Jump to content

chasfh

The 2020 Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ewsieg said:

With this logic, why do you support democrats?  They aren't actually for laws to limit climate change as they've been unable to enact that type of legislation.  They obviously love big pharma, 100% big bank, have (silently apparently) waged a 40 year war on unions, want war....

Well this is kinda a confusing question - by that logic the Democrats did something I like, that the GOP did not and is actively trying to stop what I like, so it seems obvious why I'd support the Democrats.   Democrats actually passed a law with pre-existing condition protections, which is what we were talking about.  Republicans have not, cannot, and in fact, are trying to render that law the Democrats passed as unconstitutional.  

However since you asked, I support Democrats almost exclusively b/c they're not Republicans and they always have the best change to beat the republicans. my political orientation is left of Democrats, but my voting behavior is strictly anti-republican.  If I actually like the Democrat, it's a nice coincidence.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

A GOP modification to ACA passed the house and while that never made it to a vote in the Senate, when the senate said 'f it' and let's just repeal ACA, it took McCain to buck party lines due to his vendetta against Trump (note: I wouldn't call a vendetta against Trump a bad thing).

I'm not really arguing republicans are better, just pointing out that there was strong support to 'fix' ACA and/or repeal it and in public, there was republican support on pre-existing conditions.  You can argue you don't think republicans would have eventually pulled the trigger for pre-existing conditions but again 1) There was wide spread support of pre-existing coverage publicly and within GOP ranks and 2) all I said is eventually the GOP used the same logic (hey, we know it's not perfect with no coverage for pre-existing conditions and such, but going back is better than staying with obamacare and we can fix it later!) as the dems did in passing it (hey, we know it's not perfect, but it has coverage for pre-existing conditions and not having it is so much worse than what we have now, plus we can fix it later).

So one party passed something I like, the other didn't and is actively trying to dismantle what I like.   Sounds like a toss up and I should just flip a coin on which side I like more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a huge fan of people who can bench press 400 lbs.

Person A:  Bench pressed 400 lbs.

Person B:  Did not bench press 400lbs, cannot bench press 400lbs, and goes around punching people who are benching 400lbs in the nuts while they're benching 400lbs.  But one time did half the job and benched 200lbs.   And talks mad game about how they love benching 400lbs so people think they bench 400lbs.

Sure is a toss up on which side I think I would trust on bench pressing 400lbs.  Gonna need to really stew on this one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing story from hacks on tap:  Montana Green party when asked who was behind efforts to put them on the ballot and they denied that they were involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, pfife said:

So one party passed something I like, the other didn't and is actively trying to dismantle what I like.   Sounds like a toss up and I should just flip a coin on which side I like more. 

I never tried to argue which side anyone should be on nor actually argue the pro's/con's of ACA.  My only point was that Trump and the GOP indicated they would preserve pre-existing conditions if they actually succeeded in knocking the entirety of ACA down.  It's not made up, it's a fact. 

If you want to argue that you don't think he would have actually done it, that's an entirely different story and one you won't get any argument from me on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, pfife said:

I'm a huge fan of people who can bench press 400 lbs.

Person A:  Bench pressed 400 lbs.

Person B:  Did not bench press 400lbs, cannot bench press 400lbs, and goes around punching people who are benching 400lbs in the nuts while they're benching 400lbs.  But one time did half the job and benched 200lbs.   And talks mad game about how they love benching 400lbs so people think they bench 400lbs.

Sure is a toss up on which side I think I would trust on bench pressing 400lbs.  Gonna need to really stew on this one.

 

Person B is so Donald Trump, except he can't even bench 100.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ROMAD1 said:

This is a D polling group but...whut?!

I didn't think the Meijer family could be denied

Topline Presidential numbers have Biden up 49-41. District went 52-42 Trump in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I never tried to argue which side anyone should be on nor actually argue the pro's/con's of ACA.  My only point was that Trump and the GOP indicated they would preserve pre-existing conditions if they actually succeeded in knocking the entirety of ACA down.  It's not made up, it's a fact. 

If you want to argue that you don't think he would have actually done it, that's an entirely different story and one you won't get any argument from me on.

So I am clear, what does it mean to knock the entirety of it down?

I'll hang up and listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Topline Presidential numbers have Biden up 49-41. District went 52-42 Trump in 2016.

Noted that the Grand Rapids GOP had some similarities to the Utah GOP in terms of being from a slightly different religio-ethnic group than the normal GOP.   Calvinist and Mormon resistance to Trump's abhorent behavior that might survive the onslaught of Limbaugh, Judge Janeen and their imitators?   Or, just a blip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, I don't know - just to tease the argument further - how would it be beneficial to only have people with pre-existing on a national insurance plan?

Only having people with pre-existing conditions would only ensure to make the insurance prohibitively expensive.  So even presuming that is 'the plan', the plan is to **** over people with pre-existing conditions and once again illustrate the Republican's national health care plan is nothing more than be rich or die quick.

Excluding people from, or only allowing people with, pre-existing conditions has the same outcome.  Republican legislators know this and are hoping the American public are too stupid or indifferent to understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ROMAD1 said:

Noted that the Grand Rapids GOP had some similarities to the Utah GOP in terms of being from a slightly different religio-ethnic group than the normal GOP.   Calvinist and Mormon resistance to Trump's abhorent behavior that might survive the onslaught of Limbaugh, Judge Janeen and their imitators?   Or, just a blip.

I don't know, it may be a blip based on Trump's temperament.

But if Biden were to win MI-3 by even 5 points, that probably means Biden by high single-low double digits in the state. But it's an internal, so you gotta take it with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Person B is so Donald Trump, except he can't even bench 100.   

Donald Trump never benched pressed more than 50 pounds and that was in his military school.  He's also never run more than 10 yards outside of a PE class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This goes against conventional wisdom, but yeah, if his numbers in MN (~+9-10) and WI (+~6-8) hold up, this is possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

So I am clear, what does it mean to knock the entirety of it down?

I'll hang up and listen.

Repeal ACA, which also includes protections for pre-existing conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Repeal ACA, which also includes protections for pre-existing conditions.

With the stated goal of protecting pre-existing conditions, because Donald Trump said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, smr-nj said:

I see President Trump’s Town Hall is tonight at 9pm.

 I can’t decide whether to watch it, or stick two giant knitting needles in my eyes.

 I’m going with the 🧶 needles.

How are your eyes this morning, Sue?

(Would someone please read this post to Sue?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ROMAD1 said:

This does drive me crazy.  Churchill kept military secrets but he didn't sugar coat anything.  Trump's complete lack of physical and moral courage are the exact opposite of Churchillian.  The ONLY thing these two have in common is they sleep in silk pajamas.

 

That and Churchill actually sympathized with what the citizens were going thru. He’d visit an area that was bombed the night before, mingle with those who were cleaning up the rubble. He said a few encouraging words to attempt to keep up morale, but when he was back on the train there were tears.

Trump throws out campaign lines, when has he ever shown any humanity? Not even a Clintonisque “I feel your pain”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CMRivdog said:

That and Churchill actually sympathized with what the citizens were going thru. He’d visit an area that was bombed the night before, mingle with those who were cleaning up the rubble. He said a few encouraging words to attempt to keep up morale, but when he was back on the train there were tears.

Trump throws out campaign lines, when has he ever shown any humanity? Not even a Clintonisque “I feel your pain”

And he took it from the ladies of East London when he went to tell them that London could take it.  They told him where he could take it in no uncertain terms.  He didn't have his goons rough them up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ROMAD1 said:

Hopefully breaking for him.

I'm not clear on why Trump even agrees to encounters with the MSM. They never end well for him, except to reinforce his standing with voters who are already unreachable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

In what universe? Surely not any one in which [Republicans] had 12 years to formulate [a plan for pre-existing conditions] and completely failed.

Including two during which they had at least majority control of all three branches.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, chasfh said:

How are your eyes this morning, Sue?

(Would someone please read this post to Sue?)

 

D31219B9-8438-437F-9007-5689F924E162.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I'm not clear on why Trump even agrees to encounters with the MSM. They never end well for him, except to reinforce his standing with voters who are already unreachable.

he thought he'd turn Bob Woodward.  he's not the kind of guy who should be trusted with decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I believe Biden has a townhall tomorrow fwiw.  In case anyone wants to do the Pepsi challenge

What's this? Watching the entire town hall without spit-taking your Pepsi even once?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...