All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[aja_christopher]

The ACA is not universal healthcare.

She stopped campaigning for "universal" health care when American hypocrites claimed they wanted universal health care but didn't show up to support it at the polls.



Did you vote for the candidate who offered to protect the health care we have and improve upon it?

No -- you complained about her and ignored as a racist white nationalist took office and tried repeatedly to repeal Obamacare.

Again -- Democrats have done far more to provide health care for all than you ever have despite your opposition to their success.

And they would do even more without Republican obstruction.

[numberthirty]

(Never mind that what she is talking about in that clip is pretty squarely the same old "Competition Will Drive Prices Down..." capitalist nonsense...)

[aja_christopher]

(Never mind that what she is talking about in that clip is pretty squarely the same old "Competition Will Drive Prices Down..." capitalist nonsense...)

No -- do mind what she is saying about expanding health care to all since you just claimed that Americans need a better healthcare system.

It was offered and you didn't support it so don't go complaining now about how it doesn't cover everyone while simultaneously ignoring Republican obstruction.



You can't have it both ways -- either you support health care for all (the Democratic agenda) or you don't (the Republican agenda).

[Mister Mets]

Then again, so was Trump at first.

Question is, is RFK more likely to take votes from Trump or Biden?

Trump ran for a major party nomination and consistently led in the polls.

That said, Trump's first big entry into politics was an effort for the Reform Party nomination in 2000, although that seems to have been a strategy to damage the party and help the Republicans.

I think RFK may take more votes from Trump, just because the people who want serious politicians are going to stick with Biden if these are the choices.

Biden would be significantly more threatened by Joe Manchin, and maybe even Mitt Romney.

Oddly the people I'm coming up with are all in their 70s. Younger serious Democrats with bipartisan cred (John Fetterman, Jared Polis, David Shapiro) are not going to torch their reputations by taking votes from Biden. Tulsi Gabbard has switched to backing Trump, and I do think she represents a potential threat as a running mate.

True. Another thing to bear in mind is that I mentioned 'MAGA' but MAGA is just a name/brand. Before that there was the Tea Party and in the future it might be called something else.

I don't know how moderate Republicans (who are currently clearly a minority within their own ranks) can influence and seize control of the party - the only trigger I can see for that is continuous electoral failure (this is why I mentioned 'winning elections' to aja_christopher). Electoral failure triggers change and, if sustained over a long period, it can bring about seismic change.

On the short-term, the end of Donald Trump only happens if he loses the election, that's why I said that's the immediate priority and that that includes getting the vote out. Right now, there is a chance that Trump can win the election in November (I don't know if it's 50/50 or whatever but there's a clear chance) - as long as he/them are electorally successful, e.g. if they win POTUS, there is no incentive to change from within.

Even the Midterms, which weren't the Red Wave they were hoping for, gave them control of the House - electoral success like that just further emboldens who's at the helm and makes internal opposition less likely/viable.

As a moderate (ish) Republican (which I figure is more of a willingness to back some Democrats over flawed Republicans rather than where you late from the left to right) improving the party is a question I think about.

Parties tend to bounce back more because the other side screwed up, rather than their internal improvements. In presidential elections, it often helps to have candidates who aren't part of the old guard.

The biggest equivalent to Trump might be Nixon as a deeply flawed corrupt President whose career ended in embarrassment. Republicans lost in 1976, but won four years later thanks to double-digit inflation, double-digit employment, the Iran hostage crisis and the once in a generation political talent of Ronald Reagan.

Democrats bounced back after three straight election losses with Bill Clinton, a young centrist Governor.

Wave elections tend to hurt moderates because they're more likely to be running in swing elections (recent exceptions include Hershel Walker and Kari Lake which may explain their losses.)

Party control is also based on Congressional elections. Republicans have some advantages in Senate races that make it likely they'll take control at some point soon, and the House has bounced back and forth since 2006.

[numberthirty]

No -- do mind what she is saying about expanding health care to all since you just claimed that Americans need a better healthcare system.

It was offered and you didn't support it so don't go complaining now about how it doesn't cover everyone while simultaneously ignoring Republican obstruction.

You can't have it both ways -- either you support health care for all or you don't.

Politely, that is the statement of someone who clearly has a set of blinders on...

Everyone having healthcare in the current "For Profit..." system?

It would clearly be worse than the lousy situation that folks are currently faced with. Just saying "Well... They Are Getting Ripped Off On It, But Everyone Has It..." is a scenario that only an incredibly foolish person would back. Never mind applaud.

So, your "Better..."

It is honestly laughable.

Folks need a healthcare system that is actually better.

Everyone having the privilege of being ripped off in the current "For Profit..." system?

It is not even "Better..." never mind "Actually Better..."

[aja_christopher]

Politely, that is the statement of someone who clearly has a set of blinders on...

No it isn't thirty and this isn't a matter of argument.

Hillary and the Democrats have constantly promoted and improved the American health care and you constantly attack them despite claiming you likewise support said goal.



The only blinders here are on the person who claims to want a better healthcare system yet routinely ignores the fact that Republican obstruction to said goal is the only reason it hasn't happened yet.

You keep talking about change but in reality Democrats have taken action to change things (Affordable Care Act) while all you do is constantly complain about their success.

Which is your prerogative but don't expect the blatant hypocrisy of said approach not to be highlighted in any discussion where you claim America needs a better health care system.

[numberthirty]

No it isn't thirty and this isn't a matter of argument.

Hilary and the Democrats have always promoted improved and/or unversal health care and you constantly attack them despite claiming you likewise support said goal.

The only blinders here are on the person who claims to want a better healthcare system yet pretends Democrats are the reason why that hasn't happened.

You keep talking about change but in reality Democrats have taken action to change things (Affordable Care Act) while all you do is constantly complain about their success.

Which is your prerogative but don't expect the blatant hypocrisy of said approach not to be highlighted in any discussion where you claim America needs a better health care system.

Here is the obvious issue...

If "Improved..." is simply more(or all...) folks having access to what currently clearly does not work?

(See diabetics dying because they used the Walmart insulin because their plan did not cover insulin...)

Plenty of folks do not support that goal. Including me.

While I know that some folks want to ignore basic realities like that?

Plenty of folks do not.

[numberthirty]

If all you have gained is a slightly tweaked version of what already is a failure?

Things have not really improved.

[aja_christopher]

Here is the obvious issue...

If "Improved..." is simply more(or all...) folks having access to what currently clearly does not work?

The Affordable Care Act works well for millions of Americans.

For someone who claims to care about the "average" American you sure are ready to dump all concern for them solely due to your own bias.



Even more notable is that you never discuss the alternative -- or lack thereof -- but instead repeatedly criticize the better (Democratic) option.

[numberthirty]

The Affordable Care Act works well for millions of Americans.

For someone who claims to care about the "average" American you sure are ready to dump all concern for them solely due to your own bias.



Even more notable is that you never discuss the alterantive but instead criticize the better option.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...m-ap-norc-poll

Majority of Americans unhappy with health care system: AP- NORC poll

When Emmanuel Obeng-Dankwa is worried about making rent on his New York City apartment, he sometimes holds off on filling his blood pressure medication.

“If there’s no money, I prefer to skip the medication to being homeless,” said Obeng-Dankwa, a 58-year-old security guard.

He is among a majority of adults in the U.S. who say that health care is not handled well in the country, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The poll reveals that public satisfaction with the U.S. health care system is remarkably low, with fewer than half of Americans saying it is generally handled well. Only 12% say it is handled extremely or very well. Americans have similar views about health care for older adults.

Overall, the public gives even lower marks for how prescription drug costs, the quality of care at nursing homes and mental health care are being handled, with just 6% or less saying those health services are done very well in the country.

“Navigating the American health care system is exceedingly frustrating,” said A. Mark Fendrick, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design. “The COVID pandemic has only made it worse.”

More than two years after the pandemic’s start, health care worker burnout and staffing shortages are plaguing hospitals around the country. And Americans are still having trouble getting in-person medical care after health centers introduced restrictions as COVID-19 killed and sickened millions of people around the country, Fendrick said.

[aja_christopher]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...m-ap-norc-poll

So vote in Democrats who will improve it rather than Republicans who seek to end universal health care.

You have yet to explain how attacking Democrats and ignoring Republican obstruction helps you to achieve your goal of improved health care for all.

[numberthirty]

Setting all of the legitimate news/political news aside...

FNC really needs to throw as much money as they need to a Noem to wind up with a "Varney..."/"Noem..." show.

It would be comedy gold.

(Now, I feel guilty for even mentioning one of the goon squad...)

[aja_christopher]

[numberthirty]

Vetoing Lori Lightfoot looking into illegal things you might have done...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/...ori-lightfoot/

Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard vetoes hiring of former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot

Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard vetoed action by trustees to hire former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to conduct a probe into the mayor and village finances during a raucous Village Board meeting Monday.

“How dare you think you can come into someone’s town and do work,” Henyard said, saying trustees who voted to hire Lightfoot an an April 8 meeting overstepped their authority.

“There is a right way to do things and this is just not that,” Henyard said in delivering her veto.

It was the first Village Board meeting since federal investigators twice served subpoenas at Village Hall, the most recent delivery seeking documents targeting Henyard and Village Administrator Keith Freeman, who is under indictment for bankruptcy fraud.

Several residents were locked out of Village Hall due to lack of seats, and many of them chanted “hey hey, ho ho, Tiffany has got to go” as they beat on drums and pots and pans outside the building.

You keep on being you, Illinois...

[Jack Dracula]

Trump ran for a major party nomination and consistently led in the polls.

That said, Trump's first big entry into politics was an effort for the Reform Party nomination in 2000, although that seems to have been a strategy to damage the party and help the Republicans.

I think RFK may take more votes from Trump, just because the people who want serious politicians are going to stick with Biden if these are the choices.

Biden would be significantly more threatened by Joe Manchin, and maybe even Mitt Romney.

Oddly the people I'm coming up with are all in their 70s. Younger serious Democrats with bipartisan cred (John Fetterman, Jared Polis, David Shapiro) are not going to torch their reputations by taking votes from Biden. Tulsi Gabbard has switched to backing Trump, and I do think she represents a potential threat as a running mate.

As a moderate (ish) Republican (which I figure is more of a willingness to back some Democrats over flawed Republicans rather than where you late from the left to right) improving the party is a question I think about.

Parties tend to bounce back more because the other side screwed up, rather than their internal improvements. In presidential elections, it often helps to have candidates who aren't part of the old guard.

The biggest equivalent to Trump might be Nixon as a deeply flawed corrupt President whose career ended in embarrassment. Republicans lost in 1976, but won four years later thanks to double-digit inflation, double-digit employment, the Iran hostage crisis and the once in a generation political talent of Ronald Reagan.

Democrats bounced back after three straight election losses with Bill Clinton, a young centrist Governor.

Wave elections tend to hurt moderates because they're more likely to be running in swing elections (recent exceptions include Hershel Walker and Kari Lake which may explain their losses.)

Party control is also based on Congressional elections. Republicans have some advantages in Senate races that make it likely they'll take control at some point soon, and the House has bounced back and forth since 2006.

You came of age supporting the Republican Party that had practiced a toxic, divisive, obstructionist, anti-democratic style of politics for over a decade.
Party over the good of the country became the norm and you were all-in on that until the inevitable result in the form of Trump emerged and you’re still married to it. You just pretend authoritarianism is a fluke instead of where things were headed the whole time.