We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Future of Democratic Party?

What do Democrats need to do.

  • Please log in to reply
589 replies to this topic

#21 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 August 2017 - 01:22 PM

He was a Republican until 2015 when he wanted to run for governor so he changed to Democrat.  

Executive for real estate and coal industries and changes parties just to get votes.  Sounds pretty low to me.

 

I guess Justice felt he couldn't beat Bill Cole in the GOP primary, instead beating Cole in the General election.

 

While masquerading as a Dem was low,  it proved to be a very wise political strategy;   he received votes from Dems,  independents, and  just enough GOP members to beat Cole in a GOP leaning state.



#22 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 August 2017 - 01:15 PM

In a surprised announcement during Trump's visit to West Virginia's Democrat Gov. Jim Justice stated he's switching parties.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...crat/index.html

 

JimJusticeWestVirginia-620x436.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited....wrong link

He was a Republican until 2015 when he wanted to run for governor so he changed to Democrat.  

Executive for real estate and coal industries and changes parties just to get votes.  Sounds pretty low to me.


  • mr6666 likes this

#23 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:55 AM

I think he was saying that being a fighter pilot in and of itself is not a real qualifier or indicator of legislative acumen. Lest we forget, GWB was also a fighter pilot.

 

PS: Kentucky has 120 counties?!? Florida has 67, Cali has 58, and NY has 62.

 

Ok, I went overboard with Cali having  5 times more than KY,  but 120 counties is a lot.   I guess this creates more jobs for politicians!   

 

As for fighter pilots running for office;   yea, maybe that should be an instant disqualifier.    :lol:



#24 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Hothead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,722 posts
  • Locationaround the neighborhood

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:50 AM

PS:  I didn't see where Cid implied she wasn't qualified,  just that the odds were against her.  Trump won 62% of the vote in KY,   and it appears Trump won every country, expect two (Fayette, and Jefferson).   Unless those counties are in her district,  her odds are highly stacked against her.

 

  FYI:  KY sure does have a lot of countries!    Man,  like 5 times more than CA.    

 

I think he was saying that being a fighter pilot in and of itself is not a real qualifier or indicator of legislative acumen. Lest we forget, GWB was also a fighter pilot.

 

PS: Kentucky has 120 counties?!? Florida has 67, Cali has 58, and NY has 62.


  • TheCid likes this

#25 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:42 AM

Clueless?  I've heard no hints in the past he's doing such.

 

Sorry,  I did reply in error;   the switch over shouldn't have been a surprise because he was a Dem in sheep clothing.     The State House is lead by the GOP and to get anything done he had to work much more closely with the GOP than Dems. 

 

The announcement was a surprise in that there was no reason for transparency since he isn't up for re-election anytime soon,  but the timing isn't a surprise;   Trump was coming to town and he wanted to kiss Trump's hinny.



#26 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,451 posts

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:27 AM

It was only a surprise to clueless folks.    He gamed the local Dems to get funding and support but he was, and never had been,  one of them.      In the words of Lonesome Rhodes; suckers.

 

Clueless?  I've heard no hints in the past he's doing such.



#27 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:20 AM

In a surprised announcement during Trump's visit to West Virginia's Democrat Gov. Jim Justice stated he's switching parties.

 

 

 

 

 

It was only a surprise to clueless folks.    He gamed the local Dems to get funding and support but he was, and never had been,  one of them.      In the words of Lonesome Rhodes; suckers.


  • mr6666 likes this

#28 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,451 posts

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:16 AM

In a surprised announcement during Trump's visit to West Virginia's Democrat Gov. Jim Justice stated he's switching parties.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...crat/index.html

 

JimJusticeWestVirginia-620x436.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited....wrong link


Edited by hamradio, 04 August 2017 - 11:25 AM.


#29 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 August 2017 - 10:59 AM

I don't know why she wouldn't be qualified. We had a man in Kansas named Jim Ryan whose only qualification was running fast around a track and people voted for him for years for Congress.

Right off, I would say anyone who's a fighter pilot has tremendous psychological, physical and intellectual skills, perseverance and the ability to get along with people and work alongside others in a team.

As far as what her political stances are, or if she has any base support where she came from, I don't know about that. You're right that she might have some
work ahead of her on and those two important points.

But with her background, she should be able to figure out anything that she needs to know about serving in that Congress - - I would say she's Head and Shoulders already above most people who are already there.

On another note you mentioned the draft. It certainly was a different military when most men had to serve, but this would be another thread.

However, I've always felt that young people, after high school, need to do some community service before they start out in life, whether it's the military, public service or elsewhere in their community. But I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

 

I agree with you as it relates to if she is 'qualified':   There is a big difference between a House seat in the US Congress verses a seat in the US Senate.    The House of Representatives seats, by definition,  are 'reserved' for everyday people (to represent everyday folks).  Therefore little to no prior political experience is 'required'.   

 

There are many 'first time' NON politicians that run for US House seats.      Being a left-leaning military person gives her a leg up over her opponents.     May the force be with her.   :D

 

PS:  I didn't see where Cid implied she wasn't qualified,  just that the odds were against her.  Trump won 62% of the vote in KY,   and it appears Trump won every country, expect two (Fayette, and Jefferson).   Unless those counties are in her district,  her odds are highly stacked against her.

 

  FYI:  KY sure does have a lot of countries!    Man,  like 5 times more than CA.    



#30 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,317 posts

Posted 04 August 2017 - 10:29 AM

Wish her luck, but not much there other than being a retired fighter pilot. Will take a lot more than that in a strongly Republican district in KY.
I read the NPR interview and some other information and it will be hard for her to spend 20 years in the military, retire in June and fly back home and say vote for me.
Of course, I am sure the RNC and others are digging as hard as they can to find other reasons why people in KY might not want to vote for her.
But politics is strange, so hopefully she can pull it off.
One of her criticisms of Congress is the lack of veterans. That has been increasing ever since the draft was eliminated. In addition, the military has been downsized by all administrations, so less veterans.
As there are fewer veterans, it also means there are fewer veterans to vote for other veterans.
Incidentally, just being retired military or a former fighter pilot does not qualify for being in Congress. That is why I hope she can come up with very good positions and ideas that the people of KY will support.



I don't know why she wouldn't be qualified. We had a man in Kansas named Jim Ryan whose only qualification was running fast around a track and people voted for him for years for Congress.

Right off, I would say anyone who's a fighter pilot has tremendous psychological, physical and intellectual skills, perseverance and the ability to get along with people and work alongside others in a team.

As far as what her political stances are, or if she has any base support where she came from, I don't know about that. You're right that she might have some
work ahead of her on and those two important points.

But with her background, she should be able to figure out anything that she needs to know about serving in that Congress - - I would say she's Head and Shoulders already above most people who are already there.

On another note you mentioned the draft. It certainly was a different military when most men had to serve, but this would be another thread.

However, I've always felt that young people, after high school, need to do some community service before they start out in life, whether it's the military, public service or elsewhere in their community. But I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

#31 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 August 2017 - 09:13 AM

Female Retired Marine With Viral Campaign Ad Hopes To Bridge Gap In Democratic Party-

 

 

....the Kentucky native released an ad announcing she would run in 2018 as a Democrat in her state's 6th Congressional District, she earned swooning praise from liberals and even impressed some conservatives. In the ad, McGrath took aim not only at the incumbent, Republican Rep. Andy Barr, but also made a blistering attack on fellow Kentuckian Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader...

 

....the Kentucky native released an ad announcing she would run in 2018 as a Democrat in her state's 6th Congressional District, she earned swooning praise from liberals and even impressed some conservatives. In the ad, McGrath took aim not only at the incumbent, Republican Rep. Andy Barr, but also made a blistering attack on fellow Kentuckian Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader.

 

 

Her interview is below (and has been edited for length and clarity).........

 

http://www.npr.org/2...ontent=20170803

Wish her luck, but not much there other than being a retired fighter pilot.  Will take a lot more than that in a strongly Republican district in KY. 

I read the NPR interview and some other information and it will be hard for her to spend 20 years in the military, retire in June and fly back home and say vote for me.

Of course, I am sure the RNC and others are digging as hard as they can to find other reasons why people in KY might not want to vote for her.

But politics is strange, so hopefully she can pull it off.

One of her criticisms of Congress is the lack of veterans.  That has been increasing ever since the draft was eliminated.  In addition, the military has been downsized by all administrations, so less veterans.

As there are fewer veterans, it also means there are fewer veterans to vote for other veterans.

Incidentally, just being retired military or a former fighter pilot does not qualify for being in Congress.  That is why I hope she can come up with very good positions and ideas that the people of KY will support.


  • mr6666 likes this

#32 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,376 posts

Posted 03 August 2017 - 05:59 PM

Female Retired Marine With Viral Campaign Ad Hopes To Bridge Gap In Democratic Party-

 

 

....the Kentucky native released an ad announcing she would run in 2018 as a Democrat in her state's 6th Congressional District, she earned swooning praise from liberals and even impressed some conservatives. In the ad, McGrath took aim not only at the incumbent, Republican Rep. Andy Barr, but also made a blistering attack on fellow Kentuckian Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader...

 

....the Kentucky native released an ad announcing she would run in 2018 as a Democrat in her state's 6th Congressional District, she earned swooning praise from liberals and even impressed some conservatives. In the ad, McGrath took aim not only at the incumbent, Republican Rep. Andy Barr, but also made a blistering attack on fellow Kentuckian Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader.

 

 

Her interview is below (and has been edited for length and clarity).........

 

http://www.npr.org/2...ontent=20170803


  • TheCid and film lover 293 like this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#33 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,765 posts

Posted 02 August 2017 - 08:13 PM


White Knights, Manginas and Simps, oh my!

#34 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 02 August 2017 - 02:16 PM

I see what your beef is now;  you're afraid of the word 'socialism'.   I said from the start I didn't wish to discuss what is or what is NOT 'socialism'.    Doing so is meaningless EXCECT to convinced pig headed people that a program isn't 'socialism' because, 'socialism' is un-American,  if not borderline commie.    (and I'm not saying you're one of those pig headed people,  but it does appear you're don't like using the term since you put 'true' or 'quasi' in front of it like lipstick on a pig).

 

From a political angle,  any politician for single-payer likely needs to be deceitful and yell loudly "but this isn't socialism'.  I have more respect for politicians like Bernie Sanders that are honest and say they are pushing for socialist program (quasi, true,  whatever one wish to label them),   because such a program is better than what the USA has today.

You misinterpreted me again.

 

I said it was quasi because rather than the government (taxpayers) providing the care, the employers were.  I'm sure you will consider this splitting hairs as the employers are required by the government to obtain WC insurance.  Payments are then made by the insurance carrier which in most states is an insurance company.  Yes, in CA it is the state, but that is true only in a few states.

 

My contention is that WC is not a single-payer or socialist health care system because of its limited coverage.  Chiefly, it only pays in event of an accident for a narrow range of people and for a limited time.  A settlement may occur at the end of the limited coverage period.

Single-payer, universal health care covers all people for all conditions for all time.  For example, the spouse and children of the worker would also be covered.

 

 

I personally could care less whether you call it socialist, universal, single payer or anything else.  WC is just not similar to universal coverage.  Although "socialist" would be a hard sell for most American voters.



#35 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,765 posts

Posted 01 August 2017 - 06:06 PM

I see what your beef is now;  you're afraid of the word 'socialism'.   I said from the start I didn't wish to discuss what is or what is NOT 'socialism'.    Doing so is meaningless EXCEPT to convinced pig headed people that a program isn't 'socialism' because, 'socialism' is un-American

 

Now you're gettin' it.

 

Dog-eat-dog fascist capitalism - now that's American.


White Knights, Manginas and Simps, oh my!

#36 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:30 PM

Worked for years with organizations that were affiliated with WC.  While the employee doesn't pay for coverage, his employer does and that means the employer may not pay as much if he didn't have to have WC.

Regardless, under WC somebody other than government is paying for coverage, whereas in the examples I used the government pays for coverage.

Your points 1 through 5 are irrelevant to a discussion of single payer (government) vs. what we have now in US.  For WC to be a socialist system, the government would have to provide the coverage.  Maybe it is quasi-socialist?

Also, WC is a limited coverage program, whereas single payer is life long.  In addition, the number of people covered by actual WC health care at any given time is far smaller than the programs I mentioned that are government operated and taxpayer funded and life long.

 

I see what your beef is now;  you're afraid of the word 'socialism'.   I said from the start I didn't wish to discuss what is or what is NOT 'socialism'.    Doing so is meaningless EXCECT to convinced pig headed people that a program isn't 'socialism' because, 'socialism' is un-American,  if not borderline commie.    (and I'm not saying you're one of those pig headed people,  but it does appear you're don't like using the term since you put 'true' or 'quasi' in front of it like lipstick on a pig).

 

From a political angle,  any politician for single-payer likely needs to be deceitful and yell loudly "but this isn't socialism'.  I have more respect for politicians like Bernie Sanders that are honest and say they are pushing for socialist program (quasi, true,  whatever one wish to label them),   because such a program is better than what the USA has today.



#37 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 01 August 2017 - 02:10 PM

You really don't understand WC it appears; The  'recipient do NOT pay for coverage';    The employer plays for coverage.   The employees receive the medical treatment (as well as indemnity benefits,,,,e.g. payments while they can't work etc..).     So I stand by my point;  WC is a closed network socialist system because:

 

1) It is mandated by the Feds that states must have a WC program.     (Oklahoma just tried to get out of this and was rejected by the Fed Court). 

2) All employers must have WC insurance or be self-insured (but if self-insured they are also regulated to ensure they have adequate reserves to pay claims)

3) premium rates are set by a rating bureau,  and most states do NOT allow open rating;  I.e. the premium rate for each employee is based on job class is highly regulated.  

4) Employees do NOT pay ANYTHING into the system (e.g. it is against the law for a medical provider to bill an employee for anything NOT paid by the WC insurer). 

5) what is paid to medical providers as well as reimbursement for drugs and supplies are determined by a state med fee schedule

 

Worked for years with organizations that were affiliated with WC.  While the employee doesn't pay for coverage, his employer does and that means the employer may not pay as much if he didn't have to have WC.

Regardless, under WC somebody other than government is paying for coverage, whereas in the examples I used the government pays for coverage.

Your points 1 through 5 are irrelevant to a discussion of single payer (government) vs. what we have now in US.  For WC to be a socialist system, the government would have to provide the coverage.  Maybe it is quasi-socialist?

Also, WC is a limited coverage program, whereas single payer is life long.  In addition, the number of people covered by actual WC health care at any given time is far smaller than the programs I mentioned that are government operated and taxpayer funded and life long.



#38 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 31 July 2017 - 05:20 PM

My point is that you used WC as an example of existing socialist health care in US and I countered that while that may be true, it is very small and not "universal."  IMO, Medicaid, VA, DOD and other health care systems are more like socialism because recipients do not pay for coverage.

 

However, you would have a hard time selling the general public (voters) that socialized, government provided health care would cost less and be better.

If we would be better off without "insurers" because they take too much money for profits, why not government paid auto, home and life insurance for everyone?

 

You really don't understand WC it appears; The  'recipient do NOT pay for coverage';    The employer plays for coverage.   The employees receive the medical treatment (as well as indemnity benefits,,,,e.g. payments while they can't work etc..).     So I stand by my point;  WC is a closed network socialist system because:

 

1) It is mandated by the Feds that states must have a WC program.     (Oklahoma just tried to get out of this and was rejected by the Fed Court). 

2) All employers must have WC insurance or be self-insured (but if self-insured they are also regulated to ensure they have adequate reserves to pay claims)

3) premium rates are set by a rating bureau,  and most states do NOT allow open rating;  I.e. the premium rate for each employee is based on job class is highly regulated.  

4) Employees do NOT pay ANYTHING into the system (e.g. it is against the law for a medical provider to bill an employee for anything NOT paid by the WC insurer). 

5) what is paid to medical providers as well as reimbursement for drugs and supplies are determined by a state med fee schedule



#39 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 31 July 2017 - 05:03 PM

I work with all the states on Work Comp,  and NOT just CA.     Anyhow,  it doesn't matter that it is a small line of insurance the point was that it is a CLOSED system.     To me Medicare is also a socialist system (E.g. medical providers have to accept the Medicare fee schedule payment for services, period).    The issue with both Medicare and WC is access to medical providers since medical provider do NOT have to accept (treat),  patients with Medicare or WC insurance.

 

Anyhow,  I don't understand what point you're making here;  to me a single payer system would be socialism.   I'm fine with that but sadly that alone could be a tough sell to people that have the mistaken belief that capitalism is ALWAYS better than socialism.  

 

Capitalism IS better in most cases,  but not when it comes to healthcare.   I.e. As Bogie states,  the overall system cost and effectiveness of providing healthcare would be lower and better.    The scare tactic of 'no one would want to be a doctor under a fee schedule' is way overblown.    In fact there should be more money for medical providers since there would be NO money, in the form of profits, for insurers.   

My point is that you used WC as an example of existing socialist health care in US and I countered that while that may be true, it is very small and not "universal."  IMO, Medicaid, VA, DOD and other health care systems are more like socialism because recipients do not pay for coverage-the government does.  Under WC, the employers pay through taxes.

 

However, you would have a hard time selling the general public (voters) that socialized, government provided health care would cost less and be better.

If we would be better off without "insurers" because they take too much money for profits, why not government paid auto, home and life insurance for everyone?



#40 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,237 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 31 July 2017 - 04:50 PM

Workers Comp is fairly small when compared to health care for everyone.  Assume that CA is like most states, there is medical treatment for a while, then a cash settlement and then case is closed.  Also, the care is provided due to an accident or similar event, not routine care.

If we want to allude to socialist health care, more accurate would be VA, military retirees and dependents and possibly health care provided for government employees.  Veterans and military retirees earned their care, but they do not pay for it.  Government employees may pay something, but fairly small compared to overall costs.

Of course, Medicaid is pure "socialism."

 

I work with all the states on Work Comp,  and NOT just CA.     Anyhow,  it doesn't matter that it is a small line of insurance the point was that it is a CLOSED system.     To me Medicare is also a socialist system (E.g. medical providers have to accept the Medicare fee schedule payment for services, period).    The issue with both Medicare and WC is access to medical providers since medical provider do NOT have to accept (treat),  patients with Medicare or WC insurance.

 

Anyhow,  I don't understand what point you're making here;  to me a single payer system would be socialism.   I'm fine with that but sadly that alone could be a tough sell to people that have the mistaken belief that capitalism is ALWAYS better than socialism.  

 

Capitalism IS better in most cases,  but not when it comes to healthcare.   I.e. As Bogie states,  the overall system cost and effectiveness of providing healthcare would be lower and better.    The scare tactic of 'no one would want to be a doctor under a fee schedule' is way overblown.    In fact there should be more money for medical providers since there would be NO money, in the form of profits, for insurers.   


  • mr6666 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users