General politics

[Badsmerf]

I'm not targeting you specifically, just a general statement. But why are you ok with a tax for infrastructure, but not healthcare? We're already paying for these people to see the doctor via emergency rooms. The difference would be they could get the care they need before it is a major problem that we have to pay even more for. I'm not sure how much you pay for premiums and copays, but would you be willing to trade at least that amount for single payer?

 

Why isn't it possible? It adds 13 million to the 330 million? That is only an additional 4%. Universal healthcare is not going to increase the motivation to come here, the draw is already strong enough.

[LaBombo]

 

The platform that the Dems are running on, which I've always felt, is that healthcare is a basic human right.
You can't believe that, and deny healthcare to undocumented immigrants. So I don't get the controversy there. I understand disagreeing, but I don't understand questioning why it is they'd take that stance.

On a pragmatic note, I'd have to think it's cheaper to offer them primary care, rather than have everyone absorb unpaid emergency room visits.

 

It makes more sense to call it a basic human need, but either way, if that right or need is fulfilled by our government, then it's an entitlement. As you alluded to, it's one that illegal immigrants already receive in the form of EMTALA and safety net clinics. However, I'm not so sure about your speculation that it would be more cost-effective on a per person basis to expand health benefits to illegal immigrants.

 

One thing I am relatively sure of is that there's almost certainly no credible nonpartisan study that claims such a change would result in even a small net savings per person covered. If there were, you and I and everyone else who watched the debates would know exactly how much that projected savings would be, because there's no way every candidate would fail to cite evidence that a proposal of theirs could actually lower spending. In fact I would bet that they'd be loudly talking up any study that showed such an extension of health coverage would result in anything less than a large net cost increase.

 

It's likely that none of the candidates care about how much it will cost anyway, at least in terms of whether to actually do it or not. But assuming that full health care for illegal immigrants is a moral imperative regardless of cost, I find it extremely difficult to believe that all the potential costs associated with that new entitlement, both known and unforeseen, will never lead to painful choices down the road as our existing entitlements and mandates start to overwhelm our nation.

 

And that's without trillions in new outlays for the GND, student loan payoffs, free college, reparations, and a whole boatload of other spending being proposed by the 2020 candidates.

[LaBombo]

 

 I'm not a Christian, but know the religion well. Jesus would call out anyone that put their own money over the health of others.

 

Cool! Ok, my turn... "I'm not an atheist, but know that arbitrary morality well. The life of Stalin tell me that the atheist Left will ultimately gravitate toward an authoritarian dystopia."

 

Hey, that was fun! Ok, now who wants to do how Muslims should feel about BDS?!?!

 

Or on second thought, maybe we could all avoid really lame and offensive pronouncements of how anyone's religion (or absence thereof) obligates them to feel about politics.

[Squirrel]

 

 

 

Or on second thought, maybe we could all avoid really lame and offensive pronouncements of how religion obligates people to feel about politics.

And vice versa. I'm always uncomfortable with religiously political or politically religious talk. However, if one is going to proclaim themselves superior in a religious sense (and no one here has done that, so I'm not pointing fingers here, just making a point), I think it opens the door to be called out on that when your actions do seem to go against that which you proclaim to be. However, then we get into that 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' territory. I'm judgy. It's my sin. And I'll walk with it. I'm also a bleeding heart. Bad combo, but I deal.

[LaBombo]

 

 However, then we get into that 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' territory. I'm judgy. It's my sin. And I'll walk with it. I'm also a bleeding heart. Bad combo, but I deal.

 

So is that... LNFJ?

 

Didn't read much of the game thread after I offered the helpful 'Jah' to show off my extensive German. What did you do? Since you're posting, I take it you at least didn't end up surrounded by little people on a yellow brick road.

[Squirrel]

 

So is that... LNFJ?

 

Didn't read much of the game thread after I offered the helpful 'Jah' to show off my extensive German. What did you do? Since you're posting, I take it you at least didn't end up surrounded by little people on a yellow brick road.

Stayed through the delay. Duffy started pitching and I thought, 'I waited all that time for this?' and left. Of course, being on the south side, and by myself, it was a very frightening walk to the L and home. (I'm kidding. That area isn't a problem, at least not since I've been living in Chicago.)

 

INFJ or INFP ... the J and P are close enough that they sometimes tilt one way or the other. But the INF? The woman who administered the test (years ago now) was very surprised by how much I was. I was very much in the deep end of each of those characteristics. Does that tell you I'm a bleeding heart liberal?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Cool! Ok, my turn... "I'm not an atheist, but know that arbitrary morality well. The life of Stalin tell me that the atheist Left will ultimately gravitate toward an authoritarian dystopia."

While I agree with your general sentiment here, your example is purely awful.

 

Jesus is a guy written in a book, his teachings are pretty well-known and solid most of the time.

 

Whereas you just coupled non-belief with belief.

 

Absence of a belief in something does not create a singular belief through absence.

 

In other words, atheist belief cannot be singular outside of its atheism... whereas Christian belief *can* be singular, because it *believes* in a singular thing and that thing has rules that must be followed.

[LaBombo]

 

While I agree with your general sentiment here, your example is purely awful.

 

Jesus is a guy written in a book, his teachings are pretty well-known and solid most of the time.

 

Whereas you just coupled non-belief with belief.

 

Absence of a belief in something does not create a singular belief through absence.

 

In other words, atheist belief cannot be singular outside of its atheism... whereas Christian belief *can* be singular, because it *believes* in a singular thing and that thing has rules that must be followed.

 

It was not meant to suggest an analogous judgement, but rather to generate what I imagine would be analogous reaction to my initial "What the...".

 

Put another way, it was meant to be unfair, as I believe Bs's post was.

 

So no disagreement here, and also a tip of the cap for your initial disclaimer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It was not meant to suggest an analogous judgement, but rather to generate what I imagine would be analogous reaction to my initial "What the...".

 

Put another way, it was meant to be unfair, as I believe Bs's post was.

 

So no disagreement here, and also a tip of the cap for your initial disclaimer.

Maybe Smerf's post was unfair but it's not entirely inaccurate.

 

Modern Christianity is rife with hypocrisy in regards to life. That's basically undeniable, though I struggle to see how it extends to healthcare, because then you enter the realm of government and lots of Biblical passages that basically say "nope".

 

But I think the point is valid that modern Christianity (or most of Christianity from day one, really) fails miserably to live up to its own beliefs.

[Badsmerf]

It was not meant to suggest an analogous judgement, but rather to generate what I imagine would be analogous reaction to my initial "What the...".

 

Put another way, it was meant to be unfair, as I believe Bs's post was.

 

So no disagreement here, and also a tip of the cap for your initial disclaimer.

You could try to make a post about it being unfair with facts, instead of a condescending analogy that doesn't make sense.

 

I struggle to see how it is unfair? If you aren't a Christian, then the point is moot. However, I would expect the same agnostic approach to politics on topics like gay marriage, abortion tax exempt status of churches, church campaign donations, etc. You're missing the point anyway. You don't have to be Christian to appreciate the message. Religious righteousness is another discussion on of itself, but not what I was going for. Plain and simple, I feel that Jesus's story and message is applicable in this discussion.

[LaBombo]

 

Maybe Smerf's post was unfair but it's not entirely inaccurate.

 

Modern Christianity is rife with hypocrisy in regards to life. That's basically undeniable, though I struggle to see how it extends to healthcare, because then you enter the realm of government and lots of Biblical passages that basically say "nope".

 

But I think the point is valid that modern Christianity (or most of Christianity from day one, really) fails miserably to live up to its own beliefs.

 

Thanks for sharing your unbearable religious bigotry. Please don't bother to rationalize it with an even more embarrassing post. It would be a complete waste of your time and mine, as I will explain to you in a very brief and profane PM.

[LaBombo]

 

 

I struggle to see

 

Well, at least you managed four words that weren't offensive.

 

OK, Bs. You win. Republicans are fascists, Christians are hypocrites, and you are totally NOT a bigot when you tell people how their religious views should inform their politics.

[biggentleben]

I think the political/religious combination hurts honest dialogue on either.

 

However, it does bug me when otherwise rational folks here get into back-biting and heavy generalization on the topic of religion.

 

I've spent years studying religion. I'm a very active Christian, providing pulpit supply to churches, yet I've been involved with church politics as well at the local, regional, and national level, so I see both sides of the coin.

 

Faith is a deeply personal thing for each person, and there are few things on a psychological level that we will defend stronger than our personal religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, whatever they may be) across all humans, no matter what faith/belief one holds.

 

The fact that any person or group would co-op faith into their political actions and force any political belief to then assume religious backing is heinous to me. Jesus/Muhammad/Buddha/whatever faith/moralistic leader you ascribe to is not someone to reference when pursuing a political discourse. Sadly, in American politics, roughly as World War 2 ended, pieces of the Republican party with an extreme religious belief began to attempt to mobilize others with their religious belief to their politics as well, and through that, we've seen an incredible divide build in our country.

 

I truly value those of you who will have open/honest discourse here on the political arena, whether I agree or not. The discussion here has been something that I do believe has informed my own political beliefs, even if it has not changed them, and that is a positive thing. I hope we can find a way to remove religion from politics as they should not have a direct influence on one another, and honest discussion with one another on either topic is so much better with the other topic removed.

[Squirrel]

Sports, religion, and politics ... what a caustic and volatile combination. I don't think it has to be, but, if it can't be anything but, what do we do here? The moderators very intentionally try to end any notion/mention of politics and religion in the baseball forums, because it never ends well. We don't always get to it on time, but when we do, done, it doesn't go further. Someone is always, always, always lacking in sensitivity - one way or the other - and thus, reacting as if whatever was said was done so intentionally. So, as moderators, we've had discussions, and the only thing we could come up with to keep the baseball forums to baseball ... is to remove all references, whenever possible, to religion and politics ... and that goes for any other 'hotbed' topics such as race and sexual assault and personal time hobbies and ... the list goes on. It's really quite tiring, and to me, very sad, but this is our world today. Even if meant light-heartedly ... someone always, always, always takes offense, and we get a report and/or PM, and someone always, always, always fails to think beforehand that results in tangental debates that have nothing to do with baseball. Do we need to do that in this forum, too? Have different threads for every possible topic and keep them absolutely separate? This is a politics thread, no religion talk, etc, etc, etc. Or maybe what we need to do is end all such threads ... no politics, no religion, no 'hotbed topics', no nothing ... just moves, books, television, music, death pool, other sports. That seems to be enough other topics that we don't need to go 'there' to those offensive subjects. Maybe if we do that, we will find a lot of things that we have in common and can focus on that instead of these other things that do nothing but offend and divide. Does that seem like a good plan to everyone? Let me know and I'll make it happen. Or maybe I will lock all these 'touchy' threads for a week and see how it goes?

 

Until then ... if something someone says offends you, maybe say it offends you and explain why instead of going into defend and attack mode. (I know ... I am truly one of the worst ones at this because so much of the world offends and hurts me.) Maybe that person didn't mean it that way. And maybe before posting, consider the diversity of our audiences, and do one read through before hitting 'post.' Maybe consider how your 'tone' reads to someone else (and that is actually a very difficult thing to do because that just isn't something you can truly discern from a bunch of words, sometimes, but not a lot.)

 

Or maybe we should all take a Myers-Briggs test to learn about how to interact with one another? (Okay, not serious, it's just that that came up recently.)

 

Anyway ... I throw my hands up ... 

[Craig Arko]

Unfortunately, these topics have become all conjoined in the real world and I don’t think you’ll easily disentangle them in the online world.

 

On the bright side, we don’t throw milkshakes at one another.

[Mr. Brooks]

Although it can get passionate at times, outside of a few isolated instances, over several years, I don't think I've ever felt these threads have become uncivil.

[Squirrel]

 

Unfortunately, these topics have become all conjoined in the real world and I don’t think you’ll easily disentangle them in the online world.

On the bright side, we don’t throw milkshakes at one another.

Well, I like milkshakes. If someone wants to throw one at me, please do it so I can catch it and not spill!

[biggentleben]

https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1145760228509507586

[Badsmerf]

https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1145760228509507586

What is included in real estate? That list is incredible. 460 million dollars are used for lobbying of big Parma and insurance companies. That isn't going to pay for healthcare for all... (Not even close) but that is still a bunch of money these companies have to burn.

[ashbury]

Well, I like milkshakes. If someone wants to throw one at me, please do it so I can catch it and not spill!

Not the kind they were said to be throwing in Portland, you wouldn't. Bad way to get extra calcium into your diet.

[biggentleben]

 

What is included in real estate? That list is incredible. 460 million dollars are used for lobbying of big Parma and insurance companies. That isn't going to pay for healthcare for all... (Not even close) but that is still a bunch of money these companies have to burn.

 

Oh, absolutely, and remember that's just the big pharmaceutical companies that work together. There's plenty of lobbying done by other groups with similar interests, though at a much smaller scale. This also doesn't include any of the medical provider lobbies, which are often taking in money from insurance and pharma to then turn and lobby on their behalf with the stamp of "from a medical provider" behind it.

 

Looking at that list, is it any wonder that we can get absolutely nothing done to make significant changes in these areas mentioned?

 

Oh, and to answer your question on real estate, I asked my uncle (a real estate broker), and he said that would be likely combined among real estate brokerage groups lobbying to keep regulation there minimized, real estate loan lobbies to keep their loans in a separate category (and much less regulated) from other banking practices, and potentially even state lobbyists working to keep the federal government out of state imminent domain cases. He's a fairly right-side Republican, but he and I can always discuss where we stand on things, and he can understand my concern on regulation. He's someone who does things by the book and doesn't understand the need to regulate...but when you do things right and assume others do things right, that's not a surprising stance, y'know? 

[ewen21]

Unfortunately, these topics have become all conjoined in the real world and I don’t think you’ll easily disentangle them in the online world.

 

On the bright side, we don’t throw milkshakes at one another.

Im glad I can exist here (barely lol) and it is making me question a lot of things inside. I think that's what I'm looking for.

 

These are strange times

[Craig Arko]

I guess you could call this ‘bishop takes queen’ in the great international chess match.

 

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/10/the-american-dark-money-behind-europes-far-right/

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I guess you could call this ‘bishop takes queen’ in the great international chess match.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/10/the-american-dark-money-behind-europes-far-right/

Sometimes, I really regret that western culture retired the guillotine.

[ashbury]

Sometimes, I really regret that western culture retired the guillotine.

You prefer that, to Lock Her Up?

[Vanimal46]

This is where we're at in politics today. People calling to boycott Home Depot because their co-founder who RETIRED 15 years ago, showed support for Trump.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/09/home-depot-boycott-trump-tweets-support-co-founder-and-retailer/1689850001/

[Craig Arko]

This is where we're at in politics today. People calling to boycott Home Depot because their co-founder who RETIRED 15 years ago, showed support for Trump.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/09/home-depot-boycott-trump-tweets-support-co-founder-and-retailer/1689850001/

So, non-violent forms of protest are unacceptable now, too?

[Vanimal46]

So, non-violent forms of protest are unacceptable now, too?

Not what I said. Though if people are going to boycott a store because of a particular person, they should do some research beforehand to see if that person is actually with the company they're boycotting.

 

The co-founder retired 15 years ago, is not on their board, and has no say at the company anymore.

[Vanimal46]

I'm going to boycott Kentucky Fried Chicken because Colonel Sanders looks like a racist. And he'd probably support Trump too. Screw them.

[Craig Arko]

I'm going to boycott Kentucky Fried Chicken because Colonel Sanders looks like a racist. And he'd probably support Trump too. Screw them.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/donald-trump-att-boycott