Jump to content
Olivaw

NYT OPINION: Trump’s Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn’t He?

Recommended Posts

The latest NBC/WSJ poll had Biden, Sanders Warren and Harris beating Trump. Biden wins by 9,  Sanders by 7, Warren by 5 and Harris by 1.  Trump’s job approval is 45%

 

He is beatable by numerous candidates. Policies will make the difference. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/trump-trails-biden-warren-sanders-new-nbc-news-wall-street-n1029646

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it would be unconscionable not vote against Trump.  No matter how disappointed one might be.  To choose National destruction over a holding action is political suicide.   A second Trump term could mean the end of Representative government in the USA.

 

The polls will not take into account that the election of 2020 has the potential to be the dirtiest in American history;  Including massive, foreign interference, result flipping, voter suppression and disinformation about where and when to vote. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 12:25 AM, Olivaw said:

More hand-wringing or sensible warning?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

 

.

 

 

I don't think it will happen. He has four years of failure and outrageous conduct against him going into 2020, and the Democratic nominee will be well prepared for him and the phenomenon that placed him into office in '16. His base isn't enough to carry him and never was, but that's all he appeals to - a small base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bludog said:

For me, it would be unconscionable not vote against Trump.  No matter how disappointed one might be.  To choose National destruction over a holding action is political suicide.   A second Trump term could mean the end of Representative government in the USA.

 

The polls will not take into account that the election of 2020 has the potential to be the dirtiest in American history;  Including massive, foreign interference, result flipping, voter suppression and disinformation about where and when to vote. 

 

 

It's my fear also that the sheer negativity of 2016 will be repeated in 2020, although it is also my hope that the electorate will be much better informed and prepared for it, and will vote accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 3:46 PM, LoreD said:

https://fortune.com/2019/05/15/joe-biden-medicare-for-all/

 

Joe Biden Is Wrong. Businesses Will—and Want to—Pay for Medicare for All

May 15, 2019

 

 

Earlier this week, former vice president and current presidential hopeful Joe Biden made one of the more unusual arguments against Medicare for All.

“Right now you have this … overwhelming number of employers who are paying into the health care plan. Why let them off the hook? All the sudden they don’t have to pay anything?”

 

I’m one of those employers, and I’m supportive of Medicare for All, but it’s not about being let off the hook. As the founder and CEO of a business that has always provided health care for our employees, MCS Industries, I’d rather pay a predictable, manageable payroll tax to finance health care than pay impossibly high and unpredictable premiums.

 

Medicare for All is about freeing up businesses and the middle class while reducing our national health care bill.

 

We can lower overall health care spending by cutting out a massive intermediary (insurers), streamlining the financing of care by converting from a multi-payer to single-payer system, and strengthening negotiating power for rates. Medicare operates at a significantly lower administrative cost than does commercial insurance, and doesn’t use money for things like inflated executive salaries, advertising, or sales.

 

Medicare for All would save money on the provider side as well. Currently, the average primary care provider in the U.S. spends about $100,000 a year on dealing with commercial insurance companies, which all have different systems and standards for filing claims, and are financially incentivized to deny them—which usually means appeals. Finally, Medicare for All would have leverage to control pharmaceutical costs, bringing us much closer to international standards, and would be able to standardize rates at hospitals and other providers, which frequently overcharge or are inconsistent on costs.

 

We can finance Medicare for All by replacing the current system’s premiums, deductibles, copays, and other out-of-pocket costs with a progressive system that fairly taxes capital gains, dividends, and payroll. Economists have estimated the potential savings to be more than $5 trillion between 2017 and 2026.

 

The vice president, who is fond of referring to himself as “Middle-Class Joe,” has good reason to embrace Medicare for All. A large part of any new health care system will be payroll taxes, which are largely covered by employers. The remainder are paid by employees, and since the taxes are based on income, the wealthiest would be asked to pay a bit more—further evening the playing field.

Medicare for All doesn’t let employers off the hook, but it does keep commercial insurance companies from fishing us into extinction.

 

Richard Master is the CEO of MCS Industries and founder of the Business Initiative for Health Policy.

I also fear some of Biden's policy promises are rash, and are not well thought out. He is gaming on his moderate status, without explaining just where he is exactly on a number of issues. This should be disconcerting to all Democratic voters.

 

https://prospect.org/article/joe-biden-wants-get-rid-half-obamacare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mordastyr said:

 

It's my fear also that the sheer negativity of 2016 will be repeated in 2020, although it is also my hope that the electorate will be much better informed and prepared for it, and will vote accordingly.

There's that, and also the big money always goes to the moderate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 4:36 AM, LoreD said:

In September 2009, Friedman wrote an article praising China's one-party autocracy, saying that it was "led by a reasonably enlightened group of people"[65] and that China's leaders are "boosting gasoline prices" and "overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power."[66] The article was in turn subject to critical analysis: Matt Lewiswho wrote, "Friedman's apparent wish for a 'benign' dictator is utopian, inasmuch as it ignores Lord Acton's warning that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"[67] and William Easterly who quotes Friedman's one-party autocracy assertions[68] as part of his academic paper in which he concluded that, "Formal theory and evidence provides little or no basis on which to believe the benevolent autocrat story"

 

In April 2018, Barrett Brown criticized Friedman for "his serial habit of giving the benefit of the doubt to whoever happens to hold power", such as Friedman's column supporting Vladimir Putin as a modernizing reformer, in which he urged Americans to "keep rootin' for Putin".]Brown also used this phrase in the title of his 2014 book "Keep Rootin' for Putin: Establishment Pundits and the Twilight of American Competence".

 

Friedman has been criticized by organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for defending Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon as a form of "educating" Israel's opponents; according to FAIR, Friedman was explicitly endorsing terrorism by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians.

Glenn Greenwald and professor Noam Chomsky also accused Friedman of endorsing and encouraging terrorism by Israeli forces.

 

In his September 29, 2005, column in The New York Times, Friedman entertained the idea of supporting the Kurds and Shias in a civil war against the Sunnis: "If they the Sunnis won't come around, we should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind."

 

During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Friedman wrote the following in The New York Times on April 23, 1999: "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too."

 

Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize.

I stopped reading much of what Friedman writes a long time ago. I just don't think he knows much about what he writes about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 9:26 AM, bludog said:

 

If the "single greatest issue" is "economic insecurity", it's disappointing not to see not one word about narrowing the wealth gap by switching to Green Energy and fighting Climate Change.  I find it  amazing that Friedman could write a policy article, completely ignoring the colossal existential threat of our times.  With Democrats in power, the jobs created should be highly compensated jobs. 

 

Linking Economic Security to a Green Revolution would give Democrats an issue with which Republicans cannot compete.

 

 

These traditionally Democratic measures are important  I also like Bernie's idea of putting a fractional tax on every Wall St transaction.  But the US also needs to become a world leader in the fight against Climate Change.  We need a modern day, New Deal.

Absolutely. The economy we have now is not a reflection of Trump policies other than a slight one time bump to GDP last year after the big tax cut for the rich which didn't boost corporate investment in R&D or capital expenditure. Trump forgot his campaign strategy to deal with the Chinese Yuan, and instead he has used Tariff's to push for intellectual property rights for Corporations - and if it works, you will see more jobs going to China, not less.

Meanwhile, the infrastructure is horrible shape, we still have a horrible problem with healthcare due to the Republican dismantling of the ACA - which was meant to only be a start at improving a deplorable non-coherent healthcare system, And yes - climate change policy is drastically required, And yes, strong measures dealing with climate change would help provide economic security today and into the future. 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mordastyr said:

 

I don't think it will happen. He has four years of failure and outrageous conduct against him going into 2020, and the Democratic nominee will be well prepared for him and the phenomenon that placed him into office in '16. His base isn't enough to carry him and never was, but that's all he appeals to - a small base.

 

Trump can be beaten but it is not going to be easy. 

Share this post


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

 

Trump can be beaten but it is not going to be easy. 

yes, a lot of lazy people will need to get off their butts and vote. We'll need more people to stand up to the truth. And, we'll need to say, F you Russian Trolls, and F you neo-fascism / been there done that.

I like that as a meme or a hashtag, "F you neo-fascism / been there done that./ Mussolini or something" It would make a great T-Shirt. Pete Buttigieg could sell them for contributions to his campaign. 

"F you neo-fascism / been there done that./ Mussolini or something - Vote for Pete", it would say.

 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bludog said:

For me, it would be unconscionable not vote against Trump.  No matter how disappointed one might be.  To choose National destruction over a holding action is political suicide.   A second Trump term could mean the end of Representative government in the USA.

 

The polls will not take into account that the election of 2020 has the potential to be the dirtiest in American history;  Including massive, foreign interference, result flipping, voter suppression and disinformation about where and when to vote. 

 

 

The 2016 Democratic primary was probably the dirtiest in my memory.  I'm seeing the same in this primary.  A presentation of the corporate establishment candidate, and the demand that I "hold my nose" and  vote for him/her.

 

I'm OK  with Bernie or Warren.  I'm not a Democrat; I'm a Progressive.  That is the way I vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LoreD said:

 

The 2016 Democratic primary was probably the dirtiest in my memory.  I'm seeing the same in this primary.  A presentation of the corporate establishment candidate, and the demand that I "hold my nose" and  vote for him/her.

 

I'm OK  with Bernie or Warren.  I'm not a Democrat; I'm a Progressive.  That is the way I vote.  

 

Same here.  I am a progressive who supports Elizabeth Warren.  However, because I care about our Country and its people, I'm prepared to face unpleasant political realities.  So I'm willing to make, even the most objectionable compromises to replace Trump with a "moderate" Democrat.  Like Bidnen, if need be.  I hope not to be forced to make that choice. And may not, in fact.

 

Thus far, Biden is still the front runner but he is losing ground to the Progressives.  There are still several rounds of debates and primary elections in the early states.  As the field narrows, it is not unreasonable to suspect that Biden will fade, and fall behind Warren, Harris, Sanders or Buttegieg.  His performance against Harris' attack was feeble.  And his past record as a presidential hopeful is poor.  Although they currently rank low in polling, I'm also impressed by Tulsi Gabbard and Kirsten Gillibrand.  Time is on the side of Progressives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Same here.  I am a progressive who supports Elizabeth Warren.  However, because I care about our Country and its people, I'm prepared to face unpleasant political realities.  So I'm willing to make, even the most objectionable compromises to replace Trump with a "moderate" Democrat.  Like Bidnen, if need be.  I hope not to be forced to make that choice. And may not, in fact.

 

Thus far, Biden is still the front runner but he is losing ground to the Progressives.  There are still several rounds of debates and primary elections in the early states.  As the field narrows, it is not unreasonable to suspect that Biden will fade, and fall behind Warren, Harris, Sanders or Buttegieg.  His performance against Harris' attack was feeble.  And his past record as a presidential hopeful is poor.  Although they currently rank low in polling, I'm also impressed by Tulsi Gabbard and Kirsten Gillibrand.  Time is on the side of Progressives.

Me Three!!!

 

See policy measures all spelled out make a sense these days. That's what Bernie did when he broke away from the do nothing moderates  - actually he wasn't a Democrat until he ran for president. Why you running for president, is there a reason? 

 

Beat Trump, is not the answer I need to hear. 

It's weird, some of the old people know, and many of the young people do as well.

Biden didn't really amount to much, in all the years he served in the Senate - I know, I was around.

I did sit in the back seat, and I voted for Ralph Nader numerous times - well three times.

I love Jimmy Carter, it's easy to look back and see the same old consternation I have with the Democratic party.

They never were progressive enough, but I always did think they could be someday.

At least, I always hoped!

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinion piece that I quoted did not mention Biden. 

 

it did say:

 

Quote

 

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

 

 

 

Warren said she would eliminate private health insurance but Cenk Uygur claims that she says one thing in debates and something else when she talks to donors. 

 

Harris raised her hand when asked if she would eliminate private health insurance but the next day said that she misunderstood the question. 

 

Sanders promises to eliminate private health insurance. 

 

Biden would not eliminate private health insurance.

 

Buttigieg would not eliminate private health insurance. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 12:19 AM, TheOldBarn said:

yes, a lot of lazy people will need to get off their butts and vote. We'll need more people to stand up to the truth. And, we'll need to say, F you Russian Trolls, and F you neo-fascism / been there done that.

I like that as a meme or a hashtag, "F you neo-fascism / been there done that./ Mussolini or something" It would make a great T-Shirt. Pete Buttigieg could sell them for contributions to his campaign. 

"F you neo-fascism / been there done that./ Mussolini or something - Vote for Pete", it would say.

 

 

Peace!

 

A couple of things to watch out for next year are that people are still looking for change, so I worry about the more centrist candidates possibly not being appealing enough on that front, and Biden in particular, as well as that the dirty tricks of 2015-16 are already being repeated to some extent. The propaganda campaign online to smear Democrats is in full swing. Look at the constant crap directed at AOC and Omar right now, for instance. There is going to be plenty more of that to come and it will be directed at the next Democratic presidential nominee also. Trump loves "campaigning" this way and will synergize with all of that again, I expect, and I expect Russian and possibly other foreign interference to be an issue in this as well. They help blast the message out and amplify Trump's campaign, and I'm sure they do a lot to direct and amplify the more grass-roots alt-right disinformation campaign. Social media and fake news were and remain a wide open vector of attack for them against our democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, bludog said:

For me, it would be unconscionable not vote against Trump.  No matter how disappointed one might be.

 

So to put it in a rhyme that anyone can remember:

 

If we don't dump Trump

then we're rootin' for Putin.

Get out the vote and vote blue.

Vote blue no matter who!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 8:53 PM, TheOldBarn said:

I also fear some of Biden's policy promises are rash, and are not well thought out. He is gaming on his moderate status, without explaining just where he is exactly on a number of issues. This should be disconcerting to all Democratic voters.

 

https://prospect.org/article/joe-biden-wants-get-rid-half-obamacare

Concerning "Medicare For All",

there are probably as many variations of employer "provided" insurance,

as there are employers.

And since Obamacare revealed that insurance companies receive about 25% of the money they collect as markup,

and the large number of "self-insured" companies,

there is the chance that many of the employers are pocketing that 25%.

 

Meaning,

the employers won't want to give that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, peter45 said:

Concerning "Medicare For All",

there are probably as many variations of employer "provided" insurance,

as there are employers.

And since Obamacare revealed that insurance companies receive about 25% of the money they collect as markup,

and the large number of "self-insured" companies,

there is the chance that many of the employers are pocketing that 25%.

 

Meaning,

the employers won't want to give that up.

Employers don't pocket their employees' money.  Sorry, but that just doesn't happen.  They would be prosecuted quickly and rightfully so.

 

Whether or not you can see a doctor should never be dependent on whether or not you have a job.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

 

Whether or not you can see a doctor should never be dependent on whether or not you have a job.  

 

And the quality of care that you and your family receive should never be dependent upon the generosity of your employer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RollingRock said:

Employers don't pocket their employees' money.  Sorry, but that just doesn't happen.  They would be prosecuted quickly and rightfully so.

 

Whether or not you can see a doctor should never be dependent on whether or not you have a job.  

Thousands of employers,

thousands of employer provided healthcare plans,

why in the world would you claim to know what each one does?

 

With a "self-insured" plan,

why wouldn't an employer charge 80% of the overhead of the HR department to the administration of the healthcare plan?

Are the employees going to figure it out?

Is the mega-bucks VP of HR,

who has access to the internal department charges,

going to tell the average employee,

and blow the sweet job that he has?

 

Do you understand that if your employer has given you an insurance card with the name of some BIG health insurance company on it,

and you work for a BIG or,

actually,

not that big a company,

there is a high probability that the employer is "self-insured",

and that the insurance company whose name is on the card,

ADMINISTERS the plan,

but that the claims are paid by the employer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olivaw said:

 

And the quality of care that you and your family receive should never be dependent upon the generosity of your employer. 

 

Of course,

the employer will make a REALLY big announcement about raising the lifetime limit of the employees' policies,

if one of the Senior VP's wives begins to approach that limit.

And,

the employees are all supposed to feel warm and fuzzy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 3:54 PM, peter45 said:

Thousands of employers,

thousands of employer provided healthcare plans,

why in the world would you claim to know what each one does?

 

With a "self-insured" plan,

why wouldn't an employer charge 80% of the overhead of the HR department to the administration of the healthcare plan?

Are the employees going to figure it out?

Is the mega-bucks VP of HR,

who has access to the internal department charges,

going to tell the average employee,

and blow the sweet job that he has?

 

Do you understand that if your employer has given you an insurance card with the name of some BIG health insurance company on it,

and you work for a BIG or,

actually,

not that big a company,

there is a high probability that the employer is "self-insured",

and that the insurance company whose name is on the card,

ADMINISTERS the plan,

but that the claims are paid by the employer?

a big part of the cost drivers hospitals have to contend with is dealing with health insurance plans. If it is covered, do it. Do it if they ask for it, do it if they don't. That is, if It's covered. 

I used to help take care of my grandparents when they were in the eighties. This was back in the early 80's. They didn't have a lot of money, they typically didn't take their medications the way they were intended. They also never rinsed out their dishes, instead putting them back in the cupboard with a film of soap. poor eyesight, I suppose. Anyway, I would go into their apartment and rinse all their dishes out reminding them of this. We're used to the taste and it makes the TV dinners taste better, my crumudgenly old gramps would say. And I still fondly remember my grandmother saying, put your dentures back in pa, you're grossing the kid out.

Dentures didn't sit well back then, at least not for my grandfather. Obviously they were very uncomfortable and likely were worse then any embarrassment for him.

I think I learned a lot as a young guy helping to take care of those two.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...