Jump to content

US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Damned good one, Yang!  Father grew up in a peanut farm house without a floor, and now his son is running for POTUS.  Don't want him to be POTUS, but still, this is true about immigration.  And probably why it terrifies the rapistbedbuginchief and his supporters so much.

Beto's doing so much better tonight.  Buttigieg is doing worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, Warren should just use this as her only primary ad, her only slogan, and she should just repeat it over and over at the debates: Wall Street is scared shitless of Warren.

Quote

CNBC’s David Faber told Cramer on Tuesday’s “Squawk on the Street” that he’s hearing the same rumblings about Wall Street being fearful of a Warren presidency.

“It’s another reason why companies are being implored to do things now ... because come early to mid-2020 if Elizabeth Warren is rolling along, everybody is going to be like, ‘That’s it,’” Faber said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, again, it looks as though my take-away from this one is "Thank Goodness there are some adults and intelligent and informed people in the room!  I suppose it helps that the mystic lady is gone.  Biden though, o dear. He's so much oriented to a world that is GONE.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss it?  Warren wasn't brought into the Latin America discussion?  I did get distracted .....

It seems to me that all the candidates have conducted themselves very well tonight -- maybe Biden rather less, to a degree, as he was trying to show he's tough.  But he really does suffer from that Hillary syndrome, which is they keep wanting to be POTUS and they've failed every time.

So ... is Yang in favor of Bitcoin and that what? libra currency of FB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite a group.  If they can come together after the election and help the new POTUS do the best for this country s/he can, it's quite a competent, smart, innovative bunch -- we can see a place for Yang in this New America group too.

Dems should be proud.  And -- eff the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what was that gesture Sanders made at Biden when the protesters were protesting Biden? (I assume they were because he was about to speak) 

Also, the corporate media can't resist asking Sanders about Venezuela. Because of course a Democratic Socialist is the exact same thing as a South American tyrant. Unless you are to the right of Ronald Reagan, you are a horrible communist and want to put everyone in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2019 at 12:02 PM, Zorral said:

Exactly. What kind of frackin' economy is this that when some of the most highly valued, massive corps like amazon, don't actually make money?  What they do instead is BUY their rivals of every kind.  What are they buying WITH?

I admit, I am knowledge challenged in these areas of finance and economics.  But they all seem massive ponzi schemes  . . . . 

Well, the Saudi's have invested billions into a lot of the tech industry.  So that might be the answer to where the money is coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Love how the bulk of people I talk to who consider themselves libertarians are super anti-immigration and want strong borders.  Not that the hardcore libertarians are any less whacked but at least they're consistent compared to the people that latch onto it because it's a less tired, cooler word, linguistically and culturally, than Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, or socialist.

Good point. It seems to me a true libertarian position should be for open and free movement for not only goods but people as well.

To be for closed borders and anti immigration is actually to be for big gov't and less freedom of the individual, a seemingly antithetical position to true libertarianism. Such people are steeped in hypocrisy imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2019 at 12:31 AM, Martell Spy said:

Yeah, let's just wipe our ass with international law.

Lol you think that 9 people should have the complete autonomy to decide what is and what is not legal? 

The SCOTUS has been garbage from the start. Look at all the horrible shit is has upheld. From slavery to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DMC said:

You don't know about what?  Assuming it's me saying retail politics don't matter in the general.  So let me repeat, retail politics don't matter in the general.  Grip and grin is great in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries, but that's because they are small states - and because the primary electorate of either party is significantly less than the general election electorate.  Pretty much all swing states (except I suppose New Hampshire) are much, much bigger states.  You don't do grip and grin in MI, PA, WI, FL, NC, AZ.  It's a horrible allocation of resources.  You try to get free media through rallies and the rest is ad buys.  That's why retail politics don't matter in the general.

They matter for the purposes of internal politics and unifying the party if nothing else. Biden will do a better job than Hillary at getting Democrats to rally to the cause. This is why back in 2016 I was calling for Sanders to get out early. Hillary et al.’s pettiness was going to drive them away, and the Sanders people weren’t without blame too. Biden won’t suffer from that in large part due to his skills as a retail politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Fucking hell could Warren or Sanders just say "taxes will go up but savings on healthcare will go up to the point that middle class families are saving money"

They’re probably trying to avoid the right wing media taking that statement and putting it in a commercial as just “Taxes will go up!”

It’s a rather small minority of people that pay attention to news/politics all the time and will actually know or go out to learn the nuance and truth in those things, or even know what Medicare for all means. Most Americans are so disconnected from the workings of any true universal healthcare system that they imagine they’ll still need to pay insurance premiums and that their taxes will go up on top of that. Warren and, to a lesser extent, Sanders, don’t want to hand ammunition to the Right that will be used to confirm that misinformation and misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

They’re probably trying to avoid the right wing media taking that statement and putting it in a commercial as just “Taxes will go up!”

It’s a rather small minority of people that pay attention to news/politics all the time and will actually know or go out to learn the nuance and truth in those things, or even know what Medicare for all means. Most Americans are so disconnected from the workings of any true universal healthcare system that they imagine they’ll still need to pay insurance premiums and that their taxes will go up on top of that. Warren and, to a lesser extent, Sanders, don’t want to hand ammunition to the Right that will be used to confirm that misinformation and misunderstandings.

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot for the life of me understand why more businesses don't throw their support behind universal healthcare. I mean, I can understand why the healthcare industry doesn't want it, and why businesses that already don't offer insurance to their employees wouldn't want it either. 

But it just seems to me that for a non-healthcare related industry that already offers health insurance to their employees would be clamoring for universal healthcare. Yes, their taxes will go up, but their expenses on premiums will vanish, as will the expenses incurred by hiring people to manage the insurance or paid to contractors to interface with the insurance providers. Every other nation in the developed world subsidizes all their businesses by providing UHC, so it seems like businesses would want to get in on that sweet, sweet government largesse.

I mean, I realize that insurance premiums are tax-deductible, but that's also profit that's not being made. Do the numbers for businesses really stack up that much in favor of keeping the current system over moving to a universal system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

 Every other nation in the developed world subsidizes all their businesses by providing UHC, so it seems like businesses would want to get in on that sweet, sweet government largesse.

See, this attitude is explains exactly why I actually believe the US will never have universal health care. The idea that other countries in the world have UHC to subsidize business, ‘sweet sweet government largesse’, is utterly bizarre.

Other countries have UHC because they came to realize that all citizens should have health care, that it was a basic right of citizenship. And gee whiz, they did it because they thought about what citizenship should include, not because it was enshrined in their constitution.

Do try to remember that for decades Americans pointed their fingers at Europe and sneered at benefits like health care because ‘taxes are so high in Europe’, and no right-thinking American would choose health care over low taxes. Look at their price of gas!

The argument in the US is all about cost dollar-wise, not cost human-wise. And the $ is the almighty and will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot for the life of me understand why more businesses don't throw their support behind universal healthcare. I mean, I can understand why the healthcare industry doesn't want it, and why businesses that already don't offer insurance to their employees wouldn't want it either. 

But it just seems to me that for a non-healthcare related industry that already offers health insurance to their employees would be clamoring for universal healthcare. Yes, their taxes will go up, but their expenses on premiums will vanish, as will the expenses incurred by hiring people to manage the insurance or paid to contractors to interface with the insurance providers. Every other nation in the developed world subsidizes all their businesses by providing UHC, so it seems like businesses would want to get in on that sweet, sweet government largesse.

I mean, I realize that insurance premiums are tax-deductible, but that's also profit that's not being made. Do the numbers for businesses really stack up that much in favor of keeping the current system over moving to a universal system?

My employer has a large Italian parent company and they feel American HC costs are a crushing burden on overall operations. It's really a shame that so much of everyone's compensation pie is just sucked into HC costs. It represents lost wages, lost retirement contributions, it affects competitiveness, it's all around inflationary to the cost of doing business in America. 

I feel like universal HC would not only be less burdensome overall, but it would increase the entire economies effectiveness in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The argument in the US is all about cost dollar-wise, not cost human-wise. And the $ is the almighty and will win

We are past the tipping point though. I believe Universal HC can now be argued for as the lower cost measure and that Universal HC is more and more being seen as the win for that almighty dollar argument. Slowwwwwly but surely workers and employers are coming to understand the math that Universal HC is better for both worker and employer. Even though this is something an intelligent society should've understood over 30 years ago, I refuse to believe we will never get there. But then again we are talking about a country that elects a Trump so there's that very real reason for pessimism over our rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...