OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[Coronita]

[quote=joec][quote=outtamojo]I work in a hospital- 25 years now. When someone comes to me as a patient, they have no history- they are just a human being in need of help. Fvck those hospital workers if they are treating patients differently or lowering standards of care based on personal politics. They need to get another freaking job like border patrol or something as they are unfit for their present job.
Question: name someone who said it was ok to take advantage of the laws of the land? What’s the difference between Trumps bankruptcies and someone taking advantage of citizenship laws?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/03/on-face-nation-today-john-dickerson.html?m=1%5B/quote%5D

I was actually saying the illegal patients were being the jerks/rude and the hospital workers were merely complaining about these illegals, not that they were actually giving crap healthcare to them.

I pretty much ALWAYS disagree with BG, but again, I have heard this point from hospital workers/nurses so for what it’s worth, I think it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The whole born here, be an instant citizen should be changed IMO. I hear people from China do it too. I don’t think it benefits America to have this anymore…especially in this day and age.

Also, these illegal people don’t pay their medical care so it’s just you and me paying for illegals to have their babies here. Maybe you have extra dough to pay more healthcare and maybe this is why part of our healthcare is so expensive, but I don’t need or want to encourage this type of behavior.

Provide basic care, send them back after…

All IMO of course, and I am NOT a Trump supporter…

Also, it maybe hypocritical to complain about illegals coming and them giving you a job if you work in those hospitals, but the illegals taking advantage of this is not paying your bills or salary. I think a lot of hospitals under this type of work is actually looking to usually shut down or close since no one is actually paying them (just the government) which is probably a lot less that what it costs, since you have an extremely high risk high cost procedure (pre-natal and child birth).[/quote]

I’m curious. Who uses more welfare benefits, like free hospital care…. Illegal aliens or people who live in the south who are U.S. citizens? I have my hunches, but anyone have a convenient fact table? Sorry, unless one’s paying his/her fair share of taxes and not milking some public benefit, he/she really shouldn’t be complaining.

I think in this country, we just have a competition from people who feel like they shouldn’t pay for something…And when there are other people of different kindsd encroaching on their free ride, they complain.

I believe in absolutes. If you want to talk about removing welfare for everybody, ok that makes more sense than targeting select groups on who to help.

As someone eloquently put it, I’m sure we’re paying for someone’s welfare in Mississippi

[flyer]

[quote=svelte][quote=flyer]What is going on politically doesn’t really surprise me, when you realize 75% of the financial wealth in this country is held by the top 10 percent of households, with the bottom 25% divided among the remaining 90 percent.

[/quote]

I’m confused. Are you saying it makes sense that people are angry about the concentration of wealth among a few individuals, so it follows that they would rally around a reported billionaire notorious for bully business practices?[/quote]

Not at all. I’m saying that it doesn’t surprise me that, based upon the inequality of wealth in this country, perhaps the desperation of 90% of the population has led them to look for a political savior–which possibly explains the level of chaos and bs we are witnessing in the political arena on– both the right and the left.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flyer]
Not at all. I’m saying that it doesn’t surprise me that, based upon the inequality of wealth in this country, perhaps the desperation of 90% of the population has led them to look for a political savior–which possibly explains the level of chaos and bs we are witnessing in the political arena on– both the right and the left.[/quote]

I was with you until the last few words. There is no chaos on the Dem side. There is the establishment candidate that was expected to have an uncontested run to the nomination. There is a challenger. That part wasn’t expected. But there is no chaos.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flyer]
Not at all. I’m saying that it doesn’t surprise me that, based upon the inequality of wealth in this country, perhaps the desperation of 90% of the population has led them to look for a political savior–which possibly explains the level of chaos and bs we are witnessing in the political arena on– both the right and the left.[/quote]

I was with you until the last few words. There is no chaos on the Dem side. There is the establishment candidate that was expected to have an uncontested run to the nomination. There is a challenger. That part wasn’t expected. But there is no chaos.[/quote]I personally think chaos is good on the Republican side. Hopefully this will be the catalyst to separate the wacko right from the Republican who are moderate and would like to have things done. I would hope the Dem have their chaos one day too. There are way too centrist on both side to allow the extreme of both party dictate the party platform. This whole, running to the left/right during the primary and run back to the middle for the general election is retarded to me.

[FlyerInHi]

AN, it’s interesting that you see the “wackos right” as you put it. Unless those “wackos” separate off and form their own party, or are ejected, they will stay with the Republicans.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN] I would hope the Dem have their chaos one day too. There are way too centrist on both side to allow the extreme of both party dictate the party platform. This whole, running to the left/right during the primary and run back to the middle for the general election is retarded to me.[/quote]

There are no policy extremes on the Dem side. The only real differences are the paths to getting there.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN] I would hope the Dem have their chaos one day too. There are way too centrist on both side to allow the extreme of both party dictate the party platform. This whole, running to the left/right during the primary and run back to the middle for the general election is retarded to me.[/quote]

There are no policy extremes on the Dem side. The only real differences are the paths to getting there.[/quote]I view Bernie as pretty extreme in comparison to Hillary and Bill.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]AN, it’s interesting that you see the “wackos right” as you put it. Unless those “wackos” separate off and form their own party, or are ejected, they will stay with the Republicans.[/quote]
Another option is if Trump get the nomination and the centrist Republican coop another party.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]I view Bernie as pretty extreme in comparison to Hillary and Bill.[/quote]

Be specific please. Extreme with regards to which policy position?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]I view Bernie as pretty extreme in comparison to Hillary and Bill.[/quote]

Be specific please. Extreme with regards to which policy position?[/quote]Taxes (Bernie is willing to go much higher than Hillary IMHO. He needs to, in order to pay for his social policies), trade (NAFTA, TPP), (to a much smaller extent) single payer healthcare (I personally don’t like either of their policy in this area, but I can see the differences between the two).

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]I view Bernie as pretty extreme in comparison to Hillary and Bill.[/quote]

Be specific please. Extreme with regards to which policy position?[/quote]Taxes, trade, (to a much smaller extent) single payer healthcare.[/quote]

Both are opposed to the TPP. Sanders wants single payer now, and Clinton wants to improve upon the ACA (more towards single payer).

Clinton on taxes:

“The wealthiest pay too little in taxes while the middle class needs more relief. I’m going to fix that. I’ll close corporate tax loopholes and make sure millionaires and billionaires can’t pay lower rates than middle-class families. And I’ll give tax relief to working families who are struggling with costs from college to health care.”

Sanders on taxes:

“The wealthy and large corporations must pay their fair share. As president, I will stop corporations from shifting profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes. I will tax Wall St. speculators who caused millions their jobs, homes, and life savings. I will tell the billionaire class: You can’t have it all while kids in this country go hungry.”

There’s not a lot of room between those two.

The biggest differences between the two is free college v. college that is affordable for all, and single payer now v. move towards single payer. Both are pretty standard Dem policy positions. Same targets. Different paths.

[an]

Although Hillary is against TPP now, she was pretty open to TPP in the past. This is what I’m talking about in running to the left in primary and running back to the center during the general. I don’t think Bernie would ever support TPP, even in the general. That’s what’s the difference. Bill was pretty open to free trade (NAFTA).

ACA, I won’t even go there, since I dislike both stance on it. But there’s a difference. Hillary is willing to compromise about it, while Bernie want to go straight to single payer now (no middle ground).

As for taxes, you can chalk it up as gut feeling, since neither of them have given an exact tax plans with all the rates for all the brackets. However, as I said, Bernie offered up much more social benefits than Hillary, and that’s where I think in order to balance the budget, taxes would have to go up a lot more under Bernie than Hillary.

[FlyerInHi]

I doubt Hillary will support TPP in the general.
Once in office she may, after she tweaks it to her liking.

In the recent context of history, it’s really hard to see democratic positions as “extreme”. Would going back to Clinton years tax rates be considered extreme?

How about advocating the same immigration policies Reagan and GHWB did?

ACA was the republican counter to HillaryCare. Nothing extreme

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]Although Hillary is against TPP now, she was pretty open to TPP in the past. This is what I’m talking about in running to the left in primary and running back to the center during the general. I don’t think Bernie would ever support TPP, even in the general. That’s what’s the difference. Bill was pretty open to free trade (NAFTA).

ACA, I won’t even go there, since I dislike both stance on it. But there’s a difference. Hillary is willing to compromise about it, while Bernie want to go straight to single payer now (no middle ground).

As for taxes, you can chalk it up as gut feeling, since neither of them have given an exact tax plans with all the rates for all the brackets. However, as I said, Bernie offered up much more social benefits than Hillary, and that’s where I think in order to balance the budget, taxes would have to go up a lot more under Bernie than Hillary.[/quote]

You could be right on TPP. The thing is, Hillary didn’t have to make a 180. She never endorsed TPP. What she’s endorsed is the right fair trade agreement, and she never gave the TPP her seal of approval. Sanders has endorsed the exact same thing.

We disagree on the ACA (and I suspect, most of your reasons for not liking it has nothing to do with anything that’s in the law), but Bernie and Hillary don’t. What Sanders has proved, over and over again in his 25 years in congress, is that he can compromise. He compromised by voting for the ACA. Hillary probably would compromise earlier, but that doesn’t make either one of their positions extreme.

Their biggest difference is in foreign policy. Hillary can’t cut taxes enough for the middle class because she’s ready to go to war at an ugly fart, and won’t cut defense. Sanders can pay for all his programs with defense cuts. But cuts to defense are not an extreme position, except for those that think Iraq was a good idea.

Extreme is deporting 12 million people who haven’t caused any problems. Extreme is not allowing more than a billion people entry into the country because of what other people have done. Extreme is passing laws that endanger the lives of millions of women. Those are policies supported by every Republican candidate. How far do you think every Republican candidate is from deporting every single non-citizen Muslim, and rounding up all the Muslim citizens and putting them in internment camps? You tell me, is that a big stretch or a little stretch? And then tell me that both sides are similarly extreme.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
In the recent context of history, it’s really hard to see democratic positions as “extreme”. Would going back to Clinton years tax rates be considered extreme?
[/quote]

The issue with measuring extremism is it’s relative to your own personal beliefs. If you’re pretty far left you won’t view any left leaning policies as extreme. In addition you will find more conservative policies to be extreme in contrast to your own views.

Take for example a wedding photographer that finds two men kissing offensive or something worse. In some people’s minds it’s perfectly fine for a gay couple to force that photographer to photograph that wedding under threat of discrimination lawsuit. It would be pretty extreme if I could force that photographer to take nude pics of a fat ugly chick. The photographer might find both things equally offensive but in one case we can probably agree that it would be pretty extreme and in the other we might not. It’s all relative to your own point of view.

If somebody suggested that all private property held as rentals should be taken over by the government so they could set the prices at affordable levels some of you might not view that as being extreme. The reality of such a proposal would be a significant step to outright communism, which most people would find extreme.

[Author]

Posts