The Unofficial Election 2016 Results Thread PLEASE

Craig B said:
It's worth pointing out that Michael Moore doesn't agree that Trump's success is unqualified.
You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don’t. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he’s president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we’ll continue to have presidents we didn’t elect and didn’t want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there’s climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don’t want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the “liberal” position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen​
Click to expand...

I will fight a national popular vote for president with all my energy.
 
The only way the GOP establishment stands up to Donald is if he becomes unpopular among the GOP base.
 
Craig B said:
It's worth pointing out that Michael Moore doesn't agree that Trump's success is unqualified.
You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don’t. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he’s president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we’ll continue to have presidents we didn’t elect and didn’t want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there’s climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don’t want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the “liberal” position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen​
Click to expand...

Maybe someone should tell Moore about the definition of "majority".
 
I'm reading a lot of liberal thought right now on how it is important to keep fighting and working on improving the country. It is the patriotic thing to do.

But that is a really good reason to be skeptical of immigrants and refugees. They do not adhere to that same philosophy.
 
Argumemnon said:
Door prizes? I don't get it.
Click to expand...


Extra profits for said legislators and their business interests and portfolios (and their supporters and their supporters' business interests and portfolios). Often for ignoring an ongoing problem (hence the "door prize" analogy, a gift bag of goodies just for showing up) or for addressing the problem poorly.

Obamacare is an example. The concept was access to health care for those who lacked it, but instead of addressing the problems contributing to the unaffordably high cost of such care (such as policies favoring pharmaceutical industry profits and mergers of local health facilities into monolithic regional centers), the high-deductible plan for low-income subscribers adds to their costs in most cases. Those subscribers now pay rent (whether in the form of "premiums" or "tax penalties") for access to health care they still have to also pay for out of pocket if they need to use it. The medical-industrial complex, a big supporter of campaign funds, is not asked to make any efforts to control costs or, God forbid, do business on lower profit margins (as, generally, the humanitarian-minded founders of the hospitals whose names they still use once did).

Plenty of examples on the Republican side, and shared on both sides, as well. Such as the benign neglect of border control, for which the Democrats offer humanitarian reasons while the Republicans throw up their hands over the impossibility of physically stopping people from entering, which is a red herring. The effect either way is the same: lower wages and higher profitability for labor-intensive industries.
 
Myriad said:
Extra profits for said legislators and their business interests and portfolios (and their supporters and their supporters' business interests and portfolios). Often for ignoring an ongoing problem (hence the "door prize" analogy, a gift bag of goodies just for showing up) or for addressing the problem poorly.

Obamacare is an example. The concept was access to health care for those who lacked it, but instead of addressing the problems contributing to the unaffordably high cost of such care (such as policies favoring pharmaceutical industry profits and mergers of local health facilities into monolithic regional centers), the high-deductible plan for low-income subscribers adds to their costs in most cases. Those subscribers now pay rent (whether in the form of "premiums" or "tax penalties") for access to health care they still have to also pay for out of pocket if they need to use it. The medical-industrial complex, a big supporter of campaign funds, is not asked to make any efforts to control costs or, God forbid, do business on lower profit margins (as, generally, the humanitarian-minded founders of the hospitals whose names they still use once did).

Plenty of examples on the Republican side, and shared on both sides, as well. Such as the benign neglect of border control, for which the Democrats offer humanitarian reasons while the Republicans throw up their hands over the impossibility of physically stopping people from entering, which is a red herring. The effect either way is the same: lower wages and higher profitability for labor-intensive industries.
Click to expand...

Without getting into cost control measures of obamacare....

The US has had record deportation rates and greater success on the border. Net illegal immigration is negative. What are you talking about?
 
Argumemnon said:
So it's just your opinion, then. Ok, but I find it unconvincing.
Click to expand...

A lot of things given here are just opinions.

Do you want to discuss it? Is the logic flawed? Is it unconvincing because other impacts of immigration outweigh it, you think the statement is wrong taken at face value, or it is right but uninteresting?
 
Myriad said:
Extra profits for said legislators and their business interests and portfolios (and their supporters and their supporters' business interests and portfolios). Often for ignoring an ongoing problem (hence the "door prize" analogy, a gift bag of goodies just for showing up) or for addressing the problem poorly.

Obamacare is an example. The concept was access to health care for those who lacked it, but instead of addressing the problems contributing to the unaffordably high cost of such care (such as policies favoring pharmaceutical industry profits and mergers of local health facilities into monolithic regional centers), the high-deductible plan for low-income subscribers adds to their costs in most cases. Those subscribers now pay rent (whether in the form of "premiums" or "tax penalties") for access to health care they still have to also pay for out of pocket if they need to use it. The medical-industrial complex, a big supporter of campaign funds, is not asked to make any efforts to control costs or, God forbid, do business on lower profit margins (as, generally, the humanitarian-minded founders of the hospitals whose names they still use once did).

Plenty of examples on the Republican side, and shared on both sides, as well. Such as the benign neglect of border control, for which the Democrats offer humanitarian reasons while the Republicans throw up their hands over the impossibility of physically stopping people from entering, which is a red herring. The effect either way is the same: lower wages and higher profitability for labor-intensive industries.
Click to expand...

You realize your complaints about Obamacare are compromises that had to made with Republicans in order to get it to pass after Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by Republican party stooge Scott Brown.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A lot of things given here are just opinions.

Do you want to discuss it? Is the logic flawed? Is it unconvincing because other impacts of immigration outweigh it, you think the statement is wrong taken at face value, or it is right but uninteresting?
Click to expand...

I just wanted evidence for the claim, which you don't have. That it's your opinion is fine by me.
 
Stacko said:
You realize your complaints about Obamacare are compromises that had to made with Republicans in order to get it to pass after Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by Republican party stooge Scott Brown.
Click to expand...
Zero Republicans voted for Obamacare. The compromises were more with people like Joe Lieberman.

Honestly, the Democrats should have just nuked the filibuster. Republicans will probably do it now anyway.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
I just wanted evidence for the claim, which you don't have. That it's your opinion is fine by me.
Click to expand...

It is a logical claim, not an evidence based claim. You can dismiss the conclusion as meaningless or call it illogical, but I'm not sure asking for evidence makes sense.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But median wages have climbed and unemployment has lowered. Rent is cheap in the places that went for Trump. Democrats did exactly what you asked of them.
Click to expand...
Now, now. We can't have those pesky facts get in the way of constantly repeated falsehoods. Also this acceptance of over generalizing people in rural areas is irritating to say the least as someone who has lived in northeast rural Georgia for the past 19 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom