|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 21, 2012 20:47:50 GMT -6
Ok.....most of you know I'm a knee jerk liberal bleeding heart pinko commie democrat. Who, you? Can't say I ever noticed it. ;D That leaves us with the poor. Too many of us have had poor immigrant ancestors to seriously consider a declaration of animosity towards the less fortunate as anything other than another knee jerk liberal bleeding heart pinko commie democratic rant. As a Bible thumping church going whatcha ma call it independent, let me point out that no matter what anyone else says, there is this: Matthew 26:11 The poor you will always have with you… I'm guessing it's the Republican party as an entity Scrap is talking about rather then individuals such as yourself Step' and as such I'd agree with her 100%. If it's anything like the Liberal party here ( the Libs are actually the conservatives just to confuse things ) and I suspect it is, then their attitude toward the less fortunate in society is dismissive "at best". Take care of the those at the top and it will benefit those at the bottom seems their mantra, yet I don't see much evidence of those benefits trickling down to those who most need them most. Not sure about some of Scrappy's other claims, well maybe the Union thing, I'm fairly sure conservaties in the U.S same as here would abolish them if given the chance, long history of sticking the boots into them at every opportunity here in oz.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 14, 2013 19:46:01 GMT -6
Someone like to give me an update on the Obama healthcare plan?
Been hearing that it's a bit of a mess at present, with millions losing their coverage, and even Democrats calling for changes. Is it just a case of a decent program being badly implemented, or a poorly construed program to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Nov 15, 2013 7:44:06 GMT -6
I tend to ride the fence a bit with that. The implementation was an epic fail. Still kinda is, but its not like it can't be fixed. I'm not happy the insurance companies dropped a bunch of people because, in my opinion, they wanted to try and make it appear as though its a bad thing. I'm a big fan of getting health care for everyone. Can't tell you how many years I and many others I know spent going into major debt because of some catastrophe or other. Is this plan itself perfect? Hell no. I hate insurance companies. I think they are a huge scam. I wish we had instituted some other way of getting universal health coverage without including the insurance companies. But its here now. Its not going away and its way better to get everyone covered than to not have them covered. We spend way too much money on trying to stay healthy or getting healthy when we aren't. Part of that is outrageous pricing by the people who determine that. I fell in a kennel once at work and tore a ligament in my ankle. Total cost of an ambulance ride, hospital visit, and 2 months physical therapy? Roughly $5500. Thank god for workman's comp. Is that an appropriate price? Pfft.....A splint made of duct tape and a pillow cost me $75. Bull$hit. Is that jacked up because they inflate the price to help cover people who don't pay or can't pay? Yep.
I'm rambling....haven't had my coffee and I gotta go to work. Bottom line. It will be a good thing in the end. But it's not as good as it could have been. We should have just taken the over 65 rider off of Medicare. Would have been faster and covered a whole lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 15, 2013 18:36:29 GMT -6
Thanks Scrappy. Admittedly I've been getting most of my info from the Fox news channel, and they're not exactly impartial (to put it mildly)
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Nov 16, 2013 0:52:09 GMT -6
Scrappy’s ‘epic fail’ is perhaps polite, but accurate. See, no one from any of the political parties disagrees with giving people the best health care they can get. The problem is paying for it. Health care, good health care, is expensive and to put it bluntly, some have it better than others. I confess I don’t have a universally acceptable solution, but what’s happening is making things worse. Fox - you could call it slanted. But it's the lone counter to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. And it consistently rates at the top of the list.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 16, 2013 20:02:08 GMT -6
Scrappy’s ‘epic fail’ is perhaps polite, but accurate. See, no one from any of the political parties disagrees with giving people the best health care they can get. The problem is paying for it. Health care, good health care, is expensive and to put it bluntly, some have it better than others. I confess I don’t have a universally acceptable solution, but what’s happening is making things worse. Just wondering if what they're trying to implement is good or not, from what I'm hearing most of the problems stem from the web site they set up, "if" that can be rectified will their health care plan be an improvement over what's currently in place? From what I've been able to find, America spends around 17% of GDP on health care, the highest in the world, yet ranks last or near last for quality of health care among similar countries. In 2004 (things may have changed since) of the 34 OECD member nations only three don't provide (near) universal health care, those being Mexico, Turkey and America, so surely going by that something drastic needs to be done. Of course it's going to be costly, as it is here in Australia, but surely providing adequate health care for "all" it's citizens is a basic tenet of any government. Fox - you could call it slanted. But it's the lone counter to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. And it consistently rates at the top of the list. Actually Step' I'd call those other broadcasters you named slanted, Fox I'd call nothing more nor less then a blatant propaganda machine, fair and balanced may be it's motto, it sure ain't it's creed though.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Nov 17, 2013 0:28:47 GMT -6
I don't watch any of those "news" people unless I want a dose of whatever agenda I already know they are selling. I don't think it does any good to watch the stuff being floated out by the people who believe the same things I do and I can't stand to watch the other guys so.....I watch a lot of PBS and BBC for my world news. They have no investment in the out come.
Kat......how long have the Aussies had universal health care and do you like it?
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 17, 2013 19:47:04 GMT -6
I don't watch any of those "news" people unless I want a dose of whatever agenda I already know they are selling. I don't think it does any good to watch the stuff being floated out by the people who believe the same things I do and I can't stand to watch the other guys so.....I watch a lot of PBS and BBC for my world news. They have no investment in the out come. Get most of my news from the ABC, fairly comprehensive world coverage and reasonably unbiased. Not sure why I occasionally watch Fox to be honest (masochism maybe ) but where else am I going to find out that America has the best health care system in the world, at least according to Sean Hannity. Kat......how long have the Aussies had universal health care and do you like it? To answer the second part of your question first, yep, really like it, everybody, no matter how far down the financial ladder they happen to be, still has access to decent health care. Universal health care began in 1975, implemented by the first Labor government to come to power after nearly twenty five years of conservative government, the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984 (again by a Labor government) It's not perfect, but as far as I've been able to ascertain it leaves America's in the dark. A few links you may find interesting ...... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australiahealthworkscollective.com/kmurphyfhi/59536/how-australias-universal-health-care-system-measures-internationally
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Nov 23, 2013 0:02:51 GMT -6
I'll have to do some checking Kat. My exposure to universal health care is based on England where I know people with first hand experience - and they all tell me there is no comparison when it comes to the level of care and availability. One person recently told me that when he visited his parents earlier this year, they were trying to schedule a non-emergency appointment. They were told that the waiting list meant they could be seen in two years.
Any one can go to an ER here and be seen irrespective of ability to pay. The problem is that many people go to the ER if they have so much as a cold - it clogs up the system and increases the wait time. Since we have become a nation of people with McDonald's expectations - meaning instant service with a smile and a free hot coffee if it takes too long to get what we want - we've not got a lot of patience. The idea that the person who just came in gets to be seen before "us" just because that person has a missing limb or open wound rankles some beyond reason.
I guess, aside from the web site, what bothers people most is that all are forced to purchase health care, or pay a tax for refusing to so. (Our nation was based on the principle of freedom of religion, equality, and personal responsibility. Being forced to do anything is anathema.) Many people simply cannot afford it, and many more who have insurance are being dumped on the open market by their insurance companies because their current policy doesn't meet the minimum required by the mandatory health system. (For instance, all policies must cover a set minimum, so even if there's not much to no chance of you becoming pregnant, your insurance must still cover it.) And, the new policies, if people get them, will cost much more. The problems are myriad. To be sure, the thing is not completely horrid, but the good it will do is dramatically offset by the bad it is doing. And to say it again, it is so horribly expensive nationally that many of us, including myself obviously, believe our economy cannot support it. Certainly not as it is proposed.
Fox News - you aren't watching the news. You are watching the political commentary. But it brings up a good point. We have become more extremist over the past several years. The fact that we haven't passed a budget in five or six years is evidence that we've lost our ability to compromise on issues. We'd rather win at any cost which has brought us to the brink of disaster more than once. I suspect that it's coming again. The GOP caved in a few months ago because the president absolutely refused to negotiate on any issue. It's going to happen again unless we get some moderates elected. As it stands, the inability to pass a budget means we are living under what is called sequestration - a plan so horrid that no one believed the politicians would actually let it happen. (BTW - this sequestration mess is yet another Obama plan.) The latest proposal is to cut more personnel, and to eliminate the grocery stores. Yes, military personnel and retired military personnel on fixed incomes, will be paying more in civilian communities, but the military has to make due with less capital and food is, I guess, a luxury.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 26, 2013 1:07:11 GMT -6
I'll have to do some checking Kat. Best of luck with that mate, the discrepancy in information, depending on which site you come across, is fairly broad. My exposure to universal health care is based on England where I know people with first hand experience - and they all tell me there is no comparison when it comes to the level of care and availability. One person recently told me that when he visited his parents earlier this year, they were trying to schedule a non-emergency appointment. They were told that the waiting list meant they could be seen in two years. I'm assuming you mean they (the persons parents) had already seen a doctor and were waiting on elective surgery/procedure? From what I've been able to discover (remember those discrepancies) the average waiting time for elective hospital-based care in the U.K is 46 days, although some patients wait over a year, so the case you described sounds rather atypical. Any one can go to an ER here and be seen irrespective of ability to pay. Yep, same here, and I'd imagine in the U.K as well, probably Moonglum would be in a better position to answer that though. I guess, aside from the web site, what bothers people most is that all are forced to purchase health care, or pay a tax for refusing to so. (Our nation was based on the principle of freedom of religion, equality, and personal responsibility. Being forced to do anything is anathema.) Again, same here, freedom of religion, equality, and personal responsibility are a given, and I don't think many aussies like being forced to do anything as well, but surely if paying a moderate tax is beneficial to both yourself and the nations purse strings it's hard to argue against it. Here's a very brief overview of the system here ........... "In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax Medicare levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications." ..... In other words, if you can afford it you pay the levy, if not you pay zilch but still have access to quality health care within the public system, without the burden of crippling health bills. As an example, a good mate of mine complained of chest pains some time back, was admitted to hospital immediately and underwent open heart surgery, all at no cost. And to say it again, it is so horribly expensive nationally that many of us, including myself obviously, believe our economy cannot support it. Certainly not as it is proposed. From several reports I've seen you spend considerably more per capita, and more as a percentage of GDP, then any similar country, yet still rank near the bottom for quality of care, which suggests to me that it "could" be affordable if better administrated. The system here is horribly expensive, but I don't think we're on the brink of insolvency just yet, far from it actually as we emerged from the GFC largely unscathed, with one of the worlds strongest economies. Fox News - you aren't watching the news. You are watching the political commentary. You're right of course, guess I'll have to force myself to watch a couple of news shows; find it hard to imagine though how a channel that seems to operate on a single principle, that being liberalism is the root of all evil while conservatism is all that is nobel and pure, could be unbiased in it's news reporting, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, decent chap that I am. The parts of your post I edited out I pretty much agree with.
|
|
|
Post by scamp on Dec 9, 2013 16:30:16 GMT -6
Newt Gingrich ..... NEWT GINGRICH ......... 300,000,000 people and this is the best you can throw up as a possible leader? There's a real possibility that after the next elections in the U.S of A and here in Oz we could have Gingrich and Tony Abbott as our leaders, there must be a movie there for the Farrelly brothers I'm thinking, I mean ya gotta laugh at the very notion surely. Kat, can I come live with you in OZ? Please? I've tried to remove myself physically and emotional from urban centers and other sources of power and it isn't enough. So please? please....
|
|
|
Post by scamp on Dec 9, 2013 16:47:04 GMT -6
Someone like to give me an update on the Obama healthcare plan? Been hearing that it's a bit of a mess at present, with millions losing their coverage, and even Democrats calling for changes. Is it just a case of a decent program being badly implemented, or a poorly construed program to begin with? President Obama's health care program will cost a average blue-collar worker about $24/month. And it will offer (unless the right mauls it) access to every doctor. Unlike Canada, for example, no waiting times are expected for things like hysterectomies -- there currently an 18 month wait. The program is fundamentally sound. The technology of the registration site sucked and couldn't handle the traffic. Odd how if people have to wait 2-3 weeks to get a newest iPhone, it's considered a success. But if the demand for insurance can't be met at once the whole idea must be flawed. scamp
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Dec 9, 2013 23:41:32 GMT -6
Kat, can I come live with you in OZ? Please? I've tried to remove myself physically and emotional from urban centers and other sources of power and it isn't enough. So please? please.... My doors always open to you Scamp, more then happy to welcome you 'down under' any time. President Obama's health care program will cost a average blue-collar worker about $24/month. And it will offer (unless the right mauls it) access to every doctor. Unlike Canada, for example, no waiting times are expected for things like hysterectomies -- there currently an 18 month wait. The program is fundamentally sound. The technology of the registration site sucked and couldn't handle the traffic. scamp Sounds good, how come all I'm hearing then is that it's a disaster, with skyrocketing premiums and millions losing their existing policies; am I getting my info from the wrong source, should I look elsewhere besides Fox "fair and balanced" news?
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Feb 22, 2016 17:36:54 GMT -6
Thought it was in this thread (apparently not)that we were discussing the chances of Ronald McDonald ..... errrr I mean Donald Trump getting the Republican nomination and Stepper suggested he'd get flogged in the primaries, something that I agreed with at the time. Just wondering how it's shaping up now, he seems to have an excellent chance of pulling it off, is there a real possibility that we could have The Donald in the White House, maybe with Sarah Palin as his VP. Be afraid, be very afraid.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Feb 22, 2016 22:31:15 GMT -6
Right you are, and despite the fact that he repeatedly sticks his foot in his mouth, he's still around. I'm at a loss to provide a logical explanation. Mexican-Americans, Catholics, you name it; he's said something outrageous about pretty much everyone and yet he continues to win primaries. I’ve actually wondered if the media ‘favors’ him so that their darling (Clinton) won’t have a decent opponent.
One candidate is an unindicted criminal and the other is a rich loon. I'd even vote for the socialist over either one - which if you know me - says a whole lot.
Why? Russia is all in favor of Trump being elected. What a recommendation, eh?
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Feb 24, 2016 19:00:24 GMT -6
Right you are, and despite the fact that he repeatedly sticks his foot in his mouth, he's still around. I'm at a loss to provide a logical explanation. Mexican-Americans, Catholics, you name it; he's said something outrageous about pretty much everyone and yet he continues to win primaries. Makes you wonder how so many people can be fooled into voting for him, is it the "celebrity" factor I wonder, or the fact the other leading candidates are unappealing, Rubio is possibly considered a bit young, and Cruz, well anyone who advocates destroying ISIS by a campaign of carpet bombing, without even understanding what the term actually means, is not someone you'd want as Commander in Chief. Never thought I'd see the day where the possibility of someone occupying the Oval Office would make you think "well hang on, maybe that George W Bush fella wasn't so bad after all" and that's a scary thought in itself. Saw a woman on the news last night, a Trump supporter, saying America had become the laughing stock of the world and she wanted that to stop, so apparently she believes that will happen by putting a clown in the White House, now that's REALLY scary. I’ve actually wondered if the media ‘favors’ him so that their darling (Clinton) won’t have a decent opponent. He seems fairly popular on Fox from what I can gather, so not sure about that theory Step'. One candidate is an unindicted criminal and the other is a rich loon. I'd even vote for the socialist over either one - which if you know me - says a whole lot. Now hang on mate, presumption of innocence and all that. I can see where you have a bit of a conundrum on your hands with that last statement mate. Why? Russia is all in favor of Trump being elected. What a recommendation, eh? That's exactly what I mean, that in itself is enough to make you very afraid surely.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Feb 24, 2016 23:02:25 GMT -6
He had a dust-up with a Fox reporter. Aside from that, the reporters on all the other channels are generally handling him with kid gloves. George W. could do nothing right – if he sneezed in public they’d talk about some poor person having a horrible day, then show W from the worst angle possible, and explain that he didn’t have a good solution to that person’s problems. The sneeze would be on primetime news for a week unless replaced by an even more egregious picture and story. Trump is having trouble doing wrong. They mention his various foibles in passing on the day it happens, possibly twice that day, and they all move on. Indeed, that is the process. I work with classified data and every year we are required to take a refresher course on handling classified material, the applicable laws and penalties for intentionally ignoring or mishandling classified stuff. I assure you that if “I” – lowlife unprivileged person that I am – had admitted to the things certain others have already admitted to – then “I” would be in a deep, dark hole. Or Guantanamo.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 25, 2016 6:52:38 GMT -6
I just don't understand it. I really, really don't.
I have wondered (and worried) over the last several weeks what you (Republicans collectively) that don't support the "loon" as you, (personally), have rather politely called him, (I personally would have thrown in a few adjectives along with a string of expletives) will do if he does get the nomination.
Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Feb 25, 2016 19:35:53 GMT -6
The next couple of primaries should tell us if he’s really it.
Oh IT IS ON!! What an insulting thing to accuse me of!! Clearly I’m an independent!! Republican in deed. NOT! I’m not a Damnocrat either.
I suspect most of them will vote for him. In my case, I really cannot vote "for" either which means I won't vote if that's the 'choice'.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 26, 2016 7:26:08 GMT -6
Now, now. I did not resort to naming calling (except for the very long list of things that ran through my head to describe Trump), and it is not ON. I will never discuss politics with you, Step, because our views are as polar opposite as they can get. It's pointless - you are not going to change my opinions, and I'm not going to change yours.
The one thing we seem to agree on though, is Trump.
That is the real scary part.
The thing is, in my opinion (without any facts to support it), all these Republicans who will vote for him if he wins the nomination - just because he's a Republican - would be voting for a Republican in name only. He isn't in this to represent the Republican party - at times it seems as if he doesn't even know their platforms are.
Which is not to say he leans toward a Democratic viewpoint either.
He is in this one for one thing - to win. The goal of every candidate is, of course, to win - but that's not what I mean. He appears to have no firm or concrete policies, domestic or foreign, except those that seem unfeasible (not to mention outright ludicrous), and he seems to change his views whenever he thinks it'll get him one step closer to his end-game - which is to be the victor (which has little to nothing to do with being the president). It's a total power-trip he's on, that is all about the ride, without real thought to what he's going to do once he reaches the destination. He appears to be in this only for the advancement of "The Donald", and not for the betterment of the country.
I have to say if the shoe was on the other foot, and if I was a Republican, and if Trump was the Republican nominee, I couldn't vote either.
I might even be taking up Canada on their Trump refugee offer.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Feb 26, 2016 21:31:10 GMT -6
Neither did I.
Without supporting facts because I really don't know (as evidenced by the fact that "I" can't understand how it is that he's won anything) but generally, I believe most Republicans will vote for anyone who is not named Clinton. Her presidency will not result in a coalition - it'll deepen and exacerbate the political rift.
I agree, except I also say that if Clinton is the other nominee, irrespective of party affiliation, no one who cares about what happens to the economy next - or is looking to avoid truly oppressive taxes - or wants to avoid congressional grid lock - can vote for her.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Feb 26, 2016 21:48:56 GMT -6
Credit where credit is due - this is copied entirely from the Fact Check web site. I was going to post the e-mail this thing is talking about, but perhaps this is a better site. One of many interesting facts about one of the candidates who isn't a Republican: "An email says that Hillary Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was fired for lying and being unethical when she was a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation. Is this true? The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012. Calabrese’s information came from Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.” On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.” Specifically, Zeifman contends that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president. Zeifman said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.” Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules. Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy. Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.” Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents. After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation. According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association. So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth. In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations. Carole Fader: (904) 359-4635" jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation
|
|
|
Post by Spock on Oct 30, 2016 21:07:20 GMT -6
Seems to me that the definition of Fascist corresponds to what the Democrats are trying to do. Nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 7, 2016 20:38:04 GMT -6
Not sure where to post this so here is as good a place as any I guess, just wondering how everyone is coping with the prospect (possibility) of a Trump presidency, giving anybody nightmares?
Not that the alternative is much better really, someone down here described it as a contest between the untenable and the unthinkable, guess that just about sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Nov 7, 2016 22:36:53 GMT -6
The most recent polls put the unindicted criminal 2 to 4 points over foot in mouth. (I don't know if they compensated for a margin of error first or are talking raw numbers.) I saw on one of the web sites that more than half of the state of Florida voted early - that's a rarity - and enough of the key states are too close to call that really - it's anyone's guess how this is going to turn out.
I don't think it matters who wins the election - if the margin of victory isn't substantial it will only serve to deepen the divide the country is already experiencing. Nor do I believe either can heal the rift created by the primaries.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 8, 2016 5:38:52 GMT -6
The most recent polls put the unindicted criminal 2 to 4 points over foot in mouth. (I don't know if they compensated for a margin of error first or are talking raw numbers.) I saw on one of the web sites that more than half of the state of Florida voted early - that's a rarity - and enough of the key states are too close to call that really - it's anyone's guess how this is going to turn out. I don't think it matters who wins the election - if the margin of victory isn't substantial it will only serve to deepen the divide the country is already experiencing. Nor do I believe either can heal the rift created by the primaries.It's a pity they're the best both parties could put forward, heck I thought we had some pretty ordinary leaders here recently but they look positively superb compared to what you guys are going to be saddled with shortly, an "unindicted criminal or foot in mouth" (like that description) pretty much says it all I guess.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Nov 8, 2016 21:03:44 GMT -6
During the early primaries it was like the whole country was caught up in a bad contested scrum. Then, all of a sudden, we were down to two. And it was still a bad scrum.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Nov 9, 2016 5:57:02 GMT -6
To me, a lifelong Democrat, I can say without a doubt whatsoever and with total honesty, it would not have mattered which party Trump ran for, I could not with any conscience, and would not have voted for him. We just took a 30-year leap backwards in terms of racial, feminine, and LGBT equality (not to mention concern for the environment, and religious and ethnic persecution, among other things). I truly fear for our country, and for the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 9, 2016 6:41:10 GMT -6
Understand how you feel Gams, must come as a shock that what was initially thought of as a joke, the prospect of him occupying the White House, has turned into a nightmare reality. Don't want to sound like I'm America bashing but I truly despair at where your country (and as you say, the rest of the world)is heading, can understand there was a lot of frustration at the political system but how more then fifty percent of Americans think the solution is putting this clown in charge is quite frankly beyond my comprehension. This article is a sobering read for us down here ................ www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-president-trump-it%E2%80%99s-all-bad-news-for-australia/ar-AAk4VwO?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntpHopefully he surrounds himself with level headed people who can steer him in the right direction, but fear his ego is so huge he'll simply forge ahead and ignore anyone who disagrees with him whatever the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Nov 9, 2016 14:28:05 GMT -6
To me, a lifelong Democratic, I can say without a doubt whatsoever and with total honesty, it would not have mattered which party Trump ran for, I could not with any conscience, and would not have voted for him. We just took a 30-year leap backwards in terms of racial, feminine, and LGBT equality (not to mention concern for the environment, and religious and ethnic persecution, among other things). I truly fear for our country, and for the rest of the world. I agree with all my heart. Broken though it may be this morning. Angry sadness does not even come close to describing my feelings this morning.
|
|