American Politics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2765351]If we're going to have better quality, lower cost care, we need to go to a single payer system. That means no health insurance companies to sue. And how about the ridiculous premiums many doctors and hospitals have to pay for liability insurance? The huge amounts of money that have been sucked out of the pharma companies and the pharmacies by the trial lawyers? Think about Fentanyl for example, which may eventually bankrupt CVS and Walgreens. All that has to go if we're going to implement a rational health care system. [/QUOTE]Amen brother!

Who's arguing? Not me!

Single payer. No private carriers, except maybe for the very rich, but with no access to Medicare funds. And even that needs to be allowed with care.

Severe limitations on awarding damages.

Strict regulation of the liability insurance industry, although with the previous condition established, the market may take care of that.

The law prohibiting pharma and [B]medical supply industry[/B] (don't forget that wasteful monster) charge America more than they do overseas.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2765351]And the Democratic Party isn't going to bite the hands of some of its biggest sugar daddies.[/QUOTE]Some of them maybe.

But they'll have a chance to go to the dark side, across the isle.

Sooner or later we'll get there. Every absurdity ends at some point, even a huge one like our healthcare system.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2765341] it highlights another reason besides smaller government why Americans are more prosperous than Europeans -- the American Work Ethic. Americans work harder and longer.
[/QUOTE]Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order:

Relatively new country, previously unexploited / developed.

A large landmass – can accommodate large population.

2 expansive coastlines – ideal for shipping to several continents.

Temperate climate and fertile land.

Abundant fresh water.

Huge reserves of oil and coal.

Slave trade.

Genocide of indigenous population.

Lack of participation in 2 world wars.

Long way from Europe and therefore too far to bomb.

Lots of small countries nearby to invade and exploit.

Millions of unpeople not recorded in stats.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2765357]Amen brother!

Who's arguing? Not me!

Single payer. No private carriers, except maybe for the very rich, but with no access to Medicare funds. And even that needs to be allowed with care.

Severe limitations on awarding damages.

Strict regulation of the liability insurance industry, although with the previous condition established, the market may take care of that.

The law prohibiting pharma and [B]medical supply industry[/B] (don't forget that wasteful monster) charge America more than they do overseas.

Some of them maybe.

But they'll have a chance to go to the dark side, across the isle.

Sooner or later we'll get there. Every absurdity ends at some point, even a huge one like our healthcare system.[/QUOTE]Damn. We agree, don't we. Except for the part about the dark side. The only flickers of light in our wicked political system came from New Mexico (Gary Johnson) and Michigan (Justin Amash). Republican flickers. But they were quickly snuffed out by the sin and iniquity of evil men.

Now you see Xpartan, I just tried the fire and brimstone, the "flickers of light" thing, and that's the best I can come up with. It's weak. You're gifted though. So the next time I tell you to amp up the sanctimonious outrage don't get all pouty. I'm just trying to help develop your true potential.

If you get elected President I'm expecting payback, maybe something like Secretary of Health and Human Services. That way you'll know I won't stab you in the back, since we're both on the same page on the health care system.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2765372]Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order:

Slave trade.

Genocide of indigenous population.

Lots of small countries nearby to invade and exploit.

[/QUOTE]There's only one JustTK! Interesting post as always, even though I strongly disagree with about half of it.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2765411]There's only one JustTK! Interesting post as always, even though I strongly disagree with about half of it.[/QUOTE]Hehe, got to keep these rabid nationalists on the straight and narrow.

You might not like the list but I am amazed you can disagree with the truth of any of it.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2765417]Hehe, got to keep these rabid nationalists on the straight and narrow.

You might not like the list but I am amazed you can disagree with the truth of any of it.[/QUOTE]Well, just take the three I highlighted. I have no disagreement that these things occurred and were travesties. But to say that they're responsible for USA economic outperformance one hundred years later is a stretch. I'd argue the USA Would be more prosperous if those events had never happened.

The south is WORSE off today because of slavery. I'd attribute higher income per capita in New York and California compared to the south partly to the lingering effects of a slave economy and reconstruction. Or at least it's sure as hell not because they're smarter than we are. I also suspect the North would be a little better off today if the Civil War would never had occurred. And if there had been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War.

Invading and exploiting central American and Caribbean countries was probably either a net drain or not meaningful to the USA economy, just like invading nearby countries is a net drain on Putin's Russia.

As to the genocide of Native Americans, our economy would be larger with the extra population from the descendants of indigenous people. The genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Hutus, and the Ottoman empire hurt their economies as well, big time.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2765340]What is worse in your opinion, being educated and not working to your potential or being uneducated and working to your potential? Whats better for society? In the age of "instant information" is a 200 k college degree really necessary to be truly educated in order to solve the most important problems in society? Are people voting to solve problems or vote for the candidate who makes them feel good in the moment? Are politicians working to solve problems like immigration, societal cohesiveness / equality, affordable healthcare, quality education, inflation, opportunities to achieve happiness? Or are they working to just win an election? Are people voting for the most qualified candidate or the political party the candidate represents no matter how ineffective the individual candidate may be?

I don't think you can solve any of these problems until the extreme forms of tribalism are eliminated from politics. Logical solutions without human bias is what both parties need. Need more than two parties at this point as well. No more picking the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]There are more than two Parties already. Have been for all of our lifetimes. However, the reality is one of the two biggest ones will control the House, the Senate and the White House for the rest of our lives and our great grandchildren's lives. It's a lovely, fanciful thought though.

Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it.

Maybe a third Party candidate will win the WH someday. But he or she won't get anything done or undone. At best, it'll just be an interesting waste of time and energy fluke with an asterisk next to it in the history books.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2765432]There are more than two Parties already. Have been for all of our lifetimes. However, the reality is one of the two biggest ones will control the House, the Senate and the White House for the rest of our lives and our great grandchildren's lives. It's a lovely, fanciful thought though.

Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it.

Maybe a third Party candidate will win the WH someday. But he or she won't get anything done or undone. At best, it'll just be an interesting waste of time and energy fluke with an asterisk next to it in the history books.[/QUOTE]I would be in favor of four. Far right, moderate right, moderate left and far left.

"Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it. " - What exactly do you mean by this?

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2765572]"Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it. " - What exactly do you mean by this?[/QUOTE]Tooms views the world through blue colored lenses. He's the most partisan intelligent person I've come across in real or cyber life. He believes the world will end if Republicans control the country, while Democrats would usher in heaven on earth.

The largest 3rd party, which still receives only a minimal % of the vote, is the Libertarian Party. It drains off more Republican than Democratic votes. Look at Georgia this year. In the governor's race, the Republicans had a decent candidate, Brian Kemp. The Libertarian only got 0.7% of the vote. Herschel Walker is the Republican candidate in the Georgia Senate Race. He's a lousy candidate, maybe the lousiest nominated by either party this year. The only reason he's the nominee is because Trump supported him from the outset of his campaign. Anyway, in that race, the Libertarian, Chase Oliver, got 2.1% of the vote. His campaign spent a grand total of $7,790, compared to the hundreds of millions spent by and on behalf of the other candidates. And through the race, he held down a full time job as an HR executive, and a part time gig with a financial services company. His campaign slogan was "armed and gay."

So basically, Republicans and Republican leaning independents went to the poles and voted for Kemp. But they couldn't quite hold their noses and vote for Walker, so they voted for the Libertarian. This is repeated in elections all the time. This year I voted mostly for Libertarians when I had a choice, because the Republicans on the ballot mostly supported Trump's attempted election fraud. If there had been no Libertarian candidates, I would have voted for more Republicans. But not Trump. We can write in names on the ballot where I live, so I would have picked Amy the Wonder Dog or Gary Johnson instead.

The only third party or independent candidate who undoubtedly made a difference in a US presidential election was Ross Perot, who caused Bill Clinton to win instead of George H. W. Bush.

It's also likely that George W. Bush beat Al Gore on account of Ralph Nader running on the Green Party ticket. So that's one election where the 3rd candidate helped the Republican and another where he helped the Democrat. Sounds fair and balanced to me.

You're not going to see many 3rd party candidates elected Congressmen or Senators. You have to be a Republican or Democrat to win. Gary Johnson was a very popular Republican Governor of a blue state, New Mexico, who won both his elections by 10 points. But when he later ran for Senator as the Libertarian candidate he only won 15.4% of the vote.

So anyway, your idea of more than two parties is great in theory, but, unfortunately, like the plans of Xpartan and me to reform the American healthcare system, unworkable. Third or fourth party candidates will at best be spoilers.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2765669]Tooms views the world through blue colored lenses.

The largest 3rd party, which still receives only a minimal % of the vote, is the Libertarian Party. It drains off more Republican than Democratic votes. Look at Georgia this year. In the governor's race, the Republicans had a decent candidate, Brian Kemp. The Libertarian only got 0.7% of the vote. Herschel Walker is the Republican candidate in the Senate Race. He's a lousy candidate, maybe the lousiest nominated by either party this year. The only reason he's the nominee is because Trump supported him from the outset of his campaign. Anyway, in that race, the Libertarian, Chase Oliver, got 2.1% of the vote. His campaign spent a grand total of $7,790, compared to the hundreds of millions spent by and on behalf of the other candidates. And through the race, he held down a full time job as an HR executive, and a part time gig with a financial services company. His campaign slogan was "armed and gay."

So basically, Republicans and Republican leaning independents went to the poles and voted for Kemp. But they couldn't quite hold their noses and vote for Walker, so they voted for the Libertarian. This is repeated in elections all the time. This year I voted mostly for Libertarians when I had a choice, because the Republicans on the ballot mostly supported Trump's attempted election fraud. If there had been no Libertarian candidates, I would have voted for more Republicans. But not Trump. We can write in names on the ballot where I live, so I would have picked Amy the Wonder Dog or Gary Johnson instead.

The only third party or independent candidate who undoubtedly made a difference in a US presidential election was Ross Perot, who caused Bill Clinton to win instead of George H. W. Bush.

It's also likely that George W. Bush beat Al Gore on account of Ralph Nader running on the Green Party ticket. So that's one election where the 3rd candidate helped the Republican and another where he helped the Democrat. Sounds fair and balanced to me.

You're not going to see many 3rd party candidates elected Congressmen or Senators. You have to be a Republican or Democrat to win. Gary Johnson was a very popular Republican Governor of a blue state, New Mexico, who won both his elections by 10 points. But when he ran for Senator as the Libertarian candidate he only won 15.4% of the vote.

So anyway, your idea of more than two parties is great in theory, but like the plans of Xpartan and me to reform the American healthcare system, unworkable. Third or fourth party candidates will at best be spoilers.[/QUOTE]Duh and the sky is blue Tiny LOL, of course only two parties a have a real chance to win an election. I am not a political scientist and I won't pretend that I have the solution to the problem of American Politics. That being said, I do openly advocate for the possibility to scrap both parties and create a new four party system. In my view, such a system would allow a greater degree of policy and a temporary shift away from the far right and far left which seem to be running both parties.

As I have stated before, it appears politicians are working hardest at winning elections and not actually performing their duties while holding office. A house divided cannot stand and the last few years have shown that. Inflation, immigration crisis, high crime rates, pullout of Iraq, broken healthcare system, War in Ukraine, Closing of pipeline which took 10 years to plan, weekly mass shootings, increase in hate crimes, insurrection, fake scandals, real scandals, etc. You cannot solve these problems until a much higher degree of Unity and Trust is built between parties and the American Public. Unfortunately America's greatest enemy is also its' former ally, itself. My two cents anyway.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2765673]Duh and the sky is blue Tiny LOL, of course only two parties a have a real chance to win an election. I am not a political scientist and I won't pretend that I have the solution to the problem of American Politics. That being said, I do openly advocate for the possibility to scrap both parties and create a new four party system. In my view, such a system would allow a greater degree of policy and a temporary shift away from the far right and far left which seem to be running both parties.

As I have stated before, it appears politicians are working hardest at winning elections and not actually performing their duties while holding office. A house divided cannot stand and the last few years have shown that. Inflation, immigration crisis, high crime rates, pullout of Iraq, broken healthcare system, War in Ukraine, Closing of pipeline which took 10 years to plan, weekly mass shootings, increase in hate crimes, insurrection, fake scandals, real scandals, etc. You cannot solve these problems until a much higher degree of Unity and Trust is built between parties and the American Public. Unfortunately America's greatest enemy is also its' former ally, itself. My two cents anyway.[/QUOTE]All good points. I strongly agree politicians should start doing what's best for the people instead of what's best for themselves or their parties. And the level of partisanship is insane. Republicans didn't used to hate Democrats and vice versa.

Anybody else here strictly partisan in favor of economic boom times, historic jobs creation, rising wages, paying down deficits, producing all of those notable results of the past 100 years and none of the Great Recessions, Massive Jobs Losses or any other "unprecedented" disasters and along the way passing all, not some, of the most effective and now revered legislation in history?

If you are, please cite all of the political parties who made that happen over the past 100 years and be specific how and when. I will gladly vote for whichever one has done it and just as gladly avoid voting for all the rest.

By my research and easily observable reality, only one political party comes close; the Democratic Party. So they get my proudly partisan vote.

Now, the party that has consistently produced the exact opposite of those positive results is the Republican Party.

And it turns out one of those two parties have and will in the foreseeable future control the levers of political power and stewardship for the USA.

No others.

So, what to do, what to do? Such a dilemma.

But not really.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2765673]Duh and the sky is blue Tiny LOL, of course only two parties a have a real chance to win an election. I am not a political scientist and I won't pretend that I have the solution to the problem of American Politics. That being said, I do openly advocate for the possibility to scrap both parties and create a new four party system. In my view, such a system would allow a greater degree of policy and a temporary shift away from the far right and far left which seem to be running both parties.

[b]As I have stated before, it appears politicians are working hardest at winning elections and not actually performing their duties while holding office. A house divided cannot stand and the last few years have shown that. Inflation, immigration crisis, high crime rates, pullout of Iraq, broken healthcare system, War in Ukraine, Closing of pipeline which took 10 years to plan, weekly mass shootings, increase in hate crimes, insurrection, fake scandals, real scandals, etc.[/b] You cannot solve these problems until a much higher degree of Unity and Trust is built between parties and the American Public. Unfortunately America's greatest enemy is also its' former ally, itself. My two cents anyway.[/QUOTE]Which of those factors do you presume were triggered by or exacerbated by Biden and the Dems in "the last few years" while the well-meaning and noble-intentioned Trump and Repubs were trying hard to legislate and steward the ship of country from harms way and into better conditions?

Seriously.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2765432]And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it.
[/QUOTE]It will be a whole national history of them bcos nothing will change that until you wake up and smell the roses.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2765749]Anybody else here strictly partisan in favor of economic boom times, historic jobs creation, rising wages, paying down deficits, producing all of those notable results of the past 100 years and none of the Great Recessions, Massive Jobs Losses or any other "unprecedented" disasters and along the way passing all, not some, of the most effective and now revered legislation in history?

If you are, please cite all of the political parties who made that happen over the past 100 years and be specific how and when. I will gladly vote for whichever one has done it and just as gladly avoid voting for all the rest.

By my research and easily observable reality, only one political party comes close; the Democratic Party. So they get my proudly partisan vote..[/QUOTE]That's the thing about the stupid Repubs. They spew BS and then try to cover it up by saying that all reports of their BS come from "lamestream media" and, therefore, can't be trusted. Mainstream media can't be trusted. Fact check sites can't be trusted. Your own eyes can't be trusted. The only sources that [B]can[/B] be trusted, according to dumber-than-dogshit Repubs, are Donnie the Dumbass, Fucker Carlson, FUX Snooze talking heads, "Q", Alex Jones, etc. Sources that, combined, don't have the IQ of the deuce I dropped this morning!

Dems aren't perfect, but at least they try. Repubs don't try. In fact, their [B]only[/B] legislative policy is to "own the libs". Here's just the tip of the iceberg [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/nov/25/fox-news-crime-coverage-decline-us-midterm-elections[/URL] The Repubs campaigned, among other things, about how bad crime was. Unsurprisingly, once the election was over and they lost "bigly", crime wasn't so much of an issue. I have said before that stupid Repubs would begin investigating every Dem whose name they could spell and they have already indicated as much. They have already indicated that they will use the debt ceiling to extract promises from Dems or shut down the government if they don't get those promises. But I won't bother to post any sources because the dumber-than-dogshit Repubs will trash the sources.

[blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]