2020...

Looks like the current crop of Dems are scaring you more than they are scaring me.

I’m more afraid that the new dems, and their apologists in the news are going to get Trump re-elected.

Everyone I think wants change... but if this muddle of large ticket give-aways and identity politics is what we’re going to be running in 2020 on- Trump is going to destroy us.
 
Last edited:
Then Trump, along with many others should be prosecuted for colluding/conspiring with the Russian Government.
Anybody been charged with espionage? Conspiracy? "Collusion"?
Why not?
That means sumthin'.
Many Russians charged with conspiracy and the Roger Stone indictment certainly points to it. More to come! A lot based on the dossier!
 
Her parents told her she had native American ancestry and she believed them. Not sure why you think that would get me worked up or anyone else.

signed... TT

You go ahead and believe her " Little " crap sandwich......
I'll go with she gamed the system WILLINGLY !
 
I’m more afraid that the new dems, and their apologists in the news are going to get Trump re-elected.

Everyone I think wants change... but if this muddle of large ticket give-aways and identity politics is what we’re going to be running in 2020 on- Trump is going to destroy us.
I agree. Can’t pander to the new brigade yet. They need seasoning. They’re like the tea party, but on the other side. For now, we need Biden or Klobuchar or somebody younger but less firebrand lefty. Beto is no joke.
 
Many Russians charged with conspiracy and the Roger Stone indictment certainly points to it. More to come! A lot based on the dossier!


A fake Dossier is not a basis for fake conspiracy accusations against a
duly elected President........
Roger Stone is a nothing burger from a nothing Special Council that
made up process crimes to charge Russians and individuals who had the
unfortunate circumstance of being on a WINNING Presidential Campaign.
A fake Dossier is the basis for dozens upon dozens of treasonous charges
to be brought against filthy criminal Democrats.....
Adam Schiff for Brains, Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings are digging
their own graves in history.....The History of Criminals !
 
I agree. Can’t pander to the new brigade yet. They need seasoning. They’re like the tea party, but on the other side. For now, we need Biden or Klobuchar or somebody younger but less firebrand lefty. Beto is no joke.

Beto the " Fake " Hispanic is a Big Joke !
The Male Elizabeth Warren......
He's gunna pop like a big Zit !
 
I agree. Can’t pander to the new brigade yet. They need seasoning. They’re like the tea party, but on the other side. For now, we need Biden or Klobuchar or somebody younger but less firebrand lefty. Beto is no joke.
Beto isn't ready for prime time and he sure the hell isnt ready for Trump.
 
We would struggle is the understatement of the year. Right now we spend less then a trillion a year on defense. To pull off single payer we're talking $33 Trillion over the first ten years. Then you throw in free college, a Green New Deal chalked full of items like regulating cow flatulence...

Count me out.
We already pay $3.2 trillion per year.
 
A fake Dossier is not a basis for fake conspiracy accusations against a
duly elected President........
Roger Stone is a nothing burger from a nothing Special Council that
made up process crimes to charge Russians and individuals who had the
unfortunate circumstance of being on a WINNING Presidential Campaign.
A fake Dossier is the basis for dozens upon dozens of treasonous charges
to be brought against filthy criminal Democrats.....
Adam Schiff for Brains, Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings are digging
their own graves in history.....The History of Criminals !
"Process crime" is a term invented by these Trump crooks to try to minimize the fact that they're all a bunch of crooks. It's pretty funny. The sleazy idiots and Fox News invented a phrase!
 
Per Wiki the entire US budget for 2018 was $4.1 trillion, and a big chunk of that was paid for via deficit spending.
I know. But we already pay 3.2 trillion. That is the gdp of healthcare in the US. We know a streamlined system has historically shown a lower cost per citizen. We are at roughly $10k per citizen. Most developed countries are about half that.
 
Nope, I'm done. Debating Dems is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon does not follow the rules/facts, walks around, knocks all the pieces over, shits all over the board, and then claims victory.

That's the problem with this world today. Your feelings are more important than actual facts.
Sure, yeah, ok.
 
I know. But we already pay 3.2 trillion. That is the gdp of healthcare in the US. We know a streamlined system has historically shown a lower cost per citizen. We are at roughly $10k per citizen. Most developed countries are about half that.

Going back to David Brooks column... take a moment to consider what how this transition to single payer will play out for taxpayers. The 170 million or so American's who have work subsidized private insurance (think Union labors and also the college educated middle class working for large companies) will be looking at a one size fits all insurance plans that likely don't offer as much as what they've got now; not to mention much longer waits for things like seeing specialists. Also the $33 Trillion price tag is dependent on politicians "ruthlessly" forcing spending cuts down the throats of special interests (which I think we'd both agree is easier said then done in a world where Citizens United is the law of the land).

I agree we need to find a way to lower the cost of healthcare... but good intentions don't make this a winning political issue for democrats.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/medicare-for-all.html?module=inline
"Once they learn that Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, only 37 percent of Americans support it, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. In 2010, Republicans scored an enormous electoral victory because voters feared that the government was taking over their health care, even though Obamacare really didn’t. Now, under Medicare for all, it really would. This seems like an excellent way to re-elect Donald Trump.

The government would also have to transition. Medicare for all works only if politicians ruthlessly enforce those spending cuts. But in our system of government, members of Congress are terrible at fiscal discipline. They are quick to cater to special interest groups, terrible at saying no. To make single-payer really work, we’d probably have to scrap the U.S. Congress and move to a more centralized parliamentary system.

Finally, patient expectations would have to transition. Today, getting a doctor’s appointment is annoying but not onerous. In Canada, the median wait time between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is 8.7 weeks; between a G.P. referral and an orthopedic surgeon, it’s nine months. That would take some adjusting."
 
Going back to David Brooks column... take a moment to consider what how this transition to single payer will play out for taxpayers. The 170 million or so American's who have work subsidized private insurance (think Union labors and also the college educated middle class working for large companies) will be looking at a one size fits all insurance plans that likely don't offer as much as what they've got now; not to mention much longer waits for things like seeing specialists. Also the $33 Trillion price tag is dependent on politicians "ruthlessly" forcing spending cuts down the throats of special interests (which I think we'd both agree is easier said then done in a world where Citizens United is the law of the land).

I agree we need to find a way to lower the cost of healthcare... but good intentions don't make this a winning political issue for democrats.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/medicare-for-all.html?module=inline
"Once they learn that Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, only 37 percent of Americans support it, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. In 2010, Republicans scored an enormous electoral victory because voters feared that the government was taking over their health care, even though Obamacare really didn’t. Now, under Medicare for all, it really would. This seems like an excellent way to re-elect Donald Trump.

The government would also have to transition. Medicare for all works only if politicians ruthlessly enforce those spending cuts. But in our system of government, members of Congress are terrible at fiscal discipline. They are quick to cater to special interest groups, terrible at saying no. To make single-payer really work, we’d probably have to scrap the U.S. Congress and move to a more centralized parliamentary system.

Finally, patient expectations would have to transition. Today, getting a doctor’s appointment is annoying but not onerous. In Canada, the median wait time between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is 8.7 weeks; between a G.P. referral and an orthopedic surgeon, it’s nine months. That would take some adjusting."
All those points are valid. That is why I support a transition to something along the lines of our current Medicare system that is not a one size fit all system at all. Where people can by up out of a basic plan. Kind of like Folgers as the standard and the ability to buy up to Starbucks are a French Press.
 
Nice try indeed.
Forbes magazine was the publisher of the article, not me ya wanker.
Perhaps you should read the article & then comment on it....or stick you head back where it feels comfortable.
Aren’t you curious why Paulie was sharing polling data with Kilimnik? What was the Russian supposed to do with that data, I wonder. Don’t you wonder?
 
All those points are valid. That is why I support a transition to something along the lines of our current Medicare system that is not a one size fit all system at all. Where people can by up out of a basic plan. Kind of like Folgers as the standard and the ability to buy up to Starbucks are a French Press.

Personally I think single-payer makes a lot of sense, and is an issue that deserves attention. That said, there are a lot of issues that deserve attention (and money) and no way Dem's can push them all through at the same time... so we can't ignore the need to pick our battles. Promising we're going to fix infrastructure, offer a Green New Deal, pay for everyone's college, set up single payer health care, pay for reparations, and give every young girl in America a new pony isn't only unrealistic but will get dem's laughed out of office.

So to me it's a question of priories. My thinking, is we just expended a ton of political capital on Obamacare and the public is finally starting to say they like it. So we promise to work on fixing that, and use our political capital for things like insuring that clean energy targets and environmental standards are worked into an infrastructure bill and future farm subsidies.
 
All those points are valid. That is why I support a transition to something along the lines of our current Medicare system that is not a one size fit all system at all. Where people can by up out of a basic plan. Kind of like Folgers as the standard and the ability to buy up to Starbucks are a French Press.
French Press? Coffee done right ...
 
Back
Top