only made up 11% of the population. Given blacks vote Democratic 90% of the time, it's easy to see that that purge was determinative of the 2000 Presidential election. There were other shenanigans as well. -- It turned out to be a watershed moment for the Republicans when they realized what they had accomplished. Here's a snippet from THIS LINK:

"The 2000 election in Florida forever changed American politics and kicked off a new wave of GOP-led voter disenfranchisement efforts. "Other people began to see that in very competitive elections, you could make a difference by keeping certain voters from participating," Hailes said. Bush's election empowered a new generation of voting-rights critics, who hyped the threat of voter fraud in order to restrict access to the ballot, and remade a Supreme Court that would eventually gut the centerpiece of the VRA."
​

Racially motivated voter disenfranchisement efforts--that's my trigger. You may say "I" took a dark turn, but all I was doing was pointing out the dark turn Republicans took back then, and have systematically built on their voter suppression efforts ever since. Place the blame where the blame is due.



You seem to be implying I think the Civil Rights Act should be abandoned. I'm not sure where you came up with that preposterous idea. Again, you brought the topic of stolen elections, which is dependent on (mostly black) voter disenfranchisement. It not only continues, but seems to be intensifying--with complicity from the Supreme Court.

You seem to give credit to Republicans to help pass the Civil Rights Act. The truth is, there were a few Republicans who only very reluctantly voted for it. But it was only after a lot of wheeling and dealing by Lyndon Johnson, which entailed a lot of carrot and stick approaches. The truth is, Republicans have a long history of racist behavior and attitudes, and it shows up in consequential ways that have greatly negatively affect the U.S., including voter suppression efforts.

If Bush had not become President in 2001, almost assuredly, no disastrous Iraq war. Probably no ISIS. No incredibly irresponsible tax cut and fiscal policy that ballooned the national debt, and on and on. The 2000 election outcome was a tragic event for the country, and we're still paying a huge price for it. Ironically, I long considered myself an Independent, but during the 1980's was so pro-Republican, I considered joining the Republican Party. But I've since come to believe they and their efforts to undermine our democratic processes and norms pose a serious threat to the stability of the U.S.

You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong on the Republicans role in civil rights in the 1950's and 1960's and to say the numbers were very few is total falsehood. They were the minority party in both chambers of Congress and a higher percentage of their party voted for the act.

Read below and please correct your posts for being factually incorrect now twice.

https://www.countable.us/articles/1...ted-civil-rights-act-percentage-democrats-did

 

[PeteJ]

You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong on the Republicans role in civil rights in the 1950's and 1960's and to say the numbers were very few is total falsehood. They were the minority party in both chambers of Congress and a higher percentage of their party voted for the act.

Read below and please correct your posts for being factually incorrect now twice.

https://www.countable.us/articles/1...ted-civil-rights-act-percentage-democrats-did

I don't know how you respond to them.

I think the comment that a different President would avoid the Iraq war is laughable? Do you subscribe to their concept that the choice of President determines foreign policy THAT much?

They wanted bases there. It didn't matter who was in the White House.

 

[Lane]

You are absolutely and unequivocally wrong on the Republicans role in civil rights in the 1950's and 1960's and to say the numbers were very few is total falsehood.

My goodness, looks like somebody got up on the wrong side of bed this morning. Putting aside your uncalledfor belligerent reply, I did read the article you posted a link to--and I stand corrected. Technically speaking, it seems clear Republicans did provide more votes for the Civil Rights Act than Democratics. -- However, numbers alone don't fully explain what was going on back then--or today! -- From an interesting comment on that article, I learned that voting fell mostly along regional lines. Northern Democrats and Republicans voted almost unanimously for the CVA; while Southern politicians were almost universally against it.

I had read about some of the political haggling behind the scenes back then with prominent politicians like Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, William Fulbright, Sam Ervin, and others, and recalled they were Republicans. I was wrong; they were in fact diehard Southern Democratic racists. -- I knew Hubert Humphrey had begun to try to purge those racist elements from the Democratic party back in 1948. I didn't know the total break from Southern Democrats didn't take place until much later (late 1960's or so?) -- The following is from the Atlantic article "The Party of Hubert Humphrey". Below is part of his historic speech to the Democratic National Convention:

"There can be no hedging," Humphrey cried in his eight minute address, "no watering down. To those who say that we are rushing the issue of civil rights—I say to them, we are 172 years late." The cheering of thousands of delegates became a sustained roar. "To those who say this bill is an infringement of states' rights, I say this—the time has arrived in America. The time has arrived for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People—people—human beings—this is the issue of the 20th century."​

I think what's important to note is that even though Republicans love to say they're the "party of Lincoln", to me it almost goes without saying that that is no longer the case. In 1968, Nixon campaigned on the pledge of "law and order", which seems to have ushered in today's common use of a variety of code words and dogwhistles in regards to race relations. They're essentially a wink/wink, nod/nod to racists and southern white politicians, and are now commonly used by modern day Republican politicians--and somewhat perfected by Trump. Gee, there sure are "fine people" on both sides... wink/wink -- Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class.

For those who may not necessarily agree that the two major U.S. political parties have essentially flipped on their regard for black people and civil rights, I would point out that the black population votes Democratic approx. 90% of the time. And the Congressional Black Caucus is 95%+ Democratic. -- The Republicans could have stayed true to their roots of being the party of Lincoln, but the temptation of picking up all those votes that were essentially abandoned by the Democrats was apparently just too appealing for them to resist.

@Watasha -- I'm not sure why you got so exercised by my mistake. Everybody makes them, and I have no problems having mine pointed out; unless it's done in a far less than graceful manner. -- I also want to point out that where I was incorrect, was not the essential point of my post; it was only some auxiliary information.

I stand by my primary assertion(s) that Republican politicians stand almost lockstep together in their opposition to fair voting rights for minorities in America; who know full well which party is much more likely to support their civil rights. And that systematic voter disenfranchisement is a fundamental threat to some of the core strengths of this country. -- If even a single Republican politician has spoken out against the blatant voter suppression the party has been engaged in for so long, I'd love for somebody to point it out to me.

I also don't know why you seem to have a problem with someone posting in a partisan manner. You've been doing it, as have myself and others. So I think it's perfectly OK for me to end this post with an excerpt from a book by Norman Ornstein, and which reflects a lot of my own thinking about the sad demise of the modern day Republican party:
It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. -- When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."​

 

[PeteJ]

Well if 1-6 are your values, I can respect you voting for those who align with them.

I think I would be considered "far-left" to you because my values are:

1) Healthcare for all is a fundamental human right.

2) Environmental damage can not be reverted in many lifetimes and clean air, water and land should be prioritized over corporate profits. With some infrastructure changes, green technologies could provide many new jobs and long-term economic growth.

3) Prisons should never be privatized.

4) I'm fine with pro-school choice if educational funding was increased across the board and made to go towards metrics that improve education (vs "good ol' boy network" new building contracts etc) if access to the good schools was truly equal.

5) Legalize marijuana federally, especially medically.

6) Affordable college for all.

7) Fair immigration policy, in particular for dreamers.

8) Equality for homosexuals, women and minorities.

Oops, I picked 8. But I think if you are arguing against disparate values, it's hard to "debate."

Thanks for being civil also.

Maybe not far left but still a liberal hypocrite.

 

[PeteJ]

Liberals are nothing but pathetic hypocrites.

Liberals are reprimanding "right wing" protesters for not 'following' covid regulations e.g. not social distancing yet praising and celebrating BLM protesters for doing the exact same thing. This includes their hero Sanders.

I don't trust these liars for anything. If you think that they would improve healthcare, for e.g., I have this bridge for sale, cheap.

 

[Watasha]

I don't know how you respond to them.

I think the comment that a different President would avoid the Iraq war is laughable? Do you subscribe to their concept that the choice of President determines foreign policy THAT much?

They wanted bases there. It didn't matter who was in the White House.

I honestly have no idea, but I have seen Trump try to steer policy in his direction (Leave Syria,Afghanistan, etc) only to have his generals "quit" or threaten to in protest. There's seems to be an ongoing interest in war. But commentary that is going on with @Lane is non-productive and I tried to steer us way from it. Both parties have demonstrated hypocritical and bad behavior And they always will if they remain comprised of humans. I am not going to continue this tribal narrative digging in my heels on which side is worse, it's unproductive. One could say I started it, fine, but I'm also going to end it. I am happy to speak about one policy at a time because it's policy, not rhetoric and party that moves things forward. For the record, I disagree with very much in Lane's last post, but it's time to move on.

 

[PeteJ]

@FGG, sorry to be harsh but I can't edit. I doubt that you understand or acknowledge my point though? Or will you? Your reply wasn't to me though so I apologize for my post. Sorry.

 

[Zugzug]

1) Healthcare for all is a fundamental human right.

I'm genuinely curious, as I value your opinion a lot, how do you think medicare for all would impact people from our (tinnitus/hyperacusis) movement? I have a vision of wait times increasing and more ENT's shipping people off to TRT, spending even less time with the patient. I also envision more regulations for biomedical research. I could be way off; I just have "quality" concerns with M4A.

I most certainly agree that profiting off of people's bad health is disgusting. I absolutely think the healthy should subsidize the unhealthy. I would be glad to do it if I ever make it out of this.

 

[FGG]

I'm genuinely curious, as I value your opinion a lot, how do you think medicare for all would impact people from our (tinnitus/hyperacusis) movement? I have a vision of wait times increasing and more ENT's shipping people off to TRT, spending even less time with the patient. I also envision more regulations for biomedical research. I could be way off; I just have "quality" concerns with M4A.

I most certainly agree that profiting off of people's bad health is disgusting. I absolutely think the healthy should subsidize the unhealthy. I would be glad to do it if I ever make it out of this.

Well. I will agree with your point that if *everyone* had access to doctors in the US, I am sure wait times would naturally increase. But it's still the ethical thing to do. Enjoying shorter wait times because other sick people can't see a doctor at all seems selfish and cruel to me.

But really wait times are already horrendous here. I realize this varies by area, but I live in a medium sized metropolitan area and I have to wait weeks to months for an ENT appointment as it is. My friend waited 2 months (while he couldn't really even walk) for a follow up neuro appointment after an ER visit.

For comparison, I lived in Bristol, England for a year and found their health care on par with the US (though, I was mostly healthy except for a lingering bronchitis) without the cost burden. This was in the 90s and i know care has declined since, which is maybe one valid concern with Medicare for all. Which is that funding for MFA would always be subject to each current administration's austerity measures (or not) and funding for healthcare ideally would be something that you would want more or less consistent. If funding gets cut, healthcare would absolutely suffer and that's when you would see care really start to decline. So, it's not enough just to pass MFA, society would have to change in a way that supported more funding for the general public and less tax cuts for the very wealthy to really make it work. So perhaps I am too idealistic.

You mentioned being rushed out the door and only offered TRT as a tinnitus sufferer but that's already happening in the US. I think many people are unaware that insurance companies already dictate healthcare. For example, when my friend finally did get a neuro appointment, he couldn't get an upright MRI (which might have been helpful in ruling out a mild Chiari malformation) because he didn't have all the symptoms deemed necessary for insurance to cover it. In fact, they couldn't do much of anything for him and luckily his symptoms improved with time (it's still possible he has a mild Chiari that improved with rest but he might never know).

The point is both insurance companies and the government have the same goal of saving health care costs at the patient's expense. This results in "decision tree" medicine with short appointment times for most of us--one reason appointment times are so short in the US is insurance only pays for the first few minutes of the consultation. At least with MFA, all people can get at least some degree of the shitty care everyone gets no matter what system they are under and you won't get bankrupt for getting sick.

As far as biomedical research, maybe I am missing something but what new regulations would you foresee happening under MFA?

I understand your fears, but like I said, I don't think it's ethical to have a system where some people have zero access to health care just so others potentially have shorter wait times. Though the irony is, one reason ER wait times are so long is many people without insurance get all of their medical care in the ER because they can't be turned away.

But if there is another way to insure healthcare for all, without "Medicare for all", I would love to hear it. Your idea of the "healthy subsidizing the unhealthy" is exactly how insurance is *supposed* to work but insurance is closely tied to full time work. I don't think this is an accident btw, if you have major health problems you are unlikely to be able to work full time. This means the healthy are mostly just subsidizing the multi billion dollar insurance industry.

 

[FGG]

@FGG, sorry to be harsh but I can't edit. I doubt that you understand or acknowledge my point though? Or will you? Your reply wasn't to me though so I apologize for my post. Sorry.

What was your point? That I am a "liberal hypocrite"? What makes me a hypocrite?

 

[Greg Sacramento]

I think it's high compensation employees of corporations. special interest groups, lawyers and investors that benefit the most from government policy, actions and state of conditions.

This is seen in the stock market everyday and it's quite an education about greed, but not always without a compassion side. Last week, taser stocks were shorted and body camera stocks were bought. Maybe on the flip side, a few companies that contract private doctors to $ individuals had the best stock market gains.

 

[Watasha]

1) Healthcare for all is a fundamental human right.

This sounds better than it is practical.

1) Where do human rights come from?

2) How can something be a human right if one is compelled or coerced into providing it to another? That would de facto imply healthcare workers are a type of slave. Declaring healthcare a right by fiat does not create it into existence, so depending on where we think rights come from, it couldn't possibly be decreed. Governments role is to protect those rights which exist naturally. The right to liberty is already mine, the government is there to protect it, they did not give it to me. To imply we have a right to healthcare is to say I have a right to something that doesn't already belong to me (and technically belongs to someone else). It is a service, voluntarily exchanged, whose skills and methods are provided by others. Let's say for example we also have a right to food, now we run the possibility of competing resources, food or healthcare. Which human right trumps the other? This doesn't sound like a human right to me.

As a human, I don't want to see anyone suffer (we all have had our fair share here I'm sure) and I favor more market oriented approaches that still provides a safety net for those not able to provide for themselves (something Christian hospitals also did before being crowded out). We are far too wealthy a nation for that, but when we start demanding rights by decree, we have to recognize that it will infringe on others rights in order to provide, through compulsion of services and taxation without consent. This doesn't meet my definition of a right, but a wish.

 

[Lucifer]

What is the likelihood Trump will get reelected and it will be another 4 years in the office?

He did say that if he does lose the reelection he will do something else instead but I feel like he could just change the law quickly to allow him to be President forever.

 

[Juan]

Unfortunately society has such a damn short memory. By November Trump's approval ratings will probably drift back to baseline. There's really only a narrow window for things like this to impact an election.

Well, the US government seems to be sending checks to pretty much anyone. It is an obvious way to buy votes for the election.

I am curious about what people in the US think about unemployment: did it remain high for a long time?

A lot of companies have gone bankrupt and there have been massive layoffs.

 

[PeteJ]

I think it's high compensation employees of corporations. special interest groups, lawyers and investors that benefit the most from government policy, actions and state of conditions.

This is seen in the stock market everyday and it's quite an education about greed, but not always without a compassion side. Last week, taser stocks were shorted and body camera stocks were bought. Maybe on the flip side, a few companies that contract private doctors to $ individuals had the best stock market gains.

Imho, the Elites are anticipating an economic collapse or crash down the line. I don't know when so don't ask me. I gave up trying to predict the exact time frame.

The riots will be much worse then. The scamdemic hoax is being used as a reason to control people. But, the current protests are a dry run so they can have an idea what to expect. Body cameras is just the start. The useful idiots are anticipated. The defund the police crap is intentional. Eventually, it will go the opposite way. There won't be enough police.

It won't matter which party is in or who the President is.

 

[FGG]

I think it's high compensation employees of corporations. special interest groups, lawyers and investors that benefit the most from government policy, actions and state of conditions.

This is seen in the stock market everyday and it's quite an education about greed, but not always without a compassion side. Last week, taser stocks were shorted and body camera stocks were bought. Maybe on the flip side, a few companies that contract private doctors to $ individuals had the best stock market gains.

So you are saying investors shorted teaser stocks and bought body cam stocks out of a "compassionate" side and not because they see potential police reform coming?

 

[FGG]

This sounds better than it is practical.

1) Where do human rights come from?

2) How can something be a human right if one is compelled or coerced into providing it to another? That would de facto imply healthcare workers are a type of slave. Declaring healthcare a right by fiat does not create it into existence, so depending on where we think rights come from, it couldn't possibly be decreed. Governments role is to protect those rights which exist naturally. The right to liberty is already mine, the government is there to protect it, they did not give it to me. To imply we have a right to healthcare is to say I have a right to something that doesn't already belong to me (and technically belongs to someone else). It is a service, voluntarily exchanged, whose skills and methods are provided by others. Let's say for example we also have a right to food, now we run the possibility of competing resources, food or healthcare. Which human right trumps the other? This doesn't sound like a human right to me.

As a human, I don't want to see anyone suffer (we all have had our fair share here I'm sure) and I favor more market oriented approaches that still provides a safety net for those not able to provide for themselves (something Christian hospitals also did before being crowded out). We are far too wealthy a nation for that, but when we start demanding rights by decree, we have to recognize that it will infringe on others rights in order to provide, through compulsion of services and taxation without consent. This doesn't meet my definition of a right, but a wish.

For the sake of semantics, I'm fine calling it a wish instead of a "right."

Do you think professions in which people are paid by the taxpayers instead of the free market (e.g. teachers and fire fighters) are a kind of slave then and you don't want to see that happen to health care workers?

 

[Greg Sacramento]

So you are saying investors shorted teaser stocks and bought body cam stocks out of a "compassionate" side and not because they see potential police reform coming?

Investors want to make money and they judge the powers of who is in control. Investors don't always consider and often don't care if a company named after a fruit considers human fairness, pays taxes, and shows compassion and safety responsibility to all. Investors care about them selling expensive products and services and having $ in the bank where all the money is not needed for product or service expansion or research.

Some establishments (thinking a company named after a fruit again) wants everyone to be able to use their services and products, but they don't care if their pockets become strained from doing so. Cell phones in California have been free for those on assistance, but not for those on federal disability. Some pet owners can't afford a vet, whether it be private or managed by the State. Just some instances where policy, may it be government or social causes greed. Some service providers pay their employees a fair amount of money, but those in control always makes the big bucks.

People who have an interest in king US dollar, business, social or political have defense whether it be for survival, compassion or to make money. Knowing the difference between greed and compassion is a study of human nature.

 

[Watasha]

"For the sake of semantics, I'm fine calling it a wish instead of a "right.""

Great, I think this is very important.

Do you think professions in which people are paid by the taxpayers instead of the free market (e.g. teachers and fire fighters) are a kind of slave then and you don't want to see that happen to health care workers?

No, because no one is saying that education and fire departments are basic human rights.

 

[Born To Slay]

What is the likelihood Trump will get reelected and it will be another 4 years in the office?

He did say that if he does lose the reelection he will do something else instead but I feel like he could just change the law quickly to allow him to be President forever.

He can't amend the law to be president forever. The constitution would have to be amended and there is not the support for that in the congress or the public square.

Anyway, the likelihood in my opinion is fairly low based on the data.

 

[FGG]

Question for Trump supporters, if it were found that Trump's recent movement disorders (e.g.. Trouble drinking from a glass of water one-handed, extreme forward posture, rocking while standing, trouble with ramps, etc) were found to be due to something like Fronto-temporal dementia, would you support his removal?

I love that the US election is now a choice between two geriatric men with signs of age-related cognitive decline. Seems symbolic somehow.