-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Care to translate that into English?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Who cares ? He is just an empty suit (or jeans) with a billionaire wife - with very dubious record. Consultants have a very bad record of figuring out what kind of nominee will win - after 2016, Republican consultants thought someone who appeals to Latinos will win. After 2004, Democratic consultants thought we need a hawkish, religious southerner to win in 2008.
Politics (of the variety practiced by DC consultants) is best understood as a marketing campaign. Donors are the share holders looking for big returns. Candidate is the brand who needs to be sold to the customers. But DC consultant prepared fake guys (or gals) have been losing presidential election for 2 decades. Yet, the consultants won't change their formula.
I'd happily replace the zodiac killer with an empty pair of jeans, in the Senate.
Hell, I might take him over Trump for President.
But there's so many better options ...
I'm terrible at games. Hate to do cross world puzzles, so don't try. In grad school used to play a fair amount of bridge, but often overbid and consoled myself with driving great players nuts with some really spectacular bellyflops. Not the purpose of the game.
Hence I'm greatly impressed with people who are good at games. Trump supporters and the radicals who now dominate the Republican Party's version of conservatism might leaven their confidence in Trump as a negotiator with a lesson from a real player, Nate Silver.
How President Trump Is Like A Terrible Poker Player
Hence I'm greatly impressed with people who are good at games. Trump supporters and the radicals who now dominate the Republican Party's version of conservatism might leaven their confidence in Trump as a negotiator with a lesson from a real player, Nate Silver.
How President Trump Is Like A Terrible Poker Player
Re: Your avatar. Is that one of those adhesive nasal strips to keep one from snoring?
Observant descendant, you must have.
Observant descendant, you must have.
Actually, that must be my great grand-daughter's impression of glasses. What I liked was her transparent (or transgreatgandparent) beard.Re: Your avatar. Is that one of those adhesive nasal strips to keep one from snoring?
Observant descendant, you must have.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Warren going after the billionaire's money.... Lovely, class warfare.
Class warfare has been one sided for some time. They've been destroying the middle class and poor for their own gain for too long.
Nancy Pelosi passed at least one big immigration reform bill out of the House, but Mitch McConnell managed to kill it in the Senate. I recall Nancy Pelosi endorsing a single payer plan before the ACA fight started, but I can't find it now. I remember seeing it on the news.
Obama wanted a bi-partisan bill for the ACA and asked for Republican input, but they just kept moving the goal posts. It was like Lucy and the football. In the end the Democrats had to ram through what they could get.
The Republicans know not having immigration reform is a winner for them. For the base, the fear that Padro is going to come and rape their daughters and steal both their truck and their job keeps them voting Republicans, but the donors don't want immigration reform because it's easier to abuse illegals who won't complain when they aren't paid a legal wage.
Climate legislation is up against one of the deepest pocket industries on Earth: the oil biz.
There are plenty of people living in alternate realities. The historical record shows that while the Democrats get the occasional lick in these days, the bullying started with the Republicans. I was a Republican when it started in the 80s and I did not like the demonizing tone that was growing on the right. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio jocks followed by Fox News and a number of internet sites all demonized the Democrats. Before the late 80s, the two parties saw each other as rivals much like the Yankees and the Red Sox, or another major sports rivalry. At the end of the day, they literally had drinks together. Tip O'Neil used to have drinks with Reagan at the White House.
Then the Republicans demonized Democrats. As far as right rhetoric went, the Democrats weren't just people with bad ideas, they are inherently evil and needed to be destroyed. I watched all this unfold.
Through misinformation they got a legion of people who fully believe BS.
I was reading an article that touched on the early days of fascism in the 20th century. Fascism arose out of a real fight going on in Europe. After the communist revolution in Russia, the soviets were trying to export their ideology and there were a lot of communists active throughout Europe. Fascism evolved as a reaction to what was perceived as a Russian takeover of Europe. It was ultra-nationalist, but otherwise the opposite side of the same coin from the communist agitators.
The extreme conservatism that evolved in the US happened as Nixon predicted. He predicted if the US didn't have to stand against communism, it would rip itself apart. The Republican brand for 60+ years had been anti-communist. The Democrats were less stalwart allies in that fight. When it came to national defense, the Republicans were more rabid, but the Democrats only fussed about the details, not the overall idea.
Then communism fell and the Republicans needed to rebrand. They chose to become the anti-Democrat party. The party of no. Democrats were demonized to be just as bad as communists because they had to find somebody to oppose.
Instead of the enemy being on the other side of the world, they were on the other side of the aisle.
Democrats tried to return to the old bi-partisan ways, but radicals within the right pushed ever further to the right to a point of insanity. Donald Trump walked right into a trap the Republicans laid for themselves. Donald Trump is what Fox News and other conservative media outlets have been saying we need for 25 years. The base was groomed for him. Neither Fox nor the RNC wanted Trump, but that is what they kept telling the base the country needed.
Good article, Five Thirty Eight does some good analysis. I've likened Trump to a terrible poker player who has massive tells and even worse instincts. So he gets a terrible hand, tries to bluff, everyone at the table knows he has a terrible hand, and instead of folding he goes all in.
This is the guy who went bankrupt in the casino business. The rule of the casino business is "the house always wins", with the caveat that "unless you have the business acumen of Donald Trump."
Mod: Bolded portion of quote above comes from somewhere else. Between my first, "grad" and "school." I could eliminate but only with permission.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Again, more name calling and finger pointing. Same old same old. Power corrupts. Power is addictive. Either side of the aisle can find limitless evidence of the other side's wrongdoings. In my opinion, the only way to fix the problem is through term limits and a fair voice for other options. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever let that happen because they know that to do so spells doom for their good old boy ways. What we see today in the current administration is a direct result of the frustration the American people feel with the current system and their inability to hear any other options through debate limitations and financial monopolies on campaign funding. You call it people living an alternate realities, I call it the lesser of the only evils made available to them. If the election had gone the other way we would still be having this argument, just based on different circumstances. It is, and will be a lose/lose scenario until drastic changes take place at the core of our political selection process in my opinion.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Yes.
This is history repeating itself. If you are lucky ala Cuba, you are politely asked to leave. If you are Cambodia, well.......
The question for me is how does America handle it. If you are a group of voters that does not like the influence of money in politics then outlaw money in politics then enforce the rule of law.
If you want a knee jerk feel good solution, start distributing the cost of government unevenly in a pendulum swing towards the rich. Let's start redistributing some of those ill gotten gains from all those big bad rich people. Let's get'm all as opposed to knee capping the ones using money to unduly influence the process.
It comes down to what America will be moving forward and Trump has simply shown us our short comings as voters. I would prefer that we stand in a big circle with our checkbooks in had while we discuss the size of government and its associated safety net. Once we agree, we all stroke a check and pay for it. This way my daughter does not get left holding the bill for what I agree to spend today.
Alternatively, we could redistribute wealth. America is a lot of things both good and bad. I would prefer a solution that addresses the bad directly and does not attack the good (like Musk who blew his first earnings being young and dumb then figured out what he was about in life and seems to be putting the BILLIONS of leverage to good use). I would like to encourage those billionaires as they appear to me to be doing what I think America is all about, the promise of adding value and being rewarded for it.
I need help here from all you physics nerds.
Todays' morsel: How does a quantum particle see the world?
Since 1960 I've been interested in discussing an uncertainty principle for political discourse since with special relativity Einstein can be credited with being the first modern social scientist. Where you are located actually frames the way you see the world. In physics the arbiter is nature through replication in observation; in politics it is history. The underlying principles of this arbitration may be invariant. In nature it is complex, in history as in nature the outcomes can be in superposition on multiple planes. One outcome is relatively simple at the level of physics although the shift in thinking is profound. The measurement of time itself is variant, so the frames are translatable. In history time has a direction so given our digestive requirements, the frames are not so easily transformed. When time has a direction the outcome can be success or total failure. That is true for experimental physics, of course, but the consequences of failure are less severe. The consequences of success can be severe if we end up with another nuclear war or some applications of genetic research, for examples.
What happens in politics is that a new paradigm emerges which may or may not be progressive. Put another way, some shifts are dysfunctional and the culture and civilization perishes, and some shifts change the dialogue so that evolution to a higher level of survival can emerge. We as persons and our civilizations evolve or we/they perish. We are truly in another inflection point by these measures.
Take the problem of Medicare for All. The Pew data referenced above in my post shows Medicare for All is overwhelmingly popular, until respondents were informed it might outlaw their existing medical insurance which, for those of us already covered, if not stellar is at least adequate and more important, we already have it. Schultz and Bloomberg are bad on the former so the Dems should shift the discussion on means to the goal. Medicare for All now "who want it." That will sell better and make the good possible now on the way to the best. So not making the great the enemy of the possible is one of those invariant laws of history for successful transformations in practice.
Have I hijacked the terminology appropriately my geekly friends?
Todays' morsel: How does a quantum particle see the world?
Since 1960 I've been interested in discussing an uncertainty principle for political discourse since with special relativity Einstein can be credited with being the first modern social scientist. Where you are located actually frames the way you see the world. In physics the arbiter is nature through replication in observation; in politics it is history. The underlying principles of this arbitration may be invariant. In nature it is complex, in history as in nature the outcomes can be in superposition on multiple planes. One outcome is relatively simple at the level of physics although the shift in thinking is profound. The measurement of time itself is variant, so the frames are translatable. In history time has a direction so given our digestive requirements, the frames are not so easily transformed. When time has a direction the outcome can be success or total failure. That is true for experimental physics, of course, but the consequences of failure are less severe. The consequences of success can be severe if we end up with another nuclear war or some applications of genetic research, for examples.
What happens in politics is that a new paradigm emerges which may or may not be progressive. Put another way, some shifts are dysfunctional and the culture and civilization perishes, and some shifts change the dialogue so that evolution to a higher level of survival can emerge. We as persons and our civilizations evolve or we/they perish. We are truly in another inflection point by these measures.
Take the problem of Medicare for All. The Pew data referenced above in my post shows Medicare for All is overwhelmingly popular, until respondents were informed it might outlaw their existing medical insurance which, for those of us already covered, if not stellar is at least adequate and more important, we already have it. Schultz and Bloomberg are bad on the former so the Dems should shift the discussion on means to the goal. Medicare for All now "who want it." That will sell better and make the good possible now on the way to the best. So not making the great the enemy of the possible is one of those invariant laws of history for successful transformations in practice.
Have I hijacked the terminology appropriately my geekly friends?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Strictly speaking Quantum Mechanics doesn't apply to people, but there is some overlap in phenomena. With Quantum Mechanics you can know a lot about one thing, but the less you know about other things. You can also predict how a bunch of particles will behave, but not how individual particles behave.
With people you can make pretty good predictions about groups of people. For example urban voters tend to vote for Democrats and rural voters tend to vote for Republicans. But you can find liberals in rural areas and conservatives in the most urban neighborhoods. You can't predict what one person thinks.
I'm not quite sure where health care opinions overlaps with Quantum Mechanics though. Over the last 500 years or so, the arc of history has been towards more personal liberty, more technology, and a better understanding of how the universe works. Anything that moves in that direction is considered progressive and anything that moves the other way is considered conservative.
Universal health care is one of those progressive ideas that has taken hold in pretty much every developed country now. Each country does it a bit differently though. I think Medicare for all and getting rid of all other options is not politically or practically feasible at this point. But I think that giving people the option to buy into Medicare is a good idea. Over time more and more people might migrate to it if it was an option. Eventually private insurance might die out, or change to just gap coverage if enough people migrate.
I think the winner option for progressive candidates would be to pitch the option of Medicare coverage for anyone who wants to pay for it and not do away with private insurance.
Teddy Kennedy died Aug 25, 2009 and was replaced by Paul Kirk (a Democrat), but Massachusetts has a law requiring a special election to replace a senator very soon after a senator dies or leaves. Scott Brown won the special election on Feb 4, 2010.
So the Democrats only has 60 votes for slightly more than a year, and almost all the time was burned up trying to get the ACA passed with any Republican votes. McConnell and Boener did an excellent job of running out the clock.
MikeQ
Member
Medicare for all will never happen and even an option to buy will fail. The one thing that people don't seem to understand is that doctors don't have to take medicare. Nothing requires them to accept it and many don't. Many who do, still require full payment, meaning that if medicare only pays $100 of a $500 dollar bill, the patient is required to pay $400.
Also, doctors see medicare as part of their social contract. They take medicare because it is helping the elderly, children, etc... They can do this because they have patients paying full rate who pay for the office, staff and the doctor's salary. When everyone starts using medicare, you're taking advantage of the doctor's charity and starting to affect his business financially.
Last edited:
I realize individualism as an American ideal is so appealing we flirt with anarchism when it comes to health care in this country. I often wonder why other countries do something better than we. (Doubtless due to my birth in midwest to those very close to farming I was raised to learn from others who do well.) Just to take one example, how can France offer better health care for half the cost? Color me old-fashioned, but can we learn from others?
Perhaps I've misunderstood and certainly misjudged the appeal of Trump's effort to make the US parochial again.
Perhaps I've misunderstood and certainly misjudged the appeal of Trump's effort to make the US parochial again.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
How do other countries seem to manage it then?
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
On a vacation to England my wife had to go to the emergency room (turned out minor).
It was late and the normal Doctors break room was under construction.
Somehow the conversation turned to incomes.
One doctor asked how much GP's made in the US.
I said the average (1993) was probably about 100-120K USD.
One got rather upset about this and said "I bet they become doctors for the money and don't care about patents" .
*note 120K IN 1993 IS NOW 207K BASED ON INFLATION
Last edited:
MikeQ
Member
They don't have a for profit healthcare system that pays off politicians to create laws favorable to them.
- Status
Similar threads
