President Trump

[ponderingturtle]

http://www.ibtimes.com/popular-vote...ld-win-2-million-votes-over-president-2445684

Not going to change the outcome of any of the states though.

Because it is important to give the rural states disproportionate power for some reason. One man one vote is horribly horribly unethical.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a moderate Democrat, and with all due respect I don't really see this happening. Not by Democratic office holders, anyway. If you're talking about a Democratic officeholder occasionally taking a verbal jab at someone, then I would say it's a case of 'people in glass houses.'

Or are you primarily referring to people on the Internet -- social media groups, message boards and the like? Because I do it see it there. But that's not something the party can control nor should it try.

But then when a party nominates and elects a racist it is wrong to think that they at best don't care about racism or putting white nationalists in the white house? Why is that an insult? To true for them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The high risk group that needs to be covered is that group who will be unable to get insurance under the old system, where the insurance companies would decline anyone who was too risky.

I don't actually know where the line was drawn before, I never attempted to get insurance before the ACA, assuming I couldn't get it or it was too expensive (I'm 60).

It's tough to say. Regulations vary pretty significantly from state to state. Some states, like WA, were already fairly close to ACA standards. Others still allowed a significant amount of risk-rating and declination.

Even with ACA, at age 60, your premiums are probably on the high side. The cliff when you hit 65 should be pretty nice though - your premiums will probably drop by about $400 or so and you'll end up with better coverage.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am also an atheist, and I'm fairly liberal. I'm not a democrat though, nor am I republican. I tend to be fiscally conservative and highly suspect of government expenditures, but massively supportive of social liberalism.[/quote[

Then why are you all about massive social welfare programs for rural america?

Perhaps I am a bit tetchy at the moment. I've spent a few years here on ISF, arguing for women's and minority's rights, speaking against privilege, and supporting LGBTQ rights. And yet, in this thread, I've had scorn directed at me. I've been told that I don't care about gay people, I don't care about minorities, that I am accepting of and tacitly supportive of racism, sexism, and general bigotry. This has been heaped on me, not because I voted for Trump - I didn't. I've been the target of this ire only because I did not vote for Clinton.

You had more important things to shape your vote that minor things like racism or putting a white nationalist in the white house, after all she didn't leave her husband after he cheated on her. That is the worst sin a woman can apparently commit making a choice for herself instead of doing what you want.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's insults and mockery, then there's claiming everyone who disagrees with you are racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.

No one is claiming that. The fact is that they don't view those things as deal breakers or are so uninformed that they were unaware of it. Why is this insulting it is the only other possible outcomes of why someone would vote for trump.

 

[newyorkguy]

I was very concerned to see that someone had written that Donald Trump is asking for a special session of Congress to repeal Obamacare. First of all, Trump isn't actually president yet. Second, I could not find any news story confirming it. In fact what I found was markedly different. Here's what I found on a fairly nonpartisan website called Market Watch.

Repealing Obamacare “may not be that easy to pull off given changes already made in the health care delivery system,” said BMO’s Jeffrey Silber.,,,It remains to be seen whether any changes take place before a replacement health care plan is proposed by the next administration, he said.

“The burden of governance means that Republicans must replace the ACA with something as it is political suicide to kick 20 million Americans...to the proverbial curb,” said a Height Securities report Wednesday. Link

The report above is from last Thursday, here is a Market Watch report from this afternoon:

Trump has long promised to replace the law with something better, his proposals — outlined to some degree on his transition website Thursday — don’t appear to represent the plan in full, and it is unclear how well they will work for those who obtained health coverage through the ACA. That the plan is subject to revision was all-too-clear on Friday, when Trump told The Wall Street Journal that, at President Barack Obama’s urging, he might keep two popular ACA provisions.

In the meantime, those with plans purchased through ACA exchanges — the current open enrollment period saw its largest surge of activity the day after the election — should still be covered through 2018. Link

The person who posted that Trump is already asking for a special session of Congress for a full repeal of Obamacare should post a link verifying that is true. People on this board have already stated they are covered under Obamacare and it will be a huge burden for them if the program is suddenly scrapped. It's very irresponsible to tell them that it is about to be scrapped unless one knows for a fact that is true.

I don't see what that is based on. It appears to be more rumor than anything else.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's tough to say. Regulations vary pretty significantly from state to state. Some states, like WA, were already fairly close to ACA standards. Others still allowed a significant amount of risk-rating and declination. .

But that is going to go away when they allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. It will be a race to lobby the states to make the rules the best they can be to make money.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a moderate Democrat, and with all due respect I don't really see this happening. Not by Democratic office holders, anyway. If you're talking about a Democratic officeholder occasionally taking a verbal jab at someone, then I would say it's a case of 'people in glass houses.'

Or are you primarily referring to people on the Internet -- social media groups, message boards and the like? Because I do it see it there. But that's not something the party can control nor should it try.

I see it more in the constituency - the followers not the officeholders. And while it's true that the Party might reflect something different... it can be hard to separate. People who self-identify as democrats will end up informing the image of the party in the minds of people they interact with. I am working from a small sample size (ISF and the Seattle area). I end up with a strong impression that for Democrats, the party presents as reasonable, but it's followers are often arrogant, condescending, and rude. For Republicans, I end up with the impression that the Party is full of idiots with learning disabilities, but it's followers are often pretty decent people.

I also end up seeing people brush all republicans with a broad brush based on what the Party has said, and to assume that all republican constituents are the same as the idiots in charge... but then turn right around and say that democratic constituents shouldn't be judged by the same standard as the party.

FTR, I am neither a republican nor a democrat. I lean more liberal most of the time, but I've got a few pet issues where I end up leaning conservative.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was very concerned to see that someone had written that Donald Trump is asking for a special session of Congress to repeal Obamacare. First of all, Trump isn't actually president yet. Second, I could not find any news story confirming it. In fact what I found was markedly different. Here's what I found on a fairly nonpartisan website called Market Watch.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/kellyanne-conway-trump-special-session-congress/

Now it is only his campaign manager saying this for him.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Repeatedly?



This is your first response, and it answers that his supporters are the sort of people who believe this. This is not the answer you now give. Nor was it the question I asked. When I pressed you for an answer, you said this:



Again, this isn't what we were discussing. And when I said you were moving the goalposts, you said this:



This refers to the first answer, which as we've seen answers a different question. Then we quibbled about who read who's post and I made another attempt to explain it, after which you now say "yes", without further qualification, which presumably means that YOU think it would make a difference.

This is the FIRST time you answer the question, Cat. You can go back and read the posts yourself.



Now, why do you think it would make a difference?

One more: YES
Let me say it again: YES
And for good measure: YES


Argumemnon, I gave you that answer in all of my responses. I have reiterated it since then, and have told you that it was the answer to your question.

As far as I'm concerned, the "Yes" in each of my prior responses was explicitly and directly an answer to your question. I said YES several times.

Did you want me to say yes without providing any of my reasoning? Is that what you were looking for?

 

[Cobalt]

No one is claiming that.

Maybe not around here, or maybe so, I'm not digging through the entire forum to find it, but a quick perusal of social media shows how many people are screaming that every Trump supporter is a horrible racist, xenophobic sexist.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No just trump voters. Trump voters were either too uniformed to know he was racist, racist enough to view it as a positive or just didn't care.

So what is the least offensive view of them, being dumb or tacitly condoning racism? Those are your two best options. Which is it?

False dilemma.

You've made this a single issue divide, where there are multiple issues. Have you considered that perhaps they are not racist, and that race isn't their largest and most immediate concern? Maybe they voted for him, despite his perceived racist leanings, because of some other reason that is unrelated to bigotry.

 

[acbytesla]

I've sen it time and again on this website. Does ISF represent a microcosm of extremely non-standard liberals?

I am also an atheist, and I'm fairly liberal. I'm not a democrat though, nor am I republican. I tend to be fiscally conservative and highly suspect of government expenditures, but massively supportive of social liberalism.

I have no objection to you mocking the baker who refused to bake a gay cake. Nor do I have any objection to people deriding the clerk who refuses to do her job and issue licenses. I do, however, have a problem with people over-generalizing the actions of those people, and proceeding to scorn and ridicule *all republicans* or *all people who voted for Trump* or any other faceless collection of people. The baker is a singular person, being judged for his specific actions. The clerk is a singular person being judged for her specific actions. The random guy who lives in a state whose electoral votes went to Trump hasn't necessarily done anything to merit scorn.

Perhaps I am a bit tetchy at the moment. I've spent a few years here on ISF, arguing for women's and minority's rights, speaking against privilege, and supporting LGBTQ rights. And yet, in this thread, I've had scorn directed at me. I've been told that I don't care about gay people, I don't care about minorities, that I am accepting of and tacitly supportive of racism, sexism, and general bigotry. This has been heaped on me, not because I voted for Trump - I didn't. I've been the target of this ire only because I did not vote for Clinton.

I wouldn't doubt that there is reactionary mocking going on of right wing conservatives particularly social conservatives. I believe in being fiscally responsible but I believe supply side economics is exactly what George H.W. Bush saId it is. Voodoo economics.

I'm no sure if you care about the poor but when you support politicians that oppose as principle lower taxes for the wealthy and the elimination of health care for 20 million Americans, what do you expect?

We are living in a world that not only is moving fast, it is accelerating. Job destruction and job creation has never been higher. Sadly, most people are not qualified to step into those jobs and it effects the rural communities even harder than the urban. In a few years probably in 10 to 20 years millions will start losing driving jobs to self driving vehicles. What then?

I am a strong believer in increasing social services and educational benefits even more so in rural communities. That said, there is no easy answer to deal with the systemic problem of poverty in rural America. But I don't think telling people with little hope for a good job that they are on their own and we can't ( actually won't) do anything to help.

People are wrong to mock each other but I think you are ignoring that conservatives do it as much or more than the liberals.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You didn't care about his threats to the constitution enough to do anything about them. I don't expect that to change, you have demonstrated what you care about.

Ah yes, great. I failed to vote for Clinton, in a state that went MASSIVELY blue, therefore I'm no better than a bigot in your eyes? And you feel justified in treating me with contempt on ISF because I didn't vote for the person you liked?

Even though I didn't vote for Trump AND it would have made absolutely no difference to the votes in my state whatsoever if I voted for Clinton, you feel you are in the right to be insulting and rude to me on the internet? to imply that I somehow support homophobes, racists, and sexists?

 

[Belz...]

Nobody in this thread has insulted of mocked you - you are NOT responding in kind.

If you want to play that game, people discussing this issue on an obscure internet forum isn't the reason why Trump won.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wouldn't doubt that there is reactionary mocking going on of right wing conservatives particularly social conservatives. I believe in being fiscally responsible but I believe supply side economics is exactly what George H.W. Bush saId it is. Voodoo economics.

I'm no sure if you care about the poor but when you support politicians that oppose as principle lower taxes for the wealthy and the elimination of health care for 20 million Americans, what do you expect?

We are living in a world that not only is moving fast, it is accelerating. Job destruction and job creation has never been higher. Sadly, most people are not qualified to step into those jobs and it effects the rural communities even harder than the urban. In a few years probably in 10 to 20 years millions will start losing driving jobs to self driving vehicles. What then?

I am a strong believer in increasing social services and educational benefits even more so in rural communities. That said, there is no easy answer to deal with the systemic problem of poverty in rural America. But I don't think telling people with little hope for a good job that they are on their own and we can't ( actually won't) do anything to help.

People are wrong to mock each other but I think you are ignoring that conservatives do it as much or more than the liberals.

I don't see it. Maybe you're right, but in my small sample of the world, I'm not seeing it. You and I live in liberaltopia, pretty much. I'm constantly baffled by the amount of conservative-bashing I hear on a day to day basis, when liberals in WA have such an unquestionably better hand. It not sour grapes, it's sore winners, which baffles me.

I don't hear the same sort of near-constant conservative bashing when I visit family in the south. I hear some, here and there, but mostly I hear "ivory tower liberals don't understand us". Which is pretty true - liberals don't understand conservatives and don't seem to think they should even try.

I dunno. Maybe if I were in a different part of the country, or watched different TV shows, I'd see things differently. It's entirely possible that I have a biased selection. It's completely my impression, not necessarily fact.

But I do see significantly more, and more constant, conservative-bashing on ISF. I see very little liberal-bashing, even from the conservatives here. And there's a surprising number of conservatives on ISF, more than I've experienced on most of the other atheist-based forums I've taken part in.

 

[Belz...]

No, it doesn't mean treating ignorance as if it's just as good as informed reason.

But it needn't come off as elitist.

Have you listened to right wing pundits the last couple of election cycles? "Elitist" is code for "intellectuals". It's anti-intellectualism. The mere fact that you know more than they do -- the pretense that you know more -- is insulting to them. Their feelings, they'll let you know, are just as good, and you don't know where those facts have been! It's a conspiracy to keep the people down.

How the **** do you have a conversation in a climate like this with facts and reason, when those are the very things that so many people despise and fear? You are proposing a solution that isn't on the table.

 

[Belz...]

One more: YES
Let me say it again: YES
And for good measure: YES


Argumemnon, I gave you that answer in all of my responses. I have reiterated it since then, and have told you that it was the answer to your question.

As far as I'm concerned, the "Yes" in each of my prior responses was explicitly and directly an answer to your question. I said YES several times.

Did you want me to say yes without providing any of my reasoning? Is that what you were looking for?

For pete's sake I just explained to you, in detail and with quotes, exactly how things went down. If you ask me "do you like ketchup?" and I say "Yes. A lot of people claim to like ketchup" you'd be right to think that I didn't answer your question because the "reasoning" I provided is so detached from the question that the "yes" can be taken to be detached from the question as well. That's why I insisted. It's not my fault if you don't even understand your own answers.

Fine, now your answer is "yes" but you haven't answered my further question. This seems to be a thing with you:

Why do you think it would make a difference?

 

[SezMe]

The interview wasn't made public until Sunday, so when it was recorded isn't important. As far as the public is concerned the interview was on Sunday night.

Agreed. Moreover, I can find little to be concerned with as a result of a 48 hour delay. Trump did change his mind about anything in that period.

 

[wareyin]

Nobody in this thread has insulted of mocked you - you are NOT responding in kind. Furthermore, who cares if they mock the experts? You are not the target of their mockery, and responding to them with more derision isn't going to change their minds. All it does is guarantee that they will not listen to you, or anyone like you.

Oh, but I AM responding in kind. The poster who I was responding to was mocking "leftists" and "the left", not just the experts. Sadly, people like you somehow miss all the insults from that direction. I wonder why?