TheCid

2020 Election

260 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, TheCid said:

 

I spent 26 years in the military as an officer and there is no department that has more waste.  BUT, if you could all the waste and corruption in DOD, DHS, DVA, etc., you still would not come anywhere near close to funding Medicare for All.

Not sure what you mean by corporate greed as it relates to military spending.

 

You pay more because in America the rich investors must make a profit from people's unavoidable disabilities.
 
In Canada I had my baby for free, prenatal care was free, ultrasound was free. They had to keep us in the hospital for an extra week, still free. The staff was wonderful and caring.
 
The reason other countries can afford healthcare is because other countries aren't bombing the **** out of other countries. The US Government has been in the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex and Big Pharma for a very long time.
 
In 2014 here in Belfast,the north of Ireland I underwent a triple bypass,didn't have to pay for the operation,the care or the medication,also receive aftercare and free prescriptions when discharged from the hospital.From 2014 I've had free minor operations for skin cancer and benefit from free dental care,free eye examinations,all on the National Health System,it's not perfect but it's far better than the "healthcare"(?) in the U.S.
 
$12,000 to have a baby in the United States. $60 to have a baby in Finland. Here in Canada, it costs $0 to have a baby. I had a spinal surgery that in the United States, without insurance it would have cost me about $145,000 but here in Canada, $0. I know Americans like to say "ya but you have to pay higher Taxes. My wife and I make around $147,000 a year and we usually pay around $23,000 in taxes after deductions. Now that gives us free healthcare, 18 months off with pay after having a baby so the mother can truly bond, here in Ontario medications are free for people 25 years old and under, and those are just a couple things we have the United states doesn't. My wife and I have 4 kids and I'm wondering if in the United States, does a family of 6 who makes $147,000 a year pay less or more than $23,000 a year for both their taxes and an insurance policy for 2 adults and 4 kids and the insurance policy has to be 100% medical coverage for everything and no deductible. Also remember that Canadians live longer, have lower infant mortality rates and lower rates of mothers dying during birth, lower rates of complications after surgery, lower rates of staph infections and my favorite difference between the United States healthcare system and Canada's, I'm talking my absolute favorite thing, nobody in Canada ever dies because they can't **** afford it.
 
American exceptionalism, in action, how sad...every western country has one form or another of universal health care but the US knows best and most Americans love paying through the nose for their pills, going bankrupt and in some cases outright die because some HMO CEO needs a new BMW....but you know...USA!!!USA!!!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

You pay more because in America the rich investors must make a profit from people's unavoidable disabilities.
 
In Canada I had my baby for free, prenatal care was free, ultrasound was free. They had to keep us in the hospital for an extra week, still free. The staff was wonderful and caring.
 
The reason other countries can afford healthcare is because other countries aren't bombing the **** out of other countries. The US Government has been in the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex and Big Pharma for a very long time.
 
In 2014 here in Belfast,the north of Ireland I underwent a triple bypass,didn't have to pay for the operation,the care or the medication,also receive aftercare and free prescriptions when discharged from the hospital.From 2014 I've had free minor operations for skin cancer and benefit from free dental care,free eye examinations,all on the National Health System,it's not perfect but it's far better than the "healthcare"(?) in the U.S.
 
$12,000 to have a baby in the United States. $60 to have a baby in Finland. Here in Canada, it costs $0 to have a baby. I had a spinal surgery that in the United States, without insurance it would have cost me about $145,000 but here in Canada, $0. I know Americans like to say "ya but you have to pay higher Taxes. My wife and I make around $147,000 a year and we usually pay around $23,000 in taxes after deductions. Now that gives us free healthcare, 18 months off with pay after having a baby so the mother can truly bond, here in Ontario medications are free for people 25 years old and under, and those are just a couple things we have the United states doesn't. My wife and I have 4 kids and I'm wondering if in the United States, does a family of 6 who makes $147,000 a year pay less or more than $23,000 a year for both their taxes and an insurance policy for 2 adults and 4 kids and the insurance policy has to be 100% medical coverage for everything and no deductible. Also remember that Canadians live longer, have lower infant mortality rates and lower rates of mothers dying during birth, lower rates of complications after surgery, lower rates of staph infections and my favorite difference between the United States healthcare system and Canada's, I'm talking my absolute favorite thing, nobody in Canada ever dies because they can't **** afford it.
 
American exceptionalism, in action, how sad...every western country has one form or another of universal health care but the US knows best and most Americans love paying through the nose for their pills, going bankrupt and in some cases outright die because some HMO CEO needs a new BMW....but you know...USA!!!USA!!!

I have never heard of any of these people.  While these may be accurate, for many Americans all you mentioned above is also at no or little charge.  Incidentally, there is no such thing as free.  Somebody has to pay for it.  The U.S. also has the highest standard of living overall in the world.  That's why so many people want to come here.

We could cherry pick the advantages of each country compared to US forever.  Oh and don't forget, the bulk of Canadian defense is really based on US defense as it is for all of the free world.  Not to mention much of the industrial base for Canada, especially in the past originated with US companies.

Could the US do better?  Absolutely.

I assume you are from Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TheCid said:

The U.S. also has the highest standard of living overall in the world. 

Not even close. 

  1. Finland
  2. Canada
  3. Denmark
  4. Australia
  5. Switzerland
  6. Sweden
  7. Norway
  8. Netherlands
  9. United Kingdom
  10. Iceland
  11. New Zealand
  12. Ireland
  13. Austria
  14. Japan
  15. Germany
  16. Belgium
  17. Spain
  18. France
  19. United States

https://www.businessinsider.com/19-countries-with-the-highest-standard-of-life-according-to-the-social-progress-report-2016-6

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

I have never heard of any of these people. 

I think it may be copy and pasted from a YouTube comment section. If you click on the names, it takes you to their accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

Not even close. 

  1. Finland
  2. Canada
  3. Denmark
  4. Australia
  5. Switzerland
  6. Sweden
  7. Norway
  8. Netherlands
  9. United Kingdom
  10. Iceland
  11. New Zealand
  12. Ireland
  13. Austria
  14. Japan
  15. Germany
  16. Belgium
  17. Spain
  18. France
  19. United States

https://www.businessinsider.com/19-countries-with-the-highest-standard-of-life-according-to-the-social-progress-report-2016-6

Yea, I'm very surprised Cid would confuse standard of living with size of the economy. where the US is #1,  but only for a few more years until China is.

Note that China isn't on the above list because like the USA it has a large population (well much larger which is why it will be #1 soon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Not even close. 

  1. Finland
  2. Canada
  3. Denmark
  4. Australia
  5. Switzerland
  6. Sweden
  7. Norway
  8. Netherlands
  9. United Kingdom
  10. Iceland
  11. New Zealand
  12. Ireland
  13. Austria
  14. Japan
  15. Germany
  16. Belgium
  17. Spain
  18. France
  19. United States

https://www.businessinsider.com/19-countries-with-the-highest-standard-of-life-according-to-the-social-progress-report-2016-6

That is their interpretation.  And don't forget how much each those nations relies on the US for their defense, economic and other aid and purchasing of their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Kamala Harris is coming to S.C. for 5th time to campaign for the Dem primary.  First visit to Upstate (Republican stronghold in the state).  She is proposing a 19% pay raise for teachers and her own Rent Relief Act (tax credit if rent is 30% of income for renters).  More to come later i'm sure.

Sen. Sanders was in the area recently and among other things proposed mandatory rent control for working-class renters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That American politicians no matter how corrupt, how much damage to world affairs they inflict, are still treating as respectful members of society is a stain on humanity. Until the American public demand a different standard and/or America’s power on the world stage is drastically reduced, the rest of the world will continue to suffer.
 
"I nearly lost my primary to a relative unknown who came at me from the left and despite that I owned the party! That means you have to go to the right in the generals because you win by denying fighting on behalf of the greatest number of people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has De Blasio declared that he's running, or did someone talk some sense into him?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

-is it just me wondering.........why both media & Trump appear to be pushing Biden candidacy??

:wacko:

Rightly or wrongly, Biden comes across as the most likely candidate, the one that's expected to win the nomination, much like Hillary was "pre-selected" before the primaries even got started. The same could be said for both McCain and Romney in the previous elections. It's Biden's "time". Plus, he's an older, white, male centrist Democrat, one that many see as most capable of appealing to undecideds and never-Trumpers. One thing prognosticators need to keep in mind though is that, much like Trump, a completely unexpected and previously written-off candidate could prevail. 

As for why Trump is mentioning him so much, who knows with Trump? It could be that he sees Biden as the candidate that could pose the most chance of beating him. Or Trump may be latching on to who is getting the most press, as Trump always feels he himself should be the subject. It also feeds into the tribalism/pro-wrestling vibe that Trump's base seems to get off on. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

The HillVerified account @thehill 5m5 minutes ago

 
 

Poll: Biden leads Bernie Sanders by over 30 points in key early primary state http://hill.cm/3ay3IoP

=================================

-is it just me wondering.........why both media & Trump appear to be pushing Biden candidacy??

:wacko:

The media like him because economics-wise, he would be the one most likely to benefit their class. He is also the one most likely to beat Trump (though this probably still won't happen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

Elizabeth Warren turns down Fox News town hall, calls network a 'hate-for-profit racket'

The Massachusetts senator's rejection breaks with other Democratic contenders like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.
 

 

.....Doing a Fox town hall would help legitimize the network to advertisers and help them make a profit, the 2020 contender added.

 

"Fox News has invited me to do a town hall, but I'm turning them down — here's why. ... Fox News is a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists — it's designed to turn us against each other, risking life & death consequences, to provide cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class," Warren said.....

"Hate-for-profit works only if there's profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet," Warren continued. "It's all about dragging in ad money — big ad money. But Fox News is struggling as more & more advertisers pull out of their hate-filled space. A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it’s safe to buy ads on Fox — no harm to their brand or reputation (spoiler: it's not)."

Warren added that she "won’t ask millions of Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate in order to see our candidates — especially when Fox will make even more money adding our valuable audience to their ratings numbers.".....

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/elizabeth-warren-turns-down-fox-news-town-hall-calls-network-n1005431?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 3:12 PM, LawrenceA said:

Has De Blasio declared that he's running, or did someone talk some sense into him?

He will officially announce he's running for president Thursday.  Most New Yorker's interviewed don't think he has a chance. His term for mayor is up in 2021.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-announce-presidential-bid-n1006101

105912053-1557837737928gettyimages-11435

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marianne Williamson, from CA?, was in Anderson SC (very, very conservative) this week campaigning for Dem nomination.  She wants to give up to $500 Billion in reparations for slavery.  A lot of other far left positions as well.

Never heard of her before.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Never heard of her before.

Hopefully she will drop out soon and no one else will either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

kristin 1 ❤
My beloved grandmother was born in 1911 and died in 2009. I grew up hearing real stories of the depression she lived thru and the real results of the New Deal. The sidewalks in her town were made by men working in the CCC. She deeply loved FDR and voted Democrat her whole life. At 98 years old, she walked to the grade school down the street to vote for Obama in 08, 2 months before she died. I'm glad she isn't here to see what a disgrace the Democratic party is now.
 
Jimmy - you should have also brought up FDR's Second Bill of Rights. It was based on economic principles. It was probably the most progressive legislation ever outlined by an American president. You are absolutely correct in your declaration that the corporate wing of the Dems is devoted to avoiding mentioning FDR or entertaining any comparisons of him to the spineless inheritors of his legacy.
 
Thomas Frank has answered the question in the title. Establishment/centrist democrats will not endorse progressive values because they don't believe in them, and in fact hate, despise, and dismiss progressives. Frank has said the Clinton/establishment wing will never concede anything to progressives. Period. Clinton could have chosen a progressive for VP to unite the party, but instead she gave the finger to Sander supporters and picked essentially a mild mannered corporatist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

kristin 1 ❤
My beloved grandmother was born in 1911 and died in 2009. I grew up hearing real stories of the depression she lived thru and the real results of the New Deal. The sidewalks in her town were made by men working in the CCC. She deeply loved FDR and voted Democrat her whole life. At 98 years old, she walked to the grade school down the street to vote for Obama in 08, 2 months before she died. I'm glad she isn't here to see what a disgrace the Democratic party is now.
 
Jimmy - you should have also brought up FDR's Second Bill of Rights. It was based on economic principles. It was probably the most progressive legislation ever outlined by an American president. You are absolutely correct in your declaration that the corporate wing of the Dems is devoted to avoiding mentioning FDR or entertaining any comparisons of him to the spineless inheritors of his legacy.
 
Thomas Frank has answered the question in the title. Establishment/centrist democrats will not endorse progressive values because they don't believe in them, and in fact hate, despise, and dismiss progressives. Frank has said the Clinton/establishment wing will never concede anything to progressives. Period. Clinton could have chosen a progressive for VP to unite the party, but instead she gave the finger to Sander supporters and picked essentially a mild mannered corporatist.

More nobodies with useless opinions.

What's the matter Talk, you don't have opinions of your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheCid said:

More nobodies with useless opinions.

What's the matter Talk, you don't have opinions of your own?

I'm Frank--Ohio, remember our discussion about "assume nothing". You have not done anything but denigrate "peoples" opinions, maybe it's a habit from your previous occupation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

I'm Frank--Ohio, remember our discussion about "assume nothing". You have not done anything but denigrate "peoples" opinions, maybe it's a habit from your previous occupation.

What previous occupation?  Sorry, I did forget out discussion about "assume nothing."

I still say the tweets you copy and paste are just a bunch of ordinary people.  Other posters cite authorities or established persons when they post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Recent efforts to sandbag Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are crude repeats of behaviors that helped elect Trump in 2016

".....(Sanders) explained the context of decades of American interventions in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil and other South and Central American countries. He tried to explain that his “view” of Ortega was irrelevant because he was really protesting the policy of intervention, not supporting the foreign leader.

The whole episode was a Back to the Future version of the same criticisms leveled at anyone who opposes regime change in Venezuela today

— if you protest the policy, you’re not antiwar, you must support the targeted foreign leader........

These smear jobs don’t work the same way they once did. Trump in 2016 clearly used impatience with media tactics as part of his strategy. The more he brought trail reporters into stump speeches by calling us things like “bloodsuckers” (“enemy of the people” didn’t come until later), the better he did with crowds.

Reporters refuse to see it, but the national media now lives on the unpopularity spectrum somewhere between botulism and congress. While some of that is undeserved, some of it isn’t. Voters especially resent being told who is and isn’t an acceptable choice, by a press corps increasingly seen as part of a corrupt and condescending political establishment.

Stories like “Tulsi Gabbard Is the Top Candidate of Traitors” represent exactly the kind of thing people hate about the commercial press as an institution. This scarlet lettering backfired badly in 2016, but we’re doing more of it this time around, not less. Don’t be surprised if it ends badly again."

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-tulsi-gabbard-bernie-sanders-trump-2020-838156/

Edited by mr6666
added link :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Recent efforts to sandbag Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are crude repeats of behaviors that helped elect Trump in 2016

".....(Sanders) explained the context of decades of American interventions in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil and other South and Central American countries. He tried to explain that his “view” of Ortega was irrelevant because he was really protesting the policy of intervention, not supporting the foreign leader.

The whole episode was a Back to the Future version of the same criticisms leveled at anyone who opposes regime change in Venezuela today

— if you protest the policy, you’re not antiwar, you must support the targeted foreign leader........

These smear jobs don’t work the same way they once did. Trump in 2016 clearly used impatience with media tactics as part of his strategy. The more he brought trail reporters into stump speeches by calling us things like “bloodsuckers” (“enemy of the people” didn’t come until later), the better he did with crowds.

Reporters refuse to see it, but the national media now lives on the unpopularity spectrum somewhere between botulism and congress. While some of that is undeserved, some of it isn’t. Voters especially resent being told who is and isn’t an acceptable choice, by a press corps increasingly seen as part of a corrupt and condescending political establishment.

Stories like “Tulsi Gabbard Is the Top Candidate of Traitors” represent exactly the kind of thing people hate about the commercial press as an institution. This scarlet lettering backfired badly in 2016, but we’re doing more of it this time around, not less. Don’t be surprised if it ends badly again.

Is this a cite from someone or a publication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us