2016 US Election

[Irontruth]

GM Rednal wrote:

Aren't there regulations about what you're allowed to do with election money donated to your campaign? I think a local figure got in trouble for misusing funds recently... though I'm not sure if that applies to national campaigns... hm. Might be worth looking into.

Campaigns are required to pay market price for goods and services. So, if the Trump Campaign rents an airplane, they have to pay market price for it. If they organize a fund raiser at a golf club, they have to pay to rent the space.

It does mean that Trump can't just take the money directly, but he can use the campaign to patronize whatever holdings he has that need a boost.

That said, there have been some indications of shady accounting in the campaign so far. For example, during the primary staffers claimed more in mileage than the Obama AND Romney campaigns combined for the entire election cycle in 2012. They're also making payments to a firm called "Draper Sterling" which is just all sorts of weird.

[Krensky]

Guy Humual wrote:

Still not seeing anything saying she's anti vaccination or for homeopathy. She's clearly skeptical of the safety, effectiveness or necessity of some vaccines, which could be understandable given the wide range of vaccines produced every year, but that doesn't mean she's on the vaccination causes autism bus.

This is the quote I see from Krensky's link: "vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure–each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them" Jill Stein

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The writer of that article on the other hand seems to be trying to twist the words to mean something that they don't, calling for oversight on the auto industry from a disinterested party doesn't mean you're against the auto industry, it means you don't want people with a vested interest making rules and regulation for that industry.

Unless I'm missing something it feels like a smear.

It seems more like you're dismissing the fact that she's a dangerous quack, is pandering to the anti-vax nutjob crowd, or both.

The only answer, as the article stated is that vaccines work and homeopathy is quackery that should be based from being sold as medicine. Full stop. The mess she posted as her reply is full of dog whistles, prevarication and assorted woo.

[Guy Humual]

Krensky wrote:

It seems more like you're dismissing the fact that she's a dangerous quack, is pandering to the anti-vax nutjob crowd, or both.

You're reading something into her statements that I'm not seeing. Has she said vaccines don't work? Is she recommending homeopathy? If you have evidence of that by all means post it.

Krensky wrote:

The only answer, as the article stated is that vaccines work and homeopathy is quackery that should be based from being sold as medicine. Full stop. The mess she posted as her reply is full of dog whistles, prevarication and assorted woo.

Vaccines are very safe, not completely safe, and have an effectiveness in the 90% to 100% range. I'm not against vaccines and from what I've read neither is Jill Stein.

From that article Stein seems very much against homeopathy:

"For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn’t mean it’s safe." and "We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is “natural” or not."

Do you think homeopathy is going to stand up to clinical scrutiny?

Her comments seem to be about regulatory bodies being compromised then about her beliefs about vaccines or homeopathy and the author of that article seems to be reaching.

Now there's a clip I found from The Young Turks and while more of a opinion then a news channel they do ask her outright if she believes vaccines cause autism which is one of the things she's been accused of believing.

[GreyWolfLord]

thejeff wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Oh, I pay attention. I know what I say here about Fox is most likely unpopular, but when analysis has been done on the actual reporting of organizations...ironically only PBS showed it was actually conservative [though overall neutral as well] (Even Fox News [- the opinion shows] was liberal in it's news slant!).

You have the source for this, I assume?

Sorry, got busy with other things rather than the forums and a LOT of discussion has occurred since I posted.

The old study was from from several years back, a new one apparently was completed around 2 years ago.

It is simplified at BI, but with a graph which shows basically my own thoughts in regards to Fox News (it is about as conservative on the right as CNN is to the left of neutral, with MSNBC being more liberal then CNN, and the Opinion shows (such as Breitbart or Colbert) being FAR more on their respective sides than any of the news given by far.

The updated results of the study (which actually correlate MORE to my thoughts than the original one ironically...with EXCEPTION that where I listed PBS as more neutral, apparently they are far more left of what I thought, and the same with BBC...so I suppose my news sources tend to be further left then normal according to the graph) is linked here...

Political ideology of viewers

Now this study was done differently than the original study from 2005 which was lead by a Professor from Missouri and accomplished in cooperation with UCLA. It has slightly different conclusions and thoughts than the UCLA study (which at this point is a little over 10 years old).

The UCLA study which was the one I was referencing to, took a little searching for the original media release of it.

The first from one of the actual professors involved...

biases revealed in news media

With the noted part being

Quote:

All the outlets except Fox News’ “Special Report” and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. A few outlets, including The New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center.The most centrist outlet was “NewsHour” with Jim Lehrer. CNN’s “NewsNight” with Aaron Brown and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third­. Consistent with our results, three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets (Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill).

The fourth most centrist was Fox News’ “Special Report with Brit Hume.” While we found it to be right of center, we found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center. Thus, if viewers spent the same amount of time watching “Special Report” as they spent watching “World News Tonight” and “Nightly News,” they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version

With another release of summary results to the media in UCLA's newsroom here...

media bias is real

The link to the study is a little harder to find. I read it a couple years ago(okay, more than a couple years, probably more like over a decade ago, time passes faster than we think), but those two links basically present the same idea I was on.

What is interesting is in regards to the new graphs from 2014. It looks like my opinion where I thought Fox news itself (not the actual opinion shows, which I have been specific to differentiate from the news Fox presents itself) was just about where I'd put it now (somewhat right of center but nowhere as far right as some believe, around as far right as CNN is about left of center) in the new study in regards to how one's viewing of media reflect the media itself.

I will say, according to that new study (with different methodologies) do say I was WRONG about one thing, I thought BBC and PBS were pretty darn neutral...and it appears according to that, I was incorrect in my thoughts on them in the ensuing years.

Edit: Not that anyone really cares, but people asked for a source...and now that I posted one I expect people to throw outcry and outrage because...well....because this is the internet and that's what people do!

When it came out UCLA got accused of being conservative or far left liberal(that's UCLA folks...think about it...though many didn't when they made accusations) and all sorts of other things to try to discredit the study, the professor, AND UCLA itself...so...I don't imagine things will go that much more differently.

[thejeff]

Theconiel wrote:

I heard today that Trump once boasted that he could run for President and make money doing it. In light of that comment, his candidacy makes a bit more sense. Win or lose, he will have collected huge amounts of cash from donors. What will he do with that money after the election?

It's not so much what he'll do with that money once the election's over, it's what he's doing with it right now. First, his "self-funded" primary run was actually a loan, so he might well pay that back. He has claimed that he won't, admittedly.

He's also spent a decent chunk of that money on his own businesses.
There are plenty of ways to extract profit from a campaign.

[thejeff]

Guy Humual wrote:

Krensky wrote:

It seems more like you're dismissing the fact that she's a dangerous quack, is pandering to the anti-vax nutjob crowd, or both.

You're reading something into her statements that I'm not seeing. Has she said vaccines don't work? Is she recommending homeopathy? If you have evidence of that by all means post it.

Krensky wrote:

The only answer, as the article stated is that vaccines work and homeopathy is quackery that should be based from being sold as medicine. Full stop. The mess she posted as her reply is full of dog whistles, prevarication and assorted woo.

Vaccines are very safe, not completely safe, and have an effectiveness in the 90% to 100% range. I'm not against vaccines and from what I've read neither is Jill Stein.

From that article Stein seems very much against homeopathy:

"For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn’t mean it’s safe." and "We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is “natural” or not."

Do you think homeopathy is going to stand up to clinical scrutiny?

Her comments seem to be about regulatory bodies being compromised then about her beliefs about vaccines or homeopathy and the author of that article seems to be reaching.

Now there's a clip I found from The Young Turks and while more of a opinion then a news channel they do ask her outright if she believes vaccines cause autism which is one of the things she's been accused of believing.

Oh homeopathy is perfectly safe. It's water. It's not going to hurt you. Not going to help either, of course. But it's perfectly safe. It's not even worth running safety trials on. It's water.

Beyond that though, I said she was equivocating on vaccines and homeopathy, not that she was blatantly anti-vaccine.

[Pan]

@Greywolflord you can hardly fault folks for being skeptical of the claim Fox news is close to center. Even one of the sources you cited indicates as much. Fox news "channel" has spent two decades making their news and opinion programming indistinguishable with slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" during all hours. Also, as IT pointed out they have "Fox News" stapled to the screen for all their programming. Your source provided some context so thank you for posting it.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Looks like the same exchange about the same quote we had about Jill and vaccination in the other thread.

Got me wondering, though. Remember back in 2008 (I think) when Hillary's position on abortion was that it should be "safe, legal and rare and when I say rare I mean rare"? And something about morality?

I can't recall, but I wonder if anyone ever tried to blur the line between her pandering to anti-abortionists and her being anti-abortion.

[Irontruth]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

thejeff wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Oh, I pay attention. I know what I say here about Fox is most likely unpopular, but when analysis has been done on the actual reporting of organizations...ironically only PBS showed it was actually conservative [though overall neutral as well] (Even Fox News [- the opinion shows] was liberal in it's news slant!).

You have the source for this, I assume?

Sorry, got busy with other things rather than the forums and a LOT of discussion has occurred since I posted.

The old study was from from several years back, a new one apparently was completed around 2 years ago.

It is simplified at BI, but with a graph which shows basically my own thoughts in regards to Fox News (it is about as conservative on the right as CNN is to the left of neutral, with MSNBC being more liberal then CNN, and the Opinion shows (such as Breitbart or Colbert) being FAR more on their respective sides than any of the news given by far.

The updated results of the study (which actually correlate MORE to my thoughts than the original one ironically...with EXCEPTION that where I listed PBS as more neutral, apparently they are far more left of what I thought, and the same with BBC...so I suppose my news sources tend to be further left then normal according to the graph) is linked here...

Political ideology of viewers

Now this study was done differently than the original study from 2005 which was lead by a Professor from Missouri and accomplished in cooperation with UCLA. It has slightly different conclusions and thoughts than the UCLA study (which at this point is a little over 10 years old).

The UCLA study which was the one I was referencing to, took a little searching for the original media release of it.

The first from one of the actual professors involved...

biases revealed...

Is there a study that analyzes all of the shows on the network?

[Grey Lensman]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Looks like the same exchange about the same quote we had about Jill and vaccination in the other thread.

Got me wondering, though. Remember back in 2008 (I think) when Hillary's position on abortion was that it should be "safe, legal and rare and when I say rare I mean rare"? And something about morality?

I can't recall, but I wonder if anyone ever tried to blur the line between her pandering to anti-abortionists and her being anti-abortion.

I still believe that the line of 'safe, legal, rare' is how it should be - I just also happen to believe that the best way to achieve that is via proper sex education and access to birth control.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I don't, but, regardless, I'm just interested in how far the "panders to" = "is" formula goes for other, more established, candidates.

[Grey Lensman]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't, but, regardless, I'm just interested in how far the "panders to" = "is" formula goes for other, more established, candidates.

For me it also depends on what exactly is being pandered to. Anti-vaccers have a very dangerous belief that endangers society as a whole - it's not a coincidence that the recent outbreaks of diseases that we thought were gone in the US seem to happen where the vaccination rates have fallen. Sadly, if you are a child whose parents have signed on to that lunacy you don't get a choice.

So for me, the proper amount of pandering to the anti-vaccer movement is 'None at all.' Anything more is too much. But I have a few nurses in the family so my opinions there might be colored a bit by that.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Fair enough.

I, and, I believe, a portion of Hillary's supporters, feel as strongly about woman's health care and the right to an abortion.

But, she appears to have finally jettisoned that position this election cycle, so I guess the point is mostly of historic interest.

---
EDIT:

Huh, must have missed this kerfuffle. Don't watch "The View" that much, alas.

Hillary Clinton Swerves Right on ‘Pro-Life’ Equals Feminism Comments

[Rednal]

That's definitely one of the subjects that's harder for people to agree on. Quite a few people I know really do believe that abortion is effectively murder - and while the adoption system isn't perfect, it would be far better than killing someone because you don't want to raise them. (Of course, it's different if the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger.)

So... that's not something I expect the pro-life side to concede very easily. Regardless of what someone thinks about the subject, I don't think it's wrong to say that it's fairly divisive.

In other news, Trump is pushing hard on his Election Fraud angle, despite the evidence suggesting that it pretty much doesn't happen on any statistically relevant scale. Of course, his campaign's been ignoring reality for months, so... *Shrugs*

[Grey Lensman]

Rednal wrote:

That's definitely one of the subjects that's harder for people to agree on. Quite a few people I know really do believe that abortion is effectively murder - and while the adoption system isn't perfect, it would be far better than killing someone because you don't want to raise them. (Of course, it's different if the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger.)

So... that's not something I expect the pro-life side to concede very easily. Regardless of what someone thinks about the subject, I don't think it's wrong to say that it's fairly divisive.

In other news, Trump is pushing hard on his Election Fraud angle, despite the evidence suggesting that it pretty much doesn't happen on any statistically relevant scale. Of course, his campaign's been ignoring reality for months, so... *Shrugs*

I think it's to save his face/ego. After all, in Trump's fantasy world, everyone knows that he is the most awesome candidate evar, so the only possible explanation he can fathom for a loss is fraud. It also fits his pattern of believing that 'Unfair to Trump' means 'Trump didn't get what he wants.' Because that's exactly how he defines fair, in much the same manner as a two year old, except the latter I expect slightly more maturity out of.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

[Grey Lensman]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

That may (or may not) have been true a few election cycles ago, but any similarities that remained have gone out the window with Trump. Clinton could be every single bad thing her opponents say about her and she would still be better than Putin's Puppet, er, Trump.

[Guy Humual]

thejeff wrote:

Oh homeopathy is perfectly safe. It's water. It's not going to hurt you. Not going to help either, of course. But it's perfectly safe. It's not even worth running safety trials on. It's water.

That's just not true, unregulated water can be very dangerous, heck tap water in the US has been shown to be quite dangerous with unacceptable levels of lead and other pollutants and that's supposed to be tested and regulated. The idea behind homeopathy is pure quackery but that doesn't mean we just ignore it and let them sell whatever they want. People should be allowed to access placebo effects if they want, however just because we know it's not actual medicine doesn't mean we let the industry be unregulated. If you're buying St. John's Wort supplements the FDA should be testing those supplements to ensure people are getting what they pay for, and similarly if someone is buying some homeopathy version of some drug we should be insuring that the water is safe for consumption and not from, say, the Cuyahoga river.

thejeff wrote:

Beyond that though, I said she was equivocating on vaccines and homeopathy, not that she was blatantly anti-vaccine.

except the quotes I've had presented to me are not showing an equivocation. She's says vaccines work, have been proven to work, and untested "natural" medicines aren't necessarily safe. The section quoted she's talking about governing bodies and how they may be compromised. She's saying that this could be dangerous but that unregulated "natural" supposed cures like homeopathy aren't safe either. The suggestion that she's saying homeopathy and vaccines are the same is a reach, likely by a writer connected with her political adversaries.

[GreyWolfLord]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

I'm probably one of those. I think Clinton is perhaps even MORE dishonest then Trump...BUT....

Clinton is most likely smarter than Trump. Trump is ONLY more honest than Clinton because he seems to speak whatever he's thinking at the moment...otherwise, he's probably just as devious and criminal behind the scenes when no one else is looking.

Clinton is better able to talk politics and handle political arenas than Trump. Clinton would probably keep a calm head talking to others in the international arena and be able to at least appear to negotiate. I could imagine Trump royally peeving off our allies, threatening nuclear attacks on those who aren't, and basically acting like a spoiled North Korean dictator.

Clinton hasn't threatened me or those like me simply because our background, nor implicated that we aren't true americans that should be treated like terrorists.

That isn't a new attitude, but normally it's NOT from a main political leader of the US which could do actions to truly hurt or injure me. Personal safety is a good thing to consider in regards to Presidential candidates, so even if I dislike Clinton...the fact that I probably won't be sent off to some internment camp or other such distasteful things...can be a pretty big incentive.

I still dislike what she did in twisting the DNC and media though. I might fear Trump, but that does not mean I trust Clinton after that.

No idea if she'll keep her promises...though I think it would be MUCH better if she truly fixed the healthcare mess we currently have in the US right now. I have to argue with the local hospital over anything they do, and they try to send bills to collections after 90 days, even if insurance pays it because they feel insurance companies don't pay everything they want them to pay and want me to pay the rest.

That's BS...but that's how the US healthcare system seems to work currently. I'd REALLY like that fixed. I'm not in College, nor do I owe college loans, but I'd also really like her to fix that up too...

Unfortunately, those were Sanders platforms.

[thejeff]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

I'm probably one of those. I think Clinton is perhaps even MORE dishonest then Trump...BUT....

Clinton is most likely smarter than Trump. Trump is ONLY more honest than Clinton because he seems to speak whatever he's thinking at the moment...otherwise, he's probably just as devious and criminal behind the scenes when no one else is looking.

He may say whatever he's thinking at the moment, but that doesn't mean he's honest about it. And frankly, if he actually believes most of what he says, he's delusional, but not a liar.

Frankly Trump has kind of transcended liar and moved on to some scale where the actual truth of a statement is completely irrelevant.

Did you miss my earlier link to a comparison?
There are vast differences though.

Clinton has that reputation, but it doesn't really seem supported. I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with a 20+ year propaganda campaign, could it?

[thunderspirit]

thejeff wrote:

Clinton has that reputation, but it doesn't really seem supported. I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with a 20+ year propaganda campaign, could it?

That and her gender, as we've spent generation upon generation teaching people that women lie to get what they want.

[Rednal]

The fact that Clinton often comes across as a corporate sort of candidate doesn't really help - for example, she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches whose content isn't disclosed.

[CrystalSeas]

Rednal wrote:

she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches

At least we see where her money is coming from. What IS he hiding?

[Grey Lensman]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Rednal wrote:

she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches

At least we see where her money is coming from. What IS he hiding?

My money is on one of two things.

A: He is really the So-Called Billionaire Donald Trump. He is running largely on the illusion of his success - seeing his tax returns might very well shatter that illusion as yet another exaggeration.

B: How much of his income is coming from Russia?

OK, maybe three possibilities.

C: Both A and B

[thejeff]

Grey Lensman wrote:

My money is on one of two things.

A: He is really the So-Called Billionaire Donald Trump. He is running largely on the illusion of his success - seeing his tax returns might very well shatter that illusion as yet another exaggeration.

B: How much of his income is coming from Russia?

OK, maybe three possibilities.

C: Both A and B

My money's on A. With a side order of how little he's paying in taxes and how many near scams he's running to do it.

For B) any money he's got coming from Russia would, if legit, be coming through his various real estate companies and deals, not on his personal tax records, or if not legit be filtered through a dozen shell companies long before it gets to him anyway.

Nonetheless, that he's not releasing his records would be a huge black mark, if it wasn't hiding behind all the other disqualifying things he's said and done.

[CBDunkerson]

Don't forget;

D: He doesn't really make large charitable donations
E: He exploits enough loopholes in the tax code that he effectively pays no taxes at all / we give HIM tax money.
F: Mob connections

[thejeff]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Don't forget;

D: He doesn't really make large charitable donations
E: He exploits enough loopholes in the tax code that he effectively pays no taxes at all / we give HIM tax money.
F: Mob connections

D: subpart a - those charitable contributions he does make (much less than he's publicly claimed) are almost entirely in-kind - stays at his hotels, flights in his airplanes, etc. And probably overvalued - feeding into E.

[Abraham spalding]

Rednal wrote:

The fact that Clinton often comes across as a corporate sort of candidate doesn't really help - for example, she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches whose content isn't disclosed.

Actually compared to men in her position she really hasn't and when she has given speeches is a very diverse group of businesses.

Let me get home and I'll get you some articles about the subject.

[Squeakmaan]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

I'm probably one of those. I think Clinton is perhaps even MORE dishonest then Trump...BUT....

Clinton is most likely smarter than Trump. Trump is ONLY more honest than Clinton because he seems to speak whatever he's thinking at the moment...otherwise, he's probably just as devious and criminal behind the scenes when no one else is looking.

Clinton is better able to talk politics and handle political arenas than Trump. Clinton would probably keep a calm head talking to others in the international arena and be able to at least appear to negotiate. I could imagine Trump royally peeving off our allies, threatening nuclear attacks on those who aren't, and basically acting like a spoiled North Korean dictator.

Clinton hasn't threatened me or those like me simply because our background, nor implicated that we aren't true americans that should be treated like terrorists.

That isn't a new attitude, but normally it's NOT from a main political leader of the US which could do actions to truly hurt or injure me. Personal safety is a good thing to consider in regards to Presidential candidates, so even if I dislike Clinton...the fact that I probably won't be sent off to some internment camp or other such distasteful things...can be a pretty big incentive.

I still dislike what she did in twisting the DNC and media though. I might fear Trump, but that does not mean I trust Clinton after that.

No idea if she'll keep her promises...though I think it would be MUCH better if she truly fixed the healthcare mess we currently have in the US right now. I have to argue with the local hospital over anything they do, and they try to send bills to collections after 90 days, even if insurance pays it because they feel insurance companies don't...

I'd just like to mention, on the healthcare angle, that trying to fix healthcare has been a Hillary position since the mid 90's. It's what got the hate machine started against her. So, it's not just a Bernie position.

[Abraham spalding]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Rednal wrote:

The fact that Clinton often comes across as a corporate sort of candidate doesn't really help - for example, she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches whose content isn't disclosed.

Actually compared to men in her position she really hasn't and when she has given speeches is a very diverse group of businesses.

Let me get home and I'll get you some articles about the subject.

Follow up:

Speaking fees as pie chart per industry

Clinton's speeking fees compared to other notworthy people

I grabbed these two because they address the point concisely and directly, with data. There's plenty of other similar takes but I felt these were the most apt for the discussion at hand.

[thejeff]

Partly I suspect it's just that the numbers seem so big it's hard for most of us to imagine getting paid that much for giving a speech. There must be some kind of scam to it.

Except those kinds of figures are commonplace. They're pocket change to most of the businesses or organizations that pay them.

[Set]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Clinton's speeking fees compared to other notworthy people

The outrage I'm feeling here is that people are paying $200,000 to hear Larry the Cable Guy or Lady Gaga speak!

Good grief, people, have some friggin' class.

[Abraham spalding]

thejeff wrote:

Partly I suspect it's just that the numbers seem so big it's hard for most of us to imagine getting paid that much for giving a speech. There must be some kind of scam to it.

Except those kinds of figures are commonplace. They're pocket change to most of the businesses or organizations that pay them.

Honestly Jeff I feel that is a fair assessment of the situation. I know I have had times where I was sent to do something and I got a look at the math behind what it cost for me to do what I did and it gave me a minute's pause as I went, "Whoa, I didn't think about it but there is a good chunk of change tied up in me doing this."

I mean I know about how much my training alone has cost and that is a big figure too.

It's one of the few times I think looking at percentages is useful in relation to understanding what the numbers mean.

All in all though it is also another example of the shenanigans people keep trying to hit Clinton with that turn into so much vapor when actually investigated.

[GreyWolfLord]

thejeff wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

I'm probably one of those. I think Clinton is perhaps even MORE dishonest then Trump...BUT....

Clinton is most likely smarter than Trump. Trump is ONLY more honest than Clinton because he seems to speak whatever he's thinking at the moment...otherwise, he's probably just as devious and criminal behind the scenes when no one else is looking.

He may say whatever he's thinking at the moment, but that doesn't mean he's honest about it. And frankly, if he actually believes most of what he says, he's delusional, but not a liar.

Frankly Trump has kind of transcended liar and moved on to some scale where the actual truth of a statement is completely irrelevant.

Did you miss my earlier link to a comparison?
There are vast differences though.

Clinton has that reputation, but it doesn't really seem supported. I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with a 20+ year propaganda campaign, could it?

Well, the support that came out that was pretty obvious was her doing the dishonest and backhanded deals to steal the Democrat nomination from Sanders.

I think that's actually supported and as a Sanders supporter, I think it should be understandable for me to hold that somewhat against her.

[GreyWolfLord]

Squeakmaan wrote:

I'd just like to mention, on the healthcare angle, that trying to fix healthcare has been a Hillary position since the mid 90's. It's what got the hate machine started against her. So, it's not just a Bernie position.

Her current position is to prop up the ACA, which has completely failed much of middle America (those who make somewhere between 40K and 250K) and at times those who make more (Million dollar bills are expensive for almost everyone who isn't making multi million dollars a year).

Sanders was to replace it with something more like found in other nations.

When they did the ACA, I kind of groaned because it didn't fix the current problems, it only handed the reins to the insurance companies that were already part of the problem.

We needed a better and more drastic solution than the ACA, but that's what Clinton currently supports rather than something stronger and better for everyone.

[Lou Diamond]

I would like those on the left what they would think of this plan for health care to replace the ACA. [note I'm an evil right winger]

All companies wold pay a 10% tax on their employees gross wages and the employee would pay 10% of their gross wages. Medicaid would be eliminated
[it does not work any way] Medicare would remain in place. Each person wold be issued a health care card. They could go to any health care provider and get service. This benefit would also cover dental and vision. The Health care provider would send the bill to a regional billing center where it would be paid. The benefit would also cover all proscribed medication. The benefit would cover unemployed people and indigent people as well. Medicare would have the income cap removed.

The government would be the malpractice insurer and punitive damages would be capped at 100000 dollars there would be no cap on compensatory
damages.

All doctors that maintained a 3.5 gpa in Med school and completed residency and internship would have their Medical school loans paid off by the government. IF the doctor choose to serve in a area of need in the US for 2 years they would have their undergrad loans forgiven by the government.

To reduce the cost in developing new drugs the FDA and its European counter part would establish a uniform protocol for the development and testing of new drugs.

All Health insurance companies wold be eliminated.

[Abraham spalding]

So single payer.

[BigNorseWolf]

Lou Diamond wrote:

All companies wold pay a 10% tax on their employees gross wages and the employee would pay 10% of their gross wages

Why punish a business for hiring americans? Just tax people where they make the money, put the money in the general revenue and pay for it.

[GreyWolfLord]

Lou Diamond wrote:

I would like those on the left what they would think of this plan for health care to replace the ACA. [note I'm an evil right winger]

All companies wold pay a 10% tax on their employees gross wages and the employee would pay 10% of their gross wages. Medicaid would be eliminated
[it does not work any way] Medicare would remain in place. Each person wold be issued a health care card. They could go to any health care provider and get service. This benefit would also cover dental and vision. The Health care provider would send the bill to a regional billing center where it would be paid. The benefit would also cover all proscribed medication. The benefit would cover unemployed people and indigent people as well. Medicare would have the income cap removed.

The government would be the malpractice insurer and punitive damages would be capped at 100000 dollars there would be no cap on compensatory
damages.

All doctors that maintained a 3.5 gpa in Med school and completed residency and internship would have their Medical school loans paid off by the government. IF the doctor choose to serve in a area of need in the US for 2 years they would have their undergrad loans forgiven by the government.

To reduce the cost in developing new drugs the FDA and its European counter part would establish a uniform protocol for the development and testing of new drugs.

All Health insurance companies wold be eliminated.

I don't see a problem with that, but would a mere 10% actually cover all the costs?

On the upside, it means the US govt determines the costs perhaps, and so they are the ones that say how much something is and how much they'll pay for (which has been the major weakness in the system, no one has enough bargaining power to counter the rising costs, or do not have a vested interest to actually reduce the cost of healthcare.

Which means maybe that 10% would cover it. One could only hope.

[thejeff]

As GWL said, I have no idea if the numbers work out. Assuming they do, I'd certainly be willing to accept such a plan. It's basically a single-payer approach. I could quibble over some details, but there's nothing that's a deal breaker.

Except - Can you get it through Congress?

Edit: Is this an actual plan someone is proposing - a candidate or faction in Congress or something?

[Orfamay Quest]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

We needed a better and more drastic solution than the ACA, but that's what Clinton currently supports rather than something stronger and better for everyone.

thejeff wrote:

Except:

Can you get it through Congress?

Yeah, what thejeff said. I'm not a huge ACA fan, but I recognize that it's boatloads better than what we had ten years ago. And with a Republican-controlled House, there's no way anything "stronger and better" would get through. I'd like to remind all of the "but single PAAAAAAAyer" chorus that the reason the ACA such a mess comes not from Republican opposition, but from Democratic opposition (34 Democratic Congressman voted against the ACA, and the much of the current muddle came from amendments that were necessary to keep the Democratic coalition together).

The simple fact is that the "Blue Dog Democrat" coalition was about eighty strong. You can imagine the horse-trading that needed to happen to get fifty of them on board for the final tally.

Similarly, GWL complains that "[the ACA] didn't fix the current problems, it only handed the reins to the insurance companies that were already part of the problem." Are you seriously expecting the insurance industry not to lobby heavily against any single-payer plan that would cut so deeply into their profits, possibly even into their fundamental viability? Every Allstate agent from Presque Isle to San Diego would be writing their congressman and say "hell, no."

To put matters in perspective, 90% of the US population supports stronger gun control measures at the Federal level,.... and there's not a marshmallow's chance in hell of getting those through Congress.

I think it was Bismark who defined politics as "the art of the possible." What kind of improvements to the nation's health care system are actually possible?

[MMCJawa]

NO WAY this can go wrong:

Trump solicits election observers after warning of vote rigging

[Zhangar]

Keep in mind that while Trump is claiming he could only lose if Hillary cheated in a state where he's losing in the polls and that the last Republican presidential candidate to win in Pennsylvania was Reagan.

As to be expected with Trump, his starting premise is false.

I'm curious as to whether he'll be able to legally field his voter intimidation squads (because really, that's what he's doing) and whether there'll be counter watchers for his "watchers."

[Rednal]

@Orfamay: Of course there's no chance of it. Public opinion is effectively meaningless as far as legislation goes.

Of course, that's some pretty dense data, so here's an interpretation of it. XD

[Hitdice]

You remember how for my last few posts I've been of the opinion that Trump's just utterly thoughtless, not actually malicious? I'm changing teams!

[Rednal]

So, which one do you think is scarier?

[MMCJawa]

Trump may be the first presidential nominee to leave the country in a mess after the election, without actually being elected.

[Hitdice]

Rednal wrote:

So, which one do you think is scarier?

At this point, I don't really see a scarier option. He's so maniacally harmful that intentionality isn't a factor.

[thejeff]

Zhangar wrote:

Keep in mind that while Trump is claiming he could only lose if Hillary cheated in a state where he's losing in the polls and that the last Republican presidential candidate to win in Pennsylvania was Reagan.

As to be expected with Trump, his starting premise is false.

I'm curious as to whether he'll be able to legally field his voter intimidation squads (because really, that's what he's doing) and whether there'll be counter watchers for his "watchers."

He can't legally field his voter intimidation squads.

That doesn't mean his fans won't take it on themselves to do so anyway, leading to confrontations with voters, poll workers and probably police. Of course, in some precincts, the police will support them, or at least the voters won't dare assume otherwise.

[Zhangar]

Trump supporters being d!&&@eads isn't quite in the same league as Trump getting to go full Mussolini and field Blackshirts (or whatever other faux military uniform he goes with), though.