2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: boymimboIn Texas, The YouGov poll has Trump 46 Clinton 43. I don't think Clinton can pull off Texas.
I don't think she can win in Texas either. But the fact that she's within spitting distance is a sign that we may be in for a popular vote landslide. Trump is very weak in places where normal Repulbican candidates normally pick up a lot of votes. His margin should be way bigger in a state like Texas. Of course, this means nothing for the electoral college if Hillary still loses Texas, but it will be interesting to see what the popular vote gap ends up being.
Quote: MaxPenA lot of polls mean squat. I've said it before and will say it again. Investors Business Daily, the IBD/TIPP poll results are showing Trump with a 2 point lead 43 to Clintons 41. FYI, this has been the most accurate poll in the last 3 elections.
True, a lot of polls mean squat. Such as Rasmussen and the LA Times. That's why it is best to look at averages, all of which have Hillary up by a wide margin.
I know your gonna come crying "it was rigged!!!" here on election night when they announce Hillary wins around 11 pm EST. I am looking forward to it.
Quote: RigondeauxThere are plenty of politicians and public figures who have legitimate gripes about sexism.
Someone about to become president because she married the right man is not one of them.
You do realize that that statement you just made is extremely sexist, don't you? A woman can't be successful on her own merits. She has to be riding the coattails of a man. (Of course, you're ignoring her last 15+ years of public service, which took place AFTER Bill Clinton left office.)
Quote: ams288True, a lot of polls mean squat. Such as Rasmussen and the LA Times. That's why it is best to look at averages, all of which have Hillary up by a wide margin.
I know your gonna come crying "it was rigged!!!" here on election night when they announce Hillary wins around 11 pm EST. I am looking forward to it.
Rasmussen has Trump up by 3 and I think LA Times has them tied. The problem with responding to some of you people is, you always have to throw an insult in with your posts, whether it be a dig at poster your responding to or insulting the other side of your favored outcome with a bad name. Therefore, if Hillary loses it will most likely be you whining. I will be busy contacting people I have action with to pay them if I lose.
My suggestion for browsing it: Point to the top-left of the chart (the Oct. 13th line, starting at +80), and slowing move your pointer to the right to rollover each demographic group, to view the spectrum from Hillary's strongest to Trump's strongest.
Here are some groups Trump is winning:
+1 - Men
+2 - Age 65+
+3 - Suburban
+5 - Age 40-64
+14 - Whites
+28 - Rural
+29 - White men w/o college degrees
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYou do realize that that statement you just made is extremely sexist, don't you? A woman can't be successful on her own merits. She has to be riding the coattails of a man. (Of course, you're ignoring her last 15+ years of public service, which took place AFTER Bill Clinton left office.)
We'll never know where she could or couldn't have gone without Bill Clinton. You can call it sexist, but she would have had to get known on her own without his political career. On the flip side, he would not have had her helping get there. Once they are that intertwined, neither one of them is doing it alone. Her career certainly would not have followed the path is has had they not been a couple. Nothing sexist about that--it is just the way it is.
Quote: RonCWe'll never know where she could or couldn't have gone without Bill Clinton. You can call it sexist, but she would have had to get known on her own without his political career. .
I call It sexist because it's not the first thing they say about GW Bush.
Quote: MaxPenI think LA Times has them tied.
The LA Times is weighting their results based on how people voted in 2012 which is giving Trump a skewed bias.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Here are some groups Trump is winning:
+1 - Men
+2 - Age 65+
+3 - Suburban
+5 - Age 40-64
+14 - Whites
+28 - Rural
+29 - White men w/o college degrees
Morons +100
Bigots +97
Racists +88
Sexists +77
Mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers +86
Evil people +100
People who think it's fun to kill things +78
The ignorant +70
Fans of "wrestling" +67
Those who spent fourteen years in grade school and finally gave up without graduating +89
People who consume at least one six-pack of Bud per day +98
Quote: JoeshlabotnikMorons +100
Bigots +97
Racists +88
Sexists +77
Mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers +86
Evil people +100
People who think it's fun to kill things +78
The ignorant +70
Fans of "wrestling" +67
Those who spent fourteen years in grade school and finally gave up without graduating +89
People who consume at least one six-pack of Bud per day +98
Revealing...
Quote: JoeshlabotnikMorons +100
Bigots +97
Racists +88
Sexists +77
Mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers +86
Evil people +100
People who think it's fun to kill things +78
The ignorant +70
Fans of "wrestling" +67
Those who spent fourteen years in grade school and finally gave up without graduating +89
People who consume at least one six-pack of Bud per day +98
People are supposed to take you seriously? I really hope you will be able to cope if your girl loses.
To the Mods. How is this tolerable?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell then, Trump has been a well-disguised blessing for the country. Imagine the consequences of a Republican President:
1. The repeal of the ACA, with over ten million people suddenly losing access to health care. Widespread suffering and death.
2. The packing of the Supreme Court with crusty, nasty, white, reactionary old farts. A return to the good old values of 1950 (or earlier). No more of that Civil Rights crap.
3. The repeal of environmental protections. Polluted skies a la China and rivers that catch fire.
4. The death penalty for abortions.
5. Tax policies restructured so that the rich pay nothing.
6. Systematic disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor.
7. Mandatory worship, on pain of execution, of the Man in the Sky.
Possibly the worst aspect of complete Republican control of the government is that they'd make certain that they could never lose that control ever again. They would probably simply outlaw elections and make every Republican in his/her position for life. They'd force the remaining Democrats to resign, or maybe just have them all killed.
We'd be the world's largest banana republic. We could probably do that oppressive one-party tyranny thing SO much better than Russia.
Nonsense. Dubya had control in the 109th Congress in 2005/6 (232 in Congress, 55 in the Sentate) and the world did not come to an end. In fact, none of the seven items came close to happening.
Obama had a short supermajority as well and pandemonium did not happen.
Quote: MaxPenPeople are supposed to take you seriously? I really hope you will be able to cope if your girl loses.
To the Mods. How is this tolerable?
Agreed. You watch 60 Minutes Tonight, and you see reasonably intelligent people making a case for Trump. You can't ignore Hillary's flaws. Clinton clearly does not offer any kind of reasonable hope to the disenfranchised (the white middle class male (plus married females, by the way, at least, still in Ohio).
On the other hand, Trump has sparked an anger, which frankly, is wrongly placed and is very dangerous to the state of the union.
There was very little that globalization and the internet could not have prevented. NAFTA was not the worst trade deal ever signed, and manufacturing has gone the way of cheap labor due to cheap oil (shipping), computers and automation (robotics, inventory management), and China's unforeseen phenomenal rapid growth which in a short period turned a country known for communism and small "a" agriculture into a cheap manufacturing powerhouse. This revolution allowed goods to be made cheaply overseas and delivered on time to all types of markets that needed that. That in turn kept prices low, stagnated wages, and destroyed manufacturing. What US laws or trade agreements that were responsible for this, and what president/congress could have done anything about it is difficult to determine. But automation could not be stopped. You can't tell a corporation not to use a robot.
Quote: boymimboNonsense. Dubya had control in the 109th Congress in 2005/6 (232 in Congress, 55 in the Sentate) and the world did not come to an end. In fact, none of the seven items came close to happening.
Obama had a short supermajority as well and pandemonium did not happen.
Actually:
1. The ACA did not exist then, and under Republican control, no health care plan was even being contemplated. So you had a situation then that a Republican-dominated government now would return to--it's been one of their most oft-repeated sworn goals, after all.
2. Dubya didn't have a Supreme Court vacancy and three other judges in their late 70s and 80s. I'm sure he would have packed the court if given the opportunity.
3. Many environmental protections were gutted by the 109th and 110th Congress.
4. Abortion bans didn't get much traction, true.
5. Many Republican-friendly tax "reforms" were passed.
6. Lots of gerrymandering.
7. The usual "religious freedom" nonsense.
The situation then was that Dubya was deeply unpopular because of the wars and was essentially a lame-duck president. The situation would be different today if a Republican candidate were elected, with four and possibly eight years in front of him to Make America the Fourth Reich.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe situation would be different today if a Republican candidate were elected, with four and possibly eight years in front of him to Make America the Fourth Reich.
We can only hope.
Quote: RonCWe'll never know where she could or couldn't have gone without Bill Clinton. You can call it sexist, but she would have had to get known on her own without his political career. On the flip side, he would not have had her helping get there. Once they are that intertwined, neither one of them is doing it alone. Her career certainly would not have followed the path is has had they not been a couple. Nothing sexist about that--it is just the way it is.
Yeah. Bill is universally regarded as one of the most gifted politicians to ever live.
Hillary is the second most unpopular person to ever be a nominee, behind only Trump, luckily enough.
I'm sure if they had never met, they would both have taken independent paths to the presidency. A parlay of two million to one shots. If you don't believe that, you must be a sexist, according to mindless regurgitators of talking points (not you, Ron).
Plenty of women have achieved political success on their own here and around the world. Feinstein, Boxer, Thatcher, Rousseff, etc. etc. It's a very long list, but Hillary ain't on it. Hillary is a victim of unfair treatment for being a woman like W. is a victim of nepotism.
If Todd Palin ever holds office, it will be on Sarah's coattails as well, though I don't think it works that way very often.
25 years is about right for it to be largely unremarkable, though it will still be less common for various reasons.
Obviously, any political figure will be attacked by opponents, and some will use anything. Any minority will get at least some prejudice. Any overweight person will hear about it. A short man will hear about it. An older person will hear about it. etc. etc.
Even as a man, you're going to get "arrogant," "bully" and some other stuff more than a woman would. If someone makes fun of your looks (or praises them), nobody is gonna cry foul.
I think those, like Hillary many supporters, who believe that women they support should be EXEMPT from criticism, ridicule and even hatred because of their gender do women a disservice. Was pretty crazy in the primaries, when people who would preferred Warren or Stein (or Palin, for that matter) were labeled misogynists.
Quote: rxwineI call It sexist because it's not the first thing they say about GW Bush.
I don't know who "they" is--but Bush certainly does get a lot said about his daddy being President. It is among the first things said. Someone saying "I don't like her" is not sexist...it just identifies the person that they do not like.
Again, sexism and racism (along with other -isms and -phobias) do exist. To claim they are responsible for every negative reaction to a certain person is ridiculous. Were people against Clarence Thomas because of his race or his positions originally? Of course...it was his positions for the most part, not his race. Yet even here, some of the self-claimed brilliant folks among us claim every negative thing ever said about President Obama is...wait...not his position, it is his race. There is a double standard in the application of labels and there is also the application of labels when they don't apply. Many folks fail to see it.
Hillary, like Bush, got to the point we are at (the Presidency) on the coattails of another AND with some hard work on their part. Without both things, we wouldn't be talking about her at all most likely. Perhaps both would have taken different paths to the White House. More likely, neither would have ever gotten to the Oval Office.
Quote: realDonaldTrumpMajor story that the Dems are making up phony polls in order to suppress the the Trump . We are going to WIN!
Phony polls!
Suppress the the Trump!!! (????)
Well, I wouldn't put it past them. After all, the Dems made up a phony GOP candidate in order to suppress the GOP...Quote: ams288Actual tweet:
Phony polls!
Suppress the the Trump!!! (????)
Quote: RonCWe'll never know where she could or couldn't have gone without Bill Clinton. You can call it sexist, but she would have had to get known on her own without his political career. On the flip side, he would not have had her helping get there. Once they are that intertwined, neither one of them is doing it alone. Her career certainly would not have followed the path is has had they not been a couple.
A political Parrondo's paradox.
Quote: ams288Actual tweet:
Phony polls!
Suppress the the Trump!!! (????)
You know, when you've just eaten something that doesn't agree with you, you suppress the Trump until you can leave the table and dash to the bathroom.
She said it would be the dynamic spouse of a charismatic young Governor of a small state. She concluded that the woman would rise to national fame as the wife of the Governor of Montana, probably run unsuccessfully as VP and four years later win the election.
I believe this was before she met Bill.
Of course, as she wrote of this in her autobiography, I'm sure half of the people will discount it.
Quote: RonCI don't know who "they" is--but Bush certainly does get a lot said about his daddy being President. It is among the first things said. Someone saying "I don't like her" is not sexist...it just identifies the person that they do not like.
Again, sexism and racism (along with other -isms and -phobias) do exist. To claim they are responsible for every negative reaction to a certain person is ridiculous. Were people against Clarence Thomas because of his race or his positions originally? Of course...it was his positions for the most part, not his race. Yet even here, some of the self-claimed brilliant folks among us claim every negative thing ever said about President Obama is...wait...not his position, it is his race. There is a double standard in the application of labels and there is also the application of labels when they don't apply. Many folks fail to see it.
Hillary, like Bush, got to the point we are at (the Presidency) on the coattails of another AND with some hard work on their part. Without both things, we wouldn't be talking about her at all most likely. Perhaps both would have taken different paths to the White House. More likely, neither would have ever gotten to the Oval Office.
It's not that false dichotomy, though. It's not a case of rampant sexism on the one hand or total indifference to a person's gender on the other. The dislike aimed at Hillary is PARTLY due to her gender. To what degree that is depends on the individual. In between the redneck knuckle-dragger who never wants to see wimmenfolk in any position of power and the enlightened individual who evaluates a candidate ONLY on his/her merits, we have most of the populace, all of whom react differently to men and women in positions of authority (or in general).
I have been truly puzzled at why Hillary is only slightly less unpopular than Donald. That shouldn't even be close--one is a politician whose views many don't agree with, while the other is a horrible human being who is manifestly unfit for office. So I have to hypothesize--what is it that makes people hate Hillary so much? And in lieu of actually finding that out, we get partisanship, limp assertions that she sent emails (horrors!), and vague declarations like "I just don't trust her." I have heard enough talk about her, just in the last few months, to make me pretty sure that there is latent sexism in the way people view her. The most salient aspect of that is that some of her qualities that people criticize her for would actually be viewed as positives if they were exhibited by a man--for example, having had a long and successful career, being financially savvy, being a politician, being a lawyer, being assertive, etc. And of course, the issue of Bill having cheated on her twenty years ago wouldn't even be a blip on the radar if the genders were reversed.
Of course, not every negative thing said about Hillary is due to her gender--I never said that. Similarly, not every negative thing said about Obama is due to his race (Martian--I read it in a conservative blog). But sexism and racism DO color our perceptions of them, even if we consider ourselves enlightened individuals. Furthermore, even if we ARE free of such biases, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many others who are still subject to them. Trump wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if a substantial portion of this nation wasn't still sexist/racist/generally a-holes.
Quote: billryanHillary's freshman year, she wrote a paper on how America would elect it's first female President.
She said it would be the dynamic spouse of a charismatic young Governor of a small state. She concluded that the woman would rise to national fame as the wife of the Governor of Montana, probably run unsuccessfully as VP and four years later win the election.
I believe this was before she met Bill.
Of course, as she wrote of this in her autobiography, I'm sure half of the people will discount it.
Well, that just shows that she and Bill mapped out their evil plans for world domination as soon as they met back in college. Like twin James Bond villains, they are now poised to destroy the earth--their nefarious scheme is almost complete! What a conniving, uppity bitch! And I hate her pantsuits!
Gonna make for a lot of upset Trumpsters come election night.
Just like in 2012. "The polls are wrong!" Oh wait, no they're not. *on air FOX News meltdown*
Quote: ams288*on air FOX News meltdown*
That was classic TV though!!
This wasn't true as of a few weeks ago, but we're now at the point that a Trump victory would be the largest statistical polling miss in history. There are polls showing Hillary at +12, polls showing Trump at +2, but there are none showing Trump at +12. Even the LATimes/USC poll, which uses a different methodology than others and had Trump ahead most of the past month, has now moved Clinton into the lead. If Trump wins, it will represent a failure of all of those different models and polling methodologies, not just a few of them.Quote: ams288Trump is really going all in on the whole "the polls are rigged, we're really winning!" nonsense.
Gonna make for a lot of upset Trumpsters come election night.
Just like in 2012. "The polls are wrong!" Oh wait, no they're not. *on air FOX News meltdown*
Quote: MathExtremistThis wasn't true as of a few weeks ago, but we're now at the point that a Trump victory would be the largest statistical polling miss in history. There are polls showing Hillary at +12, polls showing Trump at +2, but there are none showing Trump at +12. Even the LATimes/USC poll, which uses a different methodology than others and had Trump ahead most of the past month, has now moved Clinton into the lead. If Trump wins, it will represent a failure of all of those different models and polling methodologies, not just a few of them.
Math is a quaint leftover of a different era. Just another useless thing the elites try to impose on real Americans.
Hah, I thought you were talking about me for a moment rather than "math" the academic discipline.Quote: billryanQuote: MathExtremistThis wasn't true as of a few weeks ago, but we're now at the point that a Trump victory would be the largest statistical polling miss in history. There are polls showing Hillary at +12, polls showing Trump at +2, but there are none showing Trump at +12. Even the LATimes/USC poll, which uses a different methodology than others and had Trump ahead most of the past month, has now moved Clinton into the lead. If Trump wins, it will represent a failure of all of those different models and polling methodologies, not just a few of them.
Math is a quaint leftover of a different era. Just another useless thing the elites try to impose on real Americans.
It's too easy to take advantage of someone in a capitalist economy when there is a strong imbalance in quantitative reasoning abilities between parties to a transaction. I don't mean to suggest that everyone needs to learn trig or calculus, but the ability to reason properly about numbers is a strong indicator of the ability to make and keep money. As the idiom goes, "a fool and his money are soon parted."
Someone who doesn't understand numbers is more likely to fall for poorly-quantified nonsense. That's why so many "elites" dismissed many of Trump's policy proposals out of hand: they can't possibly work from a financial standpoint. But that point flew right past many of Trump's supporters who don't care about (or can't intuitively reason about) the math. The very first thing Trump proposed was getting Mexico to pay for the border wall, and the cost of building that wall is estimated at $25B. That's about one full month of their budget -- in the US, that's roughly the same amount as goes to education and science. So, uh, that's a lot of money, and it's a laughably absurd suggestion to think Mexico would spend that much on a wall. But if you're not paying attention to the actual numbers, you won't know that.
Innumeracy is a threat to our republic.
It was Monday afternoon 3pm.
Quite impressed with turn out.
Parking lot was about 80% full
a small 2 min line with 6 check-in Id stations
So they were at capacity on a Mon afternoon at a time when most are working
Most years I vote for who I want to be President (A lot of cycles 3rd party candidates)
First time ever I voted because I don't want a certain person (Trump) to be President.
Certain GOP members of congress who are up for election are threatening to sue their Democratic rivals for running TV ads linking them to Donald Trump. An ad such as this one is being characterized as "false and defamatory" :
In another instance, GOP candidate Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania wrote a C&D letter saying that the allegation he supports Trump "threatens substantial and immediate harm to the campaign and to Mr. Fitzpatrick's personal reputation."
http://dccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/FitzpatrickLetter.pdf
In other words, being called a Trump supporter is "defamatory" and "threatens immediate harm" to other GOP candidates. Think about that.
If it was said that Trump supported Obama, do you think that'd "threaten substantial and immediate harm" to Trump's campaign? Therefore, supporting Obama is "defamatory".......do you see how ridiculous your assertion is?
Quote: MathExtremistThis wasn't true as of a few weeks ago, but we're now at the point that a Trump victory would be the largest statistical polling miss in history. There are polls showing Hillary at +12, polls showing Trump at +2, but there are none showing Trump at +12. Even the LATimes/USC poll, which uses a different methodology than others and had Trump ahead most of the past month, has now moved Clinton into the lead. If Trump wins, it will represent a failure of all of those different models and polling methodologies, not just a few of them.
I like the fact that the few far-right "polls" out there show Trump in the lead, but by maybe +2 or +3. That's pretty much equivalent to an actual poll showing Hillary +12. Or to put it another way, any wingnut poll showing Trump leading by less than +27 (i remember seeing one poll LAST MONTH that said that) is an effective harbinger of his doom.
Quote: MathExtremist
Innumeracy is a threat to our republic.
I'd put it differently. Many people simply don't CARE TO understand math, and never will. The example comes to mind of a Red Dog table in Vegas where people were happily doubling their bets when the spread was, for instance, 4-J, despite the fact that there were 6 ways to win the bet and 7 ways to lose it!! A second-grader could have understood it.
So I think it's more willful ignorance than anything else. But you know what? You can acknowledge that you don't want to "do the math." There are so many instances in daily life where you really don't want or need to figure out how everything works. I don't need to know how my car or TV works (though I do). I trust my doctor to know what he's talking about. I assume that the people who built this freeway didn't have it lead off the edge of a cliff. Et cetera.
So the key is, if you don't want to figure it out, trust those who have figured it out for you. If somebody tells you it's a bad idea to borrow money at 25% APR, believe them. If somebody says that adding $5 trillion to the deficit suggests that a tax plan may be a bad idea, take their word for it. Figure that the pilot does, in fact, know how to fly the plane and that the plumber knows what he's doing.
Of course, you or I might want or be inclined to figure all this stuff out. But my advice is for the great unwashed masses.
Quote: joeshlabotnikOf course, you or I might want or be inclined to figure all this stuff out. But my advice is for the great unwashed masses.
What?
Your advise is basically "Believe what people tell you." Isn't that a definition of unwashed masses? I think much better advice would be: "Figure if out yourself", assuming we're talking about politics.....don't just believe everything you hear. (I'm not saying to disbelieve everything, either.)
Quote: RSDid/does he support Trump?
If it was said that Trump supported Obama, do you think that'd "threaten substantial and immediate harm" to Trump's campaign? Therefore, supporting Obama is "defamatory".......do you see how ridiculous your assertion is?
I think you're misinterpreting what ME is saying. It seems to me that he was commenting on the irony of a Republican candidate calling the assertion that he supports his party's nominee for President "defamatory."
Of course, saying that someone is a Trumper IS defamatory--the real question is whether it's true. I think that some of the Democrats' ads may be taking Republicans to task for simply not denouncing Trump. But doubtless, there are some Republicans--now running for office--that expressed support for him, lukewarm or enthusiastically. They made a bet, and they lost.
There are also those who have waited with clenched teeth, hoping that they wouldn't be called out one way or the other. It was just as likely at one point that they would be barbecued by their own party for not supporting the OO as they would be torched by everyone else for supporting him. Of course, if a Republican candidate simply took an ethical stand, then opposing Trump would be a given, and a no-brainer. But since when do ethics and Republican politics intersect? Oh wait, yeah, when McCain refused to bad-mouth Obama in 2008. Of course, he recently pitched his ethics overboard.
Democrats will have a field day putting "the question" to all Republican candidates. They really have no good answer. This dude's indignation is pretty funny, though.
Quote: RSQuote: joeshlabotnikOf course, you or I might want or be inclined to figure all this stuff out. But my advice is for the great unwashed masses.
What?
Your advise is basically "Believe what people tell you." Isn't that a definition of unwashed masses? I think much better advice would be: "Figure if out yourself", assuming we're talking about politics.....don't just believe everything you hear. (I'm not saying to disbelieve everything, either.)
You misunderstand. If you lack the ability or the inclination to figure it out, then trust the people who have figured it out. Don't just say that the experts are wrong if you can't understand what they're saying in the first place. And don't deny reality just because of your personal beliefs.
How many Trumpers do you think have fact-checked any of Trump's assertions about taxes, the economy, etc.? If they lack the tools or the ability to check what he's saying, then they should listen to the people who have. I prefer not to be ignorant, but my advice to the people who are or wish to be ignorant is that they should acknowledge their ignorance. Don't knock on the door of the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying the plane incorrectly. That's all I meant.
I'll vote early, but I am waiting to let the crowds thin out a bit.
I am looking over all the down ticket races in depth again this week based on the sample ballot.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell then, Trump has been a well-disguised blessing for the country. Imagine the consequences of a Republican President:
1. The repeal of the ACA, with over ten million people suddenly losing access to health care. Widespread suffering and death.
Was there widespread suffering and death before the ACA? As someone who actually takes care of hundreds of patients a year who do not have health insurance, the lack of health insurance does not equal widespread suffering and death. It just means that the costs are shifted away from the federal government to the local level. People who come into my hospitals clinics offices or emergency room's couldn't give a damn on whether they get a bill or not, because they are not going to pay that bill anyway! But they receive medical care!
What about someone who needs frequent care for a degenerative disease like cancer or diabetes? Do they get the same level of care without insurance that they'd get with?Quote: SOOPOOWas there widespread suffering and death before the ACA? As someone who actually takes care of hundreds of patients a year who do not have health insurance, the lack of health insurance does not equal widespread suffering and death. It just means that the costs are shifted away from the federal government to the local level. People who come into my hospitals clinics offices or emergency room's couldn't give a damn on whether they get a bill or not, because they are not going to pay that bill anyway! But they receive medical care!
Quote: SOOPOOWas there widespread suffering and death before the ACA? As someone who actually takes care of hundreds of patients a year who do not have health insurance, the lack of health insurance does not equal widespread suffering and death. It just means that the costs are shifted away from the federal government to the local level. People who come into my hospitals clinics offices or emergency room's couldn't give a damn on whether they get a bill or not, because they are not going to pay that bill anyway! But they receive medical care!
Yes!!!! Absolutely! Just because it was largely invisible doesn't mean it wasn't happening. You seem to think that people who aren't insured nonetheless have the ability to saunter into a doctor's office or emergency room and get treated right away. Well, that just isn't the case. A LOT of the working poor, for instance, don't have the time to wait for hours at the only low-cost (or free) health clinic in town. Also, people who lack insurance might not seek out preventative care, or get "minor" problems taken care of that expand into major ones later.
You see, you don't have anybody's cause of death recorded as "lack of insurance." But if they couldn't afford regular visits to a doctor to manage their high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. etc. etc., what is the real cause of death? if all they needed was the proper medications but couldn't get them because the medications themselves were too expensive and/or the doctor visits required were too expensive? What really killed them?
Furthermore, how many uninsured people get sick or injured and then just "tough it out" because they don't have the time or money to see a doctor? Sure, they get better eventually (usually). But in the meantime, they're miserable. Recovering from a sinus infection or a twisted ankle can take a week or more. But the poor and uninsured can't afford to shell out $200 for a doctor visit plus some antibiotics or pain medication. So they suffer--and that's invisible.
You may take care of hundreds of patients who are uninsured (and I applaud that), but there are thousands more that you never see. It's a conservative/Republican myth that the poor don't really need universal health care, because you can just walk into a clinic and get treated for free anyway. The reality is a bit more sanguine than that.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhat about someone who needs frequent care for a degenerative disease like cancer or diabetes? Do they get the same level of care without insurance that they'd get with?
Not even close. As a self-employed diabetic who couldn't even dream of health insurance before Obamacare, I can attest that I basically had to self-manage my condition and my health deteriorated as a result. I take Metformin, which is generic and cheap enough, but I couldn't afford repeated doctor visits when I was uninsured.
I really hate this idea that "there's lots of free medical care everywhere, including when the poor just walk into an emergency room and get treated for nothing." ALL the free facilities are grossly overburdened. An emergency room will patch you back up to the point where you're (temporarily) ambulatory and then politely show you the door. What the uninsured actually receive could only be called "medical care" in someplace like Zimbabwe.
People here are quoting 538, which was clearly highlighted as Clinton friendly in numerous Wikileaks. Our own intelligence is a main supplier of leaks. Yet the DNC wants to blame Russia.
I'm beginning to think the end results may be closer to our very own poll above.
Quote: MaxPen65% of the population believes Hillary committed crimes. 53% of the population believes the FBI should have indicted her. 20% percent of Democrats are Trumpocrats. Podesta emails from Wikileaks shows the DNC plan for poll bias achievement. Republican primaries had record voter turnout. Early voting at the booths is log jammed with higher than usual turnout. Trump fills stadiums. Hillary can't fill a high school gymnasium. The 2 highest ranked polls in America have Trump in the lead. The Clinton Foundation is transferring mucho bucks to Qatar (which is a place without extradition).
People here are quoting 538, which was clearly highlighted as Clinton friendly in numerous Wikileaks. Our own intelligence is a main supplier of leaks. Yet the DNC wants to blame Russia.
I'm beginning to think the end results may be closer to our very own poll above.
I count fourteen chunks of BS in just a very few words in your post. Gotta hand it to you. Please tell us how you feel about the invading space aliens.
It's not my assertion: I was quoting from the cease-and-desist letter written by a GOP candidate. That's the point. Down ballot GOP candidates are claiming that being associated with their party's presidential candidate is defamatory. That's an amazing and unprecedented turn of events.Quote: RSDid/does he support Trump?
If it was said that Trump supported Obama, do you think that'd "threaten substantial and immediate harm" to Trump's campaign? Therefore, supporting Obama is "defamatory".......do you see how ridiculous your assertion is?
Quote: MaxPen65% of the population believes Hillary committed crimes. 53% of the population believes the FBI should have indicted her. 20% percent of Democrats are Trumpocrats. Podesta emails from Wikileaks shows the DNC plan for poll bias achievement. Republican primaries had record voter turnout. Early voting at the booths is log jammed with higher than usual turnout. Trump fills stadiums. Hillary can't fill a high school gymnasium. The 2 highest ranked polls in America have Trump in the lead. The Clinton Foundation is transferring mucho bucks to Qatar (which is a place without extradition).
People here are quoting 538, which was clearly highlighted as Clinton friendly in numerous Wikileaks. Our own intelligence is a main supplier of leaks. Yet the DNC wants to blame Russia.
I'm beginning to think the end results may be closer to our very own poll above.
So.... much..... B.S.
Quote:Podesta emails from Wikileaks shows the DNC plan for poll bias achievement.
Source? Which 2016 polls is this referring to?
Quote:The 2 highest ranked polls in America have Trump in the lead.
Huh? Highest ranked by who? Please tell me you're not referring to Rasmussen or the LA Times poll... I will pity you even more than I already do.
Quote:People here are quoting 538, which was clearly highlighted as Clinton friendly in numerous Wikileaks.
Source? What do you mean by "Clinton friendly?" Does pointing out she has a massive lead in most national polls and will likely win the Presidency qualify as "Clinton friendly" in your mind?
Quote:Our own intelligence is a main supplier of leaks.
Source? Are you saying our own intelligence is responsible for the Podesta hack?
