Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2nd Edit: Why is "bastards" not blocked by the profanity filter? Is that an acceptable word for Dakka, or am I gonna get one of those "Don't bypass the profanity filter!" warnings?
Its probably because bastard can also refer to a sword (non profane) or illegitimate offspring (again, not profane. Its a perfectly acceptable term)
Bastard has more uses other than insulting people.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
wuestenfux wrote: He refused to congrat Trump for his win. And these guys want to be statesmen.
I would rather have statesmen that ignore the proper rules and decorum in favour of expressing any backbone at all than ones that slavishly follow them out of cowardice.
2nd Edit: Why is "bastards" not blocked by the profanity filter? Is that an acceptable word for Dakka, or am I gonna get one of those "Don't bypass the profanity filter!" warnings?
Its probably because bastard can also refer to a sword (non profane) or illegitimate offspring (again, not profane. Its a perfectly acceptable term)
Bastard has more uses other than insulting people.
Indeed, one could even make the argument that to consider "bastard" merely an insult would be to bastardise the word!
...I'll show myself out.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
In June, Warren donated $100,000 to the Trump Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for Trump's campaign, and a further $3,000 directly to the Trump campaign. For his part, Trump's campaign financial disclosure forms revealed the President-elect's investments totaling between $500,000 and $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners, suggesting a possible vested financial interest in the completion of the pipeline. The Guardian first reported on the two men's financial ties last month.
full article below
Spoiler:
The incoming Donald Trump administration will ensure the completion of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, the pipeline company's CEO told NBC News in an interview Friday.
"I'm 100 percent sure that the pipeline will be approved by a Trump administration," CEO Kelcy Warren of Energy Transfer Partners — the Dallas-based company funding the $3.7 billion project — told NBC News. "I believe we will have a government in place that believes in energy infrastructure."
Warren said he had not spoken to the President-elect to understand his position on the pipeline, which has galvanized opposition globally for months, and Warren denied any prior contact with the Trump campaign.
In June, Warren donated $100,000 to the Trump Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for Trump's campaign, and a further $3,000 directly to the Trump campaign. For his part, Trump's campaign financial disclosure forms revealed the President-elect's investments totaling between $500,000 and $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners, suggesting a possible vested financial interest in the completion of the pipeline. The Guardian first reported on the two men's financial ties last month.
Related: What's Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests?
Throughout his campaign, Trump railed against what he called "special interests" in Washington. His message was clear: Industry lobbyists and corporate executives yield an outsized influence on shaping policy in Washington and he was going to "drain the swamp" of this quid-pro-quo corruption.
Warren, whose personal net worth Forbes estimates to be $3.9 billion, said he did not categorize his donations as akin to special interests.
"I don't even know even how much I gave to the [Trump] campaign," said Warren. "I give to Republicans and Democrats."
A Fossil-Fuel Energy Policy
President-elect Trump has pledged to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, has called climate change "a hoax," and wants to take apart President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan that would cut carbon emissions from the nation's more than 7,500 power plants.
On his campaign website, Trump's energy plan promises to "unleash America's $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves." That is welcome news for the country's fossil fuels industry, which universally applauded Trump's stunning electoral victory this week.
Western Energy Alliance, which represents more than 300 oil and gas companies in the western United States, said in a statement that it was "overjoyed" by Trump's victory and anticipates progress on projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
As he affirmed in his victory speech, President-elect Trump says his government will invest in extensive infrastructure projects in his quest to "make America great again." While Trump's campaign press secretary, Hope Hicks, did not respond to a request for specific environmental policy details, candidate Trump supported the Keystone XL oil pipeline on the campaign trail. He has never publicly commented on the Dakota Access Pipeline.
"Donald Trump's election is very worrisome for addressing climate change and improving air and water quality," Corinne Le Quéré, a climate expert and professor at the University of East Anglia in the UK, told NBC News. "The statements he made so far suggest he intends to shut down institutions and reverse plans to reduce pollution."
However, Le Quéré said Trump's business acumen could potentially be a game changer for addressing the issue.
"We urgently need businesses to provide options to produce energy without the carbon pollution on a large scale," said Le Quéré. "I would like Donald Trump to see the incredible opportunities that exist for U.S. businesses."
Standing Rock Protesters Wary of Trump
Warren, who has remained publicly silent on the pipeline for months as protests forced a halt in the pipeline's construction, labeled most of the protesters at Standing Rock as "violent mobs."
He repeatedly praised the work of local law enforcement, despite reports of police brutality, unlawful arrests and mistreatment in jail. "It's unbelievable how they've conducted themselves," said Warren.
Ojibwe tribal member Tara Houska has camped out at Standing Rock since August. She watched the election results come in just down the road from the Oceti Sakowin camp where those protesting the pipeline — who call themselves water protectors — have gathered since August.
"We got more and more upset as we watched what was happening. It was really, really hard to watch," said Houska, who is also the National Campaign Director of Honor the Earth and was a Native American adviser to the Bernie Sanders campaign.
"This project was rerouted from Bismarck [North Dakota] due to concerns over drinking water and put one-half mile from the reservation. That is environmental racism on its face," Houska said.
Houska said she, along with others at the camp, had hoped that with Hillary Clinton as president there would be a possibility that the executive branch would step in to re-route or block the pipeline.
She described the mood of the camp as "low" since Donald Trump was named the President-elect, adding, "it was a moment where I was very, very afraid for our people."
For Houska, it's not just Trump's support for oil pipelines that makes her afraid. She pointed to casino mogul Trump's previous clashes with Native Americans, including in the early 1990s when Trump testified in a hearing on Indian gaming on Capitol Hill.
"He painted Native people as drug users associated with the mob and criminal activity," said Houska. In his testimony, Trump said of the Mashantucket Pequots "they don't look like Indians to me," according to video posted by the Washington Post, and he spent more than $1 million for a campaign depicting the Mohawk tribe as users of cocaine and other illicit drugs.
"We have a very difficult path ahead," Houska said.
"I want to know where he is at in terms of upholding treaty rights. Is he truly going to do what the United States has agreed to do — which is fulfill their end of the bargain when it comes to indigenous people?" Houska said, referring to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 which gave eight tribes the land in question for the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Film director Josh Fox camped out at Standing Rock for a week, reporting on protests and clashes with police.
"Things are going to get much, much harder, and the thing I'm most terrified of now, informed by my experience at Standing Rock — is now you have a president who encourages violence at his rallies. He's encouraged racism," said Fox, referring to incidents in which then-candidate Trump told crowds he longed for the days when protesters were "carried out in a stretcher."
Fox and his fellow "water protectors" are hoping for help from the current administration before time runs out.
"What I'm hoping is that the Army Corps of Engineers stops the pipeline. I hope Obama will come out with an executive order," said Fox, noting that Dakota Access Pipeline protests are planned around the country for Nov. 15.
The Obama administration this week denied a report that suggested a decision was coming soon, and said no decision has been made.
Tribe Hopes for Resolution
In a statement, Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II said that Warren's remarks reflected the mindset of a "Dallas-based billionaire" unconcerned with the well being of his tribe.
"Energy Transfer Partners' assertion that there are no sacred sites affected is another example of how they ignore our voice and fail to listen to our serious concerns," Archambault said in the statement. "Once again, a Dallas-based billionaire and the state of North Dakota's archeologists continue to render our voice meaningless regarding our own understanding of our traditions, spirituality and culture."
Warren said the tribe's worries that the pipeline would destroy its sacred sites and compromise its water supply "were not based on the facts."
While he admitted that he could not assure the tribe that an oil spill could not potentially occur, he said the pipelines were prepared to withstand such an event. Warren said the pipeline would cross 90-115 feet below Lake Oahe, a large Missouri River reservoir, with double walled and remote-controlled shutoff valves on each side of the crossing.
Though Warren remained bullish on the pipeline's completion, the ultimate decision on the project's fate lies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For weeks, the Corps has been conducting a federal environmental review of the land in question. It is not clear when the agency is expected to issue the review but both the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Energy Transfer Partners believe its release is imminent.
In the event of the Corps denying Energy Transfer Partners the permit to cross Lake Oahe, Archambault has called for a re-route of the pipeline.
"We are hopeful that a meaningful consultation process will take our concerns seriously and result in a re-route so we can protect our ancestral homelands," said Archambault.
It remains to be seen whether a President-elect Trump would share that sentiment.
The donation part is no different -- as far as one can see -- than any donation to any politician.
I'd be somewhat amazed if he/they hadn't also donated to Clinton too ...
... probably not Stein but that's a whole other conversation
But if he does indeed have financial ties relating to the project then one doesn't see this as looking as something he could rule on impartially.
I think it was Mr Whembley who raised the issue before, but is anything going to be done with regards to his buildings/similar around the world ?
Presumably -- and let's discount/ignore stupid petty vandalism and the like -- they could well be something of a risk or a way to strike at the USA/Presidency.
I believe the family home/equivalent of POTUS -- gets a fairly serious security overhaul -- sensibly enough .
Trump lives in NYC....... AFAIK ........ so is that going to be easier or harder to try and secure effectively ?
One would assume it's much easier to guard and watch a ranch in Texas than an apartment in a NYC tower block ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: As a Brit, I do find it remarkable that almost a week later, you're still counting votes and still don't have a final count.
Mail-in ballots are most of it. Ballots from oversea military stations like we have in Okinawa, Germany, and deployments in Afganistan/Iraq take a while to get back to the mainland. As long as the postmark is the day of the election or earlier, they have to be counted.
I've always thought Trump was smarter than he let on, to be honest. I think I said somewhere in the last 300 pages that it was a kind of scary smart.
Things like back in the primaries when the KKK first described their interest in endorsing him, his response was so carefully worded that both ends of the spectrum could go away with being able to make themselves thing he said the right words without actually refusing the endorsement.
It may end up being that so many people felt he was a terrible immoral person, that perhaps it's actually more amoral...
Compel wrote: I've always thought Trump was smarter than he let on, to be honest. I think I said somewhere in the last 300 pages that it was a kind of scary smart.
Things like back in the primaries when the KKK first described their interest in endorsing him, his response was so carefully worded that both ends of the spectrum could go away with being able to make themselves thing he said the right words without actually refusing the endorsement.
It may end up being that so many people felt he was a terrible immoral person, that perhaps it's actually more amoral...
His response was not "carefully worded," it was the same bullgak he gave when people said he's also met with Putin before - "Who's this David Duke? I've never heard of him. I've never met him. I can't say anything because I don't know him," which was a blatant lie.
We can't start deluding ourselves into thinking Trump is some kind of master manipulator. This is still the same guy that was easily baited and lost his temper during the debates. This is still the same guy who read transcript directions out loud during a rally. This is still the same guy whose aides said couldn't make it through meetings because he got bored, and got angry when things weren't explained simply. This is still the same guy who had his Twitter account taken away a week before the election so the public couldn't be reminded in real time how horrible he is, and who doesn't even write his own Tweets but, by his own admission, yells things out for one of his aides to post for him.
This is still the same guy who berated his opponents for mispronouncing Nevada, and then couldn't do something as simple as pronouncing it correctly, to the boos of the crowd.
There were a lot of reasons why Trump won/Clinton lost, but Trump being smart is not one of them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/13 12:44:34
Well, here's another reason why Trump beat Clinton, and it's nothing to do with Trump having a rant on twitter!
Before I post this reason, I ask American dakka members to go easy on me if I make mistakes, because my knowledge of the ACA, health insurance and the American health system, is limited.
In Britain, if I have a health problem, I just walk into a hospital or doctors. Health insurance? What the dakka is health insurance?
Anyway, on RT, there was a report on ACA and voting patterns. It was all imposed on a map of the USA.
To cut a long story short:
Poor people, who have done well from ACA (they get a discount or something?) voted HEAVILY in favour of Clinton.
Middler income brackets, who don't get the discount? and therefore get hammered, saw the ACA as a 'tax' and voted for Trump, because the system didn't work for them.
The reporter suggested that expanding medicare? could have been a better solution, and might have won the election for Clinton....
Is there any substance to this? Is this a valid reason for a Clinton defeat, amongst many, or a load of horsegak?
Becuase if it is a valid reason, then ironically, an Obama policy might have led to the defeat of a fellow Democrat...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/13 14:16:22
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, here's another reason why Trump beat Clinton, and it's nothing to do with Trump having a rant on twitter!
Before I post this reason, I ask American dakka members to go easy on me if I make mistakes, because my knowledge of the ACA, health insurance and the American health system, is limited.
In Britain, if I have a health problem, I just walk into a hospital or doctors. Health insurance? What the dakka is health insurance?
Anyway, on RT, there was a report on ACA and voting patterns. It was all imposed on a map of the USA.
To cut a long story short:
Poor people, who have done well from ACA (they get a discount or something?) voted HEAVILY in favour of Clinton.
Middler income brackets, who don't get the discount? and therefore get hammered, saw the ACA as a 'tax' and voted for Trump, because the system didn't work for them.
The reporter suggested that expanding medicare? could have been a better solution, and might have won the election for Clinton....
Is there any substance to this? Is this a valid reason for a Clinton defeat, amongst many, or a load of horsegak?
Becuase if it is a valid reason, then ironically, an Obama policy might have led to the defeat of a fellow Democrat...
Here is what we have to look forward to in 2017 with ACA
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, here's another reason why Trump beat Clinton, and it's nothing to do with Trump having a rant on twitter!
Before I post this reason, I ask American dakka members to go easy on me if I make mistakes, because my knowledge of the ACA, health insurance and the American health system, is limited.
In Britain, if I have a health problem, I just walk into a hospital or doctors. Health insurance? What the dakka is health insurance?
Anyway, on RT, there was a report on ACA and voting patterns. It was all imposed on a map of the USA.
To cut a long story short:
Poor people, who have done well from ACA (they get a discount or something?) voted HEAVILY in favour of Clinton.
Middler income brackets, who don't get the discount? and therefore get hammered, saw the ACA as a 'tax' and voted for Trump, because the system didn't work for them.
Correct. If you don't qualify for the subsidies, you're faced with the full effect of the cost. Paying a really much higher premium (monthly pmt) and also the plans having higher deductable (the amount you have to pay before insurance kicks in).
The reporter suggested that expanding medicare? could have been a better solution, and might have won the election for Clinton....
That'd essentially be single payer, ala the Canadian Model. Democrats had the chance to do just that... but they couldn't get their own members to come on board so the went with the ACA. Because of that, since 2010, the Democrat party as a whole took epic election beatings.
Is there any substance to this? Is this a valid reason for a Clinton defeat, amongst many, or a load of horsegak?
The ACA didn't help Clinton... but I don't think there's one factor thats the cause of her electoral failure.
Becuase if it is a valid reason, then ironically, an Obama policy might have led to the defeat of a fellow Democrat...
Well... it certainly contributed in the GOP's success post 2010.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/13 14:58:25
hotsauceman1 wrote: So umm........Trump just announced his plan for 6 week paid maternity leave to be required............... Im suddenly not so scared. What if, WHAT IF, we where all duped? That trumps insane pandering was just a bid and he knows how to work people?
It won't get through a republican congress, at least without a load of ridiculous riders attached which effectively kill it or render it completely useless to the majority of people and probably also defund planned parenthood and every other abortion provider int he USA.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/13 15:10:22
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The Monterey Herald said that Mountain View High School placed teacher Frank Navarro on paid leave after a parent complained in an email about the lesson and statements that Navarro made in class.
Navarro — a 40-year classroom veteran and expert in Holocaust studies — said, “This feels like we’re trying to squash free speech. Everything I talk about is factually based. They can go and check it out. It’s not propaganda or bias if it’s based on hard facts.” Mountain View High School’s newspaper, the Oracle said that some of Navarro’s students that his lessons were “one-sided” and that he used language that Trump supporters would find offensive. Other students have defended the 65-year-old teacher, who has won multiple awards for his studies of the Nazi Holocaust.
In class, Navarro told his students that Hitler’s persecution of Jewish people bears “remarkable parallels” to Trump’s campaign rhetoric about Muslims, Latino immigrants and black Americans.
“I said (to school officials), ‘I’m not pulling these facts out of my hat. It’s based on experience and work and if I’m wrong, show we where I’m wrong.’ And there was silence,” Navarro said.
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
The Monterey Herald said that Mountain View High School placed teacher Frank Navarro on paid leave after a parent complained in an email about the lesson and statements that Navarro made in class.
Navarro — a 40-year classroom veteran and expert in Holocaust studies — said, “This feels like we’re trying to squash free speech. Everything I talk about is factually based. They can go and check it out. It’s not propaganda or bias if it’s based on hard facts.” Mountain View High School’s newspaper, the Oracle said that some of Navarro’s students that his lessons were “one-sided” and that he used language that Trump supporters would find offensive. Other students have defended the 65-year-old teacher, who has won multiple awards for his studies of the Nazi Holocaust.
In class, Navarro told his students that Hitler’s persecution of Jewish people bears “remarkable parallels” to Trump’s campaign rhetoric about Muslims, Latino immigrants and black Americans.
“I said (to school officials), ‘I’m not pulling these facts out of my hat. It’s based on experience and work and if I’m wrong, show we where I’m wrong.’ And there was silence,” Navarro said.
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
Let's also not forget the kinds of promises Hitler made to workers that had been hit hard after the Great Depression and the reparations Germany had been forced to pay.
We have elected a man who literally, when he seemed to be losing, stated that we shoulf cancel the elections and give it to him. That should be chilling for 2020.
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
In Chicago? Finding that hard to believe...
Implying I go to a university at chicago
Surely such a hateful act would make its way to a news source...
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
In Chicago? Finding that hard to believe...
Implying I go to a university at chicago
Surely such a hateful act would make its way to a news source...
My thoughts on the whole "the FBI lost Clinton the Election" issue:
I do think that the initial "we found more emails and are looking at them, the investigation is ongoing" letter resulted in lost voted for Hillary because people who were on the fence decided that there are just too many of these stories. And I think that the final "nope, nothing there, carry on" resulted in gained votes for Trump because people who were on the fence decided that Hillary is guilty and is just beating the system once again. My total unscientific guess is that in the end this shifted the results of the election a percentage point towards Trump. And a one percentage point shift was enough to win all those tight states.
But this also reminds me of many football and soccer games I have watched where the clear favorite played against the underdog and the underdog managed to stay in the game. In the end a referee makes a bad call that goes towards the underdog, the underdog scores, and everybody complains that the poor officiating gave the underdog a victory and cost the favorite the game. If that call would have been made correctly, the underdog wouldn't have gotten a possession, and they wouldn't have been able to get that final goal/touchdown/whatever.
In both cases, supporters probably do have some reason to complain about how "poor officiating" cost them the game. And yes, if that last call wouldn't have been made there is a good chance that the underdog would have lost. But in sports, just as in politics, if you play such a bad game that you let the underdog stay this close to you then you willingly put the game in the hands of the officiating crew and you give them the power to decide the game for you. If you don't want to risk having the outcome of the game decided by a single blown call, then put the game away beyond the shadow of a doubt and drive up the score to make sure that you win instead of letting the other team stay this close.
So even though I think that the FBI might have shifted the election a point in Trump's favor, I think Hillary doesn't have anybody to blame except herself for letting it be that close to begin with.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/13 15:52:13
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, here's another reason why Trump beat Clinton, and it's nothing to do with Trump having a rant on twitter!
Before I post this reason, I ask American dakka members to go easy on me if I make mistakes, because my knowledge of the ACA, health insurance and the American health system, is limited.
In Britain, if I have a health problem, I just walk into a hospital or doctors. Health insurance? What the dakka is health insurance?
Anyway, on RT, there was a report on ACA and voting patterns. It was all imposed on a map of the USA.
To cut a long story short:
Poor people, who have done well from ACA (they get a discount or something?) voted HEAVILY in favour of Clinton.
Middler income brackets, who don't get the discount? and therefore get hammered, saw the ACA as a 'tax' and voted for Trump, because the system didn't work for them.
The reporter suggested that expanding medicare? could have been a better solution, and might have won the election for Clinton....
Is there any substance to this? Is this a valid reason for a Clinton defeat, amongst many, or a load of horsegak?
Becuase if it is a valid reason, then ironically, an Obama policy might have led to the defeat of a fellow Democrat...
Here is what we have to look forward to in 2017 with ACA
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
So that is starting to happen, and the professor of genocide at my university has also noticed the same parallels and will be noting the same thing in her class this spring.
Speaking of my university we had an incident last night where 4 white dudes in a pick up truck were flying a nazi and confederate flag and guns were going around calling black students "banana eating N-words and get out of our country N-word"
In Chicago? Finding that hard to believe...
Implying I go to a university at chicago
Surely such a hateful act would make its way to a news source...
I don't have the knowledge, policy experience, or professional background to be a spokesperson on what it would take to fix the ACA, but I'm pretty sure that as long as the penalty is substantially cheaper than buying health insurance it will never work.
It sounds like a reason for the increasing premiums is caused by the fact that healthy people simply aren't enrolling in large enough numbers, and as premiums go up less healthy people will enroll, which will cause premiums to go up.
But who is going to run on the "I will tie the penalty to match the cost of the average premium to push people into the exchange" platform?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, here's another reason why Trump beat Clinton, and it's nothing to do with Trump having a rant on twitter!
Before I post this reason, I ask American dakka members to go easy on me if I make mistakes, because my knowledge of the ACA, health insurance and the American health system, is limited.
In Britain, if I have a health problem, I just walk into a hospital or doctors. Health insurance? What the dakka is health insurance?
Anyway, on RT, there was a report on ACA and voting patterns. It was all imposed on a map of the USA.
To cut a long story short:
Poor people, who have done well from ACA (they get a discount or something?) voted HEAVILY in favour of Clinton.
Middler income brackets, who don't get the discount? and therefore get hammered, saw the ACA as a 'tax' and voted for Trump, because the system didn't work for them.
Correct. If you don't qualify for the subsidies, you're faced with the full effect of the cost. Paying a really much higher premium (monthly pmt) and also the plans having higher deductable (the amount you have to pay before insurance kicks in).
The reporter suggested that expanding medicare? could have been a better solution, and might have won the election for Clinton....
That'd essentially be single payer, ala the Canadian Model. Democrats had the chance to do just that... but they couldn't get their own members to come on board so the went with the ACA. Because of that, since 2010, the Democrat party as a whole took epic election beatings.
Is there any substance to this? Is this a valid reason for a Clinton defeat, amongst many, or a load of horsegak?
The ACA didn't help Clinton... but I don't think there's one factor thats the cause of her electoral failure.
Becuase if it is a valid reason, then ironically, an Obama policy might have led to the defeat of a fellow Democrat...
Well... it certainly contributed in the GOP's success post 2010.
As always, thanks for the explanation on the finer points of how things work in the USA.
On another note, the Democrats must have been fully aware of the problems that ACA was causing, and yet, they didn't fix it.
Was it because it was a poorly drafted bill? GOP opposition? Obama not being bothered? All three?
Anyway, interesting times ahead.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
d-usa wrote: My thoughts on the whole "the FBI lost Clinton the Election" issue:
I do think that the initial "we found more emails and are looking at them, the investigation is ongoing" letter resulted in lost voted for Hillary because people who were on the fence decided that there are just too many of these stories. And I think that the final "nope, nothing there, carry on" resulted in gained votes for Trump because people who were on the fence decided that Hillary is guilty and is just beating the system once again. My total unscientific guess is that in the end this shifted the results of the election a percentage point towards Trump. And a one percentage point shift was enough to win all those tight states.
But this also reminds me of many football and soccer games I have watched where the clear favorite played against the underdog and the underdog managed to stay in the game. In the end a referee makes a bad call that goes towards the underdog, the underdog scores, and everybody complains that the poor officiating gave the underdog a victory and cost the favorite the game. If that call would have been made correctly, the underdog wouldn't have gotten a possession, and they wouldn't have been able to get that final goal/touchdown/whatever.
In both cases, supporters probably do have some reason to complain about how "poor officiating" cost them the game. And yes, if that last call wouldn't have been made there is a good chance that the underdog would have lost. But in sports, just as in politics, if you play such a bad game that you let the underdog stay this close to you then you willingly put the game in the hands of the officiating crew and you give them the power to decide the game for you. If you don't want to risk having the outcome of the game decided by a single blown call, then put the game away beyond the shadow of a doubt and drive up the score to make sure that you win instead of letting the other team stay this close.
So even though I think that the FBI might have shifted the election a point in Trump's favor, I think Hillary doesn't have anybody to blame except herself for letting it be that close to begin with.
However, there was so much hatred and bile projected towards Hillary for the last 25 years that there's little that she could do to keep it from being a close race.
Really, this election has made me lose all faith in the basic humanity of the US. It's proven that facts don't matter, that spewing hatred works, that voter suppression tactics work, that running on a platform that the government doesn't work and then doing everything you can to make it so that the government doesn't work isn't held against you...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On another note, the Democrats must have been fully aware of the problems that ACA was causing, and yet, they didn't fix it.
Was it because it was a poorly drafted bill? GOP opposition? Obama not being bothered? All three?
They designed it for the rate hikes to hit later on. There is a theory that they did this so ACA would be so unpopular that the people would want single payer health care. The problem with the theory is that Hillary would have run on it were it part of the design. I'm certain that the Democrats didn't see the Republicans taking all three branches so early on.
d-usa wrote: My thoughts on the whole "the FBI lost Clinton the Election" issue:
I do think that the initial "we found more emails and are looking at them, the investigation is ongoing" letter resulted in lost voted for Hillary because people who were on the fence decided that there are just too many of these stories. And I think that the final "nope, nothing there, carry on" resulted in gained votes for Trump because people who were on the fence decided that Hillary is guilty and is just beating the system once again. My total unscientific guess is that in the end this shifted the results of the election a percentage point towards Trump. And a one percentage point shift was enough to win all those tight states.
But this also reminds me of many football and soccer games I have watched where the clear favorite played against the underdog and the underdog managed to stay in the game. In the end a referee makes a bad call that goes towards the underdog, the underdog scores, and everybody complains that the poor officiating gave the underdog a victory and cost the favorite the game. If that call would have been made correctly, the underdog wouldn't have gotten a possession, and they wouldn't have been able to get that final goal/touchdown/whatever.
In both cases, supporters probably do have some reason to complain about how "poor officiating" cost them the game. And yes, if that last call wouldn't have been made there is a good chance that the underdog would have lost. But in sports, just as in politics, if you play such a bad game that you let the underdog stay this close to you then you willingly put the game in the hands of the officiating crew and you give them the power to decide the game for you. If you don't want to risk having the outcome of the game decided by a single blown call, then put the game away beyond the shadow of a doubt and drive up the score to make sure that you win instead of letting the other team stay this close.
So even though I think that the FBI might have shifted the election a point in Trump's favor, I think Hillary doesn't have anybody to blame except herself for letting it be that close to begin with.
However, there was so much hatred and bile projected towards Hillary for the last 25 years that there's little that she could do to keep it from being a close race.
Really, this election has made me lose all faith in the basic humanity of the US. It's proven that facts don't matter, that spewing hatred works, that voter suppression tactics work, that running on a platform that the government doesn't work and then doing everything you can to make it so that the government doesn't work isn't held against you...
But again, and I say this as a person who leans Democrat, and voted for Johnson in a state that didn't have any polling and was called for Trump as soon as the polls close because everybody knows who is is getting Oklahoma's votes:
Hillary knew that she was the most hated Democrat in the United States for the past 25 years, regardless of if it was justified hate. That was no secret to her, nor to anybody else. And if you choose to run for POTUS as the most hated person by half the country, then you put the election at risk if you are counting on somebody else being hated even more.
And she ran a less than optimal campaign. She didn't reach out to the millennials near as much as she could have, although I admit that Obama has set the bar pretty damn high when it comes to interacting with the electorate on traditional as well as social media. She hedged her bet on people voting against Trump and on policy trumping (ha) personality.
If you run a poor campaign, you put the election in the hand of an October surprise. If you run a poor campaign on top of being the most hated democrat alive, you do it even more so.
d-usa wrote: My thoughts on the whole "the FBI lost Clinton the Election" issue:
I do think that the initial "we found more emails and are looking at them, the investigation is ongoing" letter resulted in lost voted for Hillary because people who were on the fence decided that there are just too many of these stories. And I think that the final "nope, nothing there, carry on" resulted in gained votes for Trump because people who were on the fence decided that Hillary is guilty and is just beating the system once again. My total unscientific guess is that in the end this shifted the results of the election a percentage point towards Trump. And a one percentage point shift was enough to win all those tight states.
But this also reminds me of many football and soccer games I have watched where the clear favorite played against the underdog and the underdog managed to stay in the game. In the end a referee makes a bad call that goes towards the underdog, the underdog scores, and everybody complains that the poor officiating gave the underdog a victory and cost the favorite the game. If that call would have been made correctly, the underdog wouldn't have gotten a possession, and they wouldn't have been able to get that final goal/touchdown/whatever.
In both cases, supporters probably do have some reason to complain about how "poor officiating" cost them the game. And yes, if that last call wouldn't have been made there is a good chance that the underdog would have lost. But in sports, just as in politics, if you play such a bad game that you let the underdog stay this close to you then you willingly put the game in the hands of the officiating crew and you give them the power to decide the game for you. If you don't want to risk having the outcome of the game decided by a single blown call, then put the game away beyond the shadow of a doubt and drive up the score to make sure that you win instead of letting the other team stay this close.
So even though I think that the FBI might have shifted the election a point in Trump's favor, I think Hillary doesn't have anybody to blame except herself for letting it be that close to begin with.
Nah, I think the FBI effect is overated. I don't doubt that it cost Clinton a few votes, but essentially, the end result was a numbers game.
The data is telling us that people, and a lot of these people were poor white Americans, had no problem with voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
They just didn't come out for Clinton.
Women didn't come out 100% for Clinton either.
HRC was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. I am convinced that the USA has zero problems with a female CIC, they just don't want Hilary Clinton.
Rightly or wrongly, people just don't trust her.
It's like Nixon. Nobody doubted his ability, but that question mark was always there...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
~4100
~1660
