Trumps media

[Uncle Al]

OK folks, get the 'chips' off your shoulders!



Uncle Al

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Sorry "Uncle Al," but that's little more than a typical right-wing false equivalency.

Barack Obama hadn't demonized any segment of our population and shown plenty of respect foe everyone, including his opponents. Trump has insulted and villified everyone he could think of and shown little to no growth over the course of an experience that has humbled far better men than him.

We won't get over it until The Donald demonstrates that he is a real leader and more than the egotistical bully we've seen to date.

[dillon]

Al, if you think I'll get over it, well, you ain't read nothin' yet... I'll give you all the courtesy that Republicans gave Obama. What goes around, comes around...

[crfriend]

Spite does not read very well on a tombstone. Keep in mind the big picture.

Once again, I find myself in the unenviable position of asking folks to cool the rhetoric. Hammer the ideas, not the individuals who espouse them.

Recall that both politics and religion are technically banned topics here simply because either is capable of arousing passions that lead to "less than congenial" behaviours -- and when the two get mixed the situation gets explosive.

I candidly admit to conducting a bit of an experiment in this regard. I've been curious for a while precisely how long the community could keep its cool -- and I've been mostly very impressed. There are, however, a few who let passions get the best of them; if that continues I'll reinstate the blanket ban, even if I think it'd be a bit of a loss to do so.

[Kirbstone]

Some years ago a valued choir member, Army man returned a few days before Christmas after a 6-month tour of UN duty in Kosovo.

I met him in the street and asked him was he going to join us singing for the Sunday before Christmas, which he did. Afterwards we repaired to a much favoured hostelry and pints were poured. Our Army friend hadn't had one for 6 months and he lifted his Guinness to his mouth, took a generous draught and returned the pint to the table in front of him.

Looking at it and savouring his surroundings & company he announced: 'You know guys, If they had that in Kosovo, there'd be NO WAR !'

Tom

[dillon]

Last I checked, this thread was still "Off Topic." So I'd ask a bit of leeway in acknowledgement of the extraordinary recent circumstances. I may be unique in this regard, but I don't issue an opinion sans anticipation of rebuttal. Further, I suggest that those who cannot debate with the full force of reason behind their convictions refrain from doing so. I don't wish to disturb the innocent bystanders, so if I seem to behave maliciously, please inform me. But please judge me fairly. I believe in the full exercise of intellect, but I am not oblivious to the fact that some construe reasoned passion as offensive behavior.

[Uncle Al]

I posted the 'He-Won' pic because I hoped it would quell the
political diatribe that has been posted here. You may not 'like'
the outcome of the election but let's all 'get-over-it' and get on
with our lives. I didn't care for what the current president has
done to our country. A 29 year old 'kid' I met yesterday, told
me he was getting better insurance through his company than
what he purchased via Obamacare. He was paying $200.00 per
month for coverage that would be fantastic in the event of a
catastrophic medical event. But his current 'out-of-pocket'
deductible is $7,000.00 per year PLUS the $200.00 per month
premium to the insurance company. He doesn't like the concept
of being financially punished with 'fines' for not having insurance
when the public can't afford the premiums in the first place.
His 'costs' would've doubled if he was married.

This is ONE example of how 'Obamacare' affects American citizens.

I've read other situations but won't go into them here as Skirt Cafe'
is not the place for this type of discussion.

So - - can we PLEASE put the political stuff on the back burner
and get it off the table (Where's the Malox when you need it!)

Uncle Al

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Al,

I agree with Dillon that politics, so long as we adhere to the rules of civil discourse should be an acceptable "Off Topic."

Especially now that I'm about to try to spiral this up a notch. I feel that your bringing up your 29 year old friend's situation misses Dillon's and my overarching point. Will a few individuals be a little more worse off financially because of Obamacare? Almost undoudtedly, at least until one of them has a very expensive illness. Then at least that one switches sides in the equation; that's the nature of insurance!

Nearly every state requires you buy liability insurance or prove you can self-insure if you are going to drive. We think little of that because we know how much we all benefit by that requirement. The only difference with health insurance is that those of you who complain of the violation of your "right" to NOT pay for health insurance fail to consider that without the mandate, no insurer could afford to accept the cost of covering preexisting conditions.

There are federal mandates on oil & gas pipeline operators on how they maintain their pipes. They were implemented and are enforced as a matter of public safety. Are you going to argue they're an unreasonable infringement on a pipeline owner's right to take care of their property as they damn well please? That the operators have some divine right as capitalists to incinerate and blow up people when they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Before you dismiss my questions as socialist, scare-mongering foolishness, that the market is sufficient incentive for a pipeline operator to follow best practices; read the Mother Jones article on the Koch Brothers' approach to maintenace and safety. The Koches have decided that it's cheaper to resist all government efforts to inspect their pipes and practices, let their pipelines wear out and let the inevitable victims' families just TRY to sue them.

This isn't idle speculation; it's documented fact!

Is such disdain for the common good and simple decency okay with you? I mean the Koches think it's just good business and they've got the net worth to back it up!

Every law has mandates and there are always a few individuals who are harmed more than helped. The standard we adopted at the founding of our country was trying to do the most good for the most people.

So how are we as a nation, on the whole, hurt more than helped by Obamacare?

If you can't answer that in a coherent, convincing fashion; just say, 'You're right you two!' Or stop posting and talking about it.

[Disaffected.citizen]

I'm a British (UK) citizen, so an "outsider".

My understanding is that President Obama's planned reforms were derailed by a Republican dominated house, which blocked what was intended. The President thus had to fall back to the least objectionable alternative; a plan which had evolved and eventually enacted at state level by Mitt Romney (although he had tried to block that plan). So, what you eventually got was a (somewhat unpalatable) "cocktail" Act.

If we assume some desire to ensure that everyone is able to get a "base level" of care (and that is a very wide assumption) how would you make such provision? Or do you prefer "survival of the fittest" only?

[crfriend]

Will a few individuals be a little more worse off financially because of Obamacare? Almost undoudtedly, at least until one of them has a very expensive illness. Then at least that one switches sides in the equation; that's the nature of insurance!

The problem with Romneycare is in that the way it was implemented it's effectively a Poll Tax. Sure, some individuals will lose -- and those will be the folks that can afford it least. The money to pay the Poll Tax has got to come from somewhere. "Let's see, do I eat today or pay tax? I can't do both."

Nearly every state requires you buy liability insurance or prove you can self-insure if you are going to drive.

That is not a valid comparison. Technically one does not "need" an automobile or to drive (That said, from a practical perspective, unless one lives in a large city with well-developed public transportation, a car is a necessity not a luxury.). One does have to breathe the air if one is to survive, and nowadays in the US if you don't pay the Poll Tax of Romneycare the IRS hits you, and that's like getting hit with a sledghammer. So, one cannot compare the two, and to attempt is is being disingenuous. Congress had a chance to do this correctly, and, from the perspective of the overwhelming bulk of the population, failed abjectly; however, they did give a massive windfall of a gift to the ultra-rich in the form of a guaranteed stream of cash from the sheep that actually still work for a living in the country. That act passed for a reason -- and it wasn't to guarantee access to health care (which is entirely different from "insurance"). The "opposition" to it was theatre -- an outright sham.

Is having health insurance a wise idea? Yes, almost always, at least until the carrier drops you after you get sick; however, getting sick in the US has been, for years, a bankrupting proposition, so if you get lucky and only get sick once you'll come out ahead of the game. If anything gets done to Romneycare going forward, it'll be the dropping of the language protecting people who have pre-existing conditions and they'll be able to get kicked into a separate (vastly more expensive) pool or have to pay their Poll Tax to the IRS.

There are federal mandates on oil & gas pipeline operators on how they maintain their pipes.

Are there still, or have they been ripped out by Congress over the last few years in midnight sessions where the work of the oligarchy gets done, conveniently out of sight of cameras and non-partisan witnesses? If there are still a few left on the books, expect them to disappear in the next couple of years.

So how are we as a nation, on the whole, hurt more than helped by Obamacare?

It's not that the nation, as a whole, is impacted by Romneycare it's that it unequally overburdens the "less fortunate" and doesn't touch the elites in any meaningful manner.

Let's give this thought a go: "Congress shall receive such medical care that the population below the median income receives, and not have access to any resources, procedures, or diagnostics above that level: including those necessary to save the individual's life." That'd make them do it right pretty quickly.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

midnight sessions when the work of the oligarchy gets done

I'm sorry Carl, but now I'm calling you out. Either provide us with proof that pipeline safety gas regulations were overturned by such nefarious means or take back the counter-argument, if one can call such paranoid claptrap a counter-argument.

And I am putting that burden on any additional such claims because, as far as I am concerned, your continued harping on your oligarchy claims amount to nothing more than these baseless, paranoid, exercises in circular logic that give rise to the conspiracy theories and fake news that are making it impossible to have reasoned discourse on serious issues.

That broken record not only insults my intelligence, but yours as well. Any literate person who reads the majority of your posts can tell you're a highly intelligent, broadly and deeply informed individual. But when you start throwing out those unfounded objections you come across as a crackpot! Seriously.

So either produce specific proof of specific safety regulations being repealed on specific dates during clandestine sessions or take back the question.

And don't try using that type of vague response again or I will paraphrase Ronald Reagan, whom I loathe, and post, "There you go again,Crackpot Carl!"

I'm serious; because you're better than this and these discussions are too important to constantly be short-circuited that way.

But to give you your due, my comparison between mandatory car insurance and mandatory health insurance is a little strained. The point I was trying to make was the role of individual mandates to advance common goals.

It is a fact that no enactable law is perfect insofar as it accomplishing everything it might in every single circumstance in the best conceivable way. It's a major reason we refer to our system of government-- often when it looks anything but systematic-- as the American Experiment. Can we stipulate that and move on? Please?

Oh, and by the way, in a free enterprise economy, every time the government launches a new program or increases an existing one, some enterprising individual or major corporation will figure out a way to make a buck at it. Can we stipulate that too? And btw, it's as much a matter of perspective as anything else to consider that the moneyed interests exploiting the system or the government bending the business community to the public will. Or maybe enlisting the business community in advancing the public good.

One way or another, enough already on your private conspiracy theory!

[crfriend]

I'm sorry Carl, but now I'm calling you out. Either provide us with proof that pipeline safety gas regulations were overturned by such nefarious means or take back the counter-argument, if one can call such paranoid claptrap a counter-argument.

The fundamental problem is that we do not know. The press hasn't functioned in the interests of the general population for three decades or so. So, all we're left with is supposition. Given everything else that has happened, where does your intelligence lean. Admittedly, I do not have the time (or stomach) to read every act of the Federal legislature's work word for word and dissect it -- no human alive, dead, or yet to be born has. However, from the overall results from it I discern a very clear signal -- and it's not a good one.

So, I do not know whether the Koch brothers have undermined the regulations pertaining to pipeline safety; that will not become apparent until the things start to fail and "incinerate people". We get to wait on that count, but given other matters I'm rather glad that I don't live near one. (There have been a couple of rather spectacular blow-outs in the past few years if my memory serves. Of course the entire invisible infrastructure has been dealing with a good 50 years of "deferred maintenance" (aka, "benign neglect"), so it's only a matter of time.)

Of note is that this is not "conspiracy theory". It's been happening in broad daylight. Conspiracy is obsolete and has been for a decade and change. Do not look at "process". Look at results and then follow the money. It's that easy.

I freely grant that no "enactable law" is perfect, but the devil -- as always -- is in the details, and the details will skew things in the current scheme of things (again, follow the money).

As far as the oligarchy goes, watch Russia closely for a few months and then watch the results in the USA. It'll chill your blood. To reiterate: it's not process, it's results.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

In other words, you have no real evidence, just your circular logic.

In fact, Koch Industries has been sued on a number of occasions for violating those safety standards. They're currently trying to spend the poor victims into the ground with appeals, motions and other delaying tactics, but the standards are there.

By misdirecting us with your post-conspiracy, conspiracy theory the thread lost track of my real point. That point being are we to judge laws by:
* As Oldsalt1 would have it, "Did it benefit me?"
* As Tor would have it, "Did it restrict the entrepreneur?"
* As you would have it, "Was it perfect? Has it profited my postulated oligarchy in any way whatsoever? Has it begun the process of toppling the oligarchy?" And of course if it hasn't done all three it's a sham, not worth the effort or an example of the best of us being duped by our best intentions into working the will of the worst of us?
* Or, as I would have it, "Has it done the most good for the most people after factoring in the loss of freedom it has created?" And, "Is it alleviating a demonstrable problem?"

I say again, until you have concrete evidence of the kinds of late-night congressional sessions, actual laws, etc. stop wasting our time with such paranoid claptrap! Demand hard facts of me all you like. Propose other philosophical or ethical standards. Perforate my logic if you can. But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop with the unsupported suppositions. Your saying that we have to act on the kinds of suppositions you have been promoting because we can't rely on the press is right up there with Gen. Flynn's son saying that the poppycock about a pedophilia ring being run by Anthony Weiner and Hillary Clinton out of the Comet pizzeria is a story until the press disproves it.

No, on those kinds of things, it's just a theory until you have some tangible evidence. And I say again, all you have given us is a conspiracy theory based on the circular logic typical of conspiracy theories.

It's time to put up or shut up before you convince any more people to stop doing what they can in good faith to make this country and this world a better place.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but as articulate as I may be, I simply don't know a better way to put this. I feel strongly it's important that every citizen participates as best they can in our political process to improve things. And yes I mean conservative and liberal, all I ask is that you approach it with an open mind so that the open dialog essential to democracy can help you divine the truth so you can act on it. I'm also convinced that espousing unsupported theories like yours serves only 2 results, neither of which are constructive, people descending into despair or people resorting to violence. Is that really what you want?

[Disaffected.citizen]

I don't think Crfriend is a million miles off with a conspiracy theory.

Having been at the thick end of potentially rough justice, any faith in the system would likely be severely rocked at least. Thereafter, one "sees" things in a different light, sees them as others don't.

There doesn't need to be an organised agenda; if you can slowly set a few "cogs turning" they will drive the rest of the machine. And crowd mentality, as it is, is an easy machine to start and an exceptionally difficult beast to reign in thereafter.

Just because a law exists doesn't mean it will be enforced; similarly just because there isn't a law, if they want to do something it will likely happen. There is no way to prove or disprove any of the foregoing. It isn't "science" as in chemistry or physics, it's way more complex. Evidence will be high on impossible to find, but that doesn't mean the whole thing doesn't exist!

[crfriend]

* As you would have it, "Was it perfect? Has it profited my postulated oligarchy in any way whatsoever? Has it begun the process of toppling the oligarchy?" And of course if it hasn't done all three it's a sham, not worth the effort or an example of the best of us being duped by our best intentions into working the will of the worst of us?

One or two instances of that coming out of the legislature wouldn't matter all that much and would merely be the normal noise that pollutes the signal of a functional republic. However, a steady stream of legislation benefiting one particular class illustrates signal, not noise. Again, it's results not process. Don't accept the refutable assumption that "the system is broken" -- it's not; if it was, We The People would have fixed it by now. [0]

I have cited sources numerous times to back up the foundations of my opinion, including the report out of Princeton which outright called the United States an oligarchy and the insights of Picketty et al on the concentration of wealth and its acceleration. The patterns here are easily discernible if one is paying attention.

* Or, as I would have it, "Has it done the most good for the most people after factoring in the loss of freedom it has created?" And, "Is it alleviating a demonstrable problem?"

The repeal of Glass-Stegall? The tear-down of regulations on business in the 1980s and going forward? The effective repeal of the foundations of Dodd-Frank? The failure to prosecute white collar criminals who devastated the lives of thousands or millions (Enron, et al)? The PATRIOT Act? The upcoming evisceration of the EPA? Those are just the highly visible components. How do the results of those stack up with "most good for most people" and "loss of freedom"?

Gen. Flynn's son saying that the poppycock about a pedophilia ring being run by Anthony Weiner and Hillary Clinton out of the Comet pizzeria [...]

If not for what happened with that, it'd be the comical story of 2016 -- something almost worthy of The Onion. Anybody who actually believed it should have their head examined.

No, on those kinds of things, it's just a theory until you have some tangible evidence. And I say again, all you have given us is a conspiracy theory based on the circular logic typical of conspiracy theories.

I candidly maintain that it's a hypothesis -- not even a proper theory yet -- but it's been an amazingly accurate predictor of things to come (the presidential "election" being a notable exception; but then again, everybody got blind-sided by that). On the other end of it, take a look at how Trump's cabinet is shaping up. How do you think the new administration is going to behave? Do you really believe, based on the cast of characters involved, that the average citizen in the USA is going to have any representation whatsoever? I'm waiting for the actual results to start showing, but the predictors of how the thing is going to behave are pretty strong.

It's time to put up or shut up before you convince any more people to stop doing what they can in good faith to make this country and this world a better place.

I'm not "trying to convince"; if anything, I'm making a plea that folks stop listening to the hype and talking-heads and actually observe the results of what's going on and to use their own intellects to draw conclusions. Shove back the curtain and pay attention; peer into nooks and crannies to see what's there; observe the thing as a black box and try figuring out what's inside based on its observed behaviours. Each of us was born with a brain -- and there are quite a few powerful ones right here -- it should be our ethical duty to use them. Sure, some unpopular theories and hypotheses will emerge, but that's inevitable. It also separates the intelligent from the sheep.

I feel strongly it's important that every citizen participates as best they can in our political process to improve things. And yes I mean conservative and liberal, all I ask is that you approach it with an open mind so that the open dialog essential to democracy can help you divine the truth so you can act on it. I'm also convinced that espousing unsupported theories like yours serves only 2 results, neither of which are constructive, people descending into despair or people resorting to violence. Is that really what you want?

I strongly echo your sentiment that things require the participation of informed and knowledgeable individuals. This would be more possible if the corrosive influence of money was gotten out of the equation; as it is, it's not possible. As far as "people falling into despair" goes, take a look at the level of drugs use nowadays. Bill Clinton had it right when he commented, "It's the economy, stupid." Connection, conspiracy theory, or predictable side-effect? Your call.
gotten
[0] Recall that my entire hypothesis arose from a thought experiment I ran a good fifteen years ago after hearing many of my friends gripe about "the system being broken". I flipped that and began to consider that, "perhaps the system is working perfectly" then started filling in the details of how that might be. To crib the old tag-line from Apple; "Think Different" -- or, more to the point, IBM's from eons ago: "Think".