Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3459

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

And had the ACA been a GOP idea and passed under Bush the GOP would have fought tooth and nails to make it better. It's like Ted Kennedy said years later after Nixon proposed a NHC program and the dems pushed back because it wasn't everything. The dems should have worked to help get it in place and then work over the next several years to make it better.

 

I do think the pushback is because so many people who want Obamacare gone thought it really would be replaced with something better because that's what the orange man told them. People need to start asking him WHERE his new plan is. He claimed he had one and now he's pointing to the GOP for their replacement(which they have none)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Me either. But I think those that feel hopeless need to understand. It's likely at least partially due to the work of many who have gotten the word out encouraging people to contact their reps and senators. There are now a list of GOP senators and house members who are against repealing it without a replacement and I firmly believe that's due to pushback from constituents. I'm working with a committee on the ACA which has been going strong since late November because we knew it was the first thing the GOP planned to tackle. And that effort has been happening nationwide. Your own Senator should show you that they actually do pay attention to these issues when their core base pushes back. Calls and letters to your reps and senators make a difference.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the major problem here is that it would take a pretty big transfer of wealth to make the ACA work for more people. People up thread have asked why we can't make single payer work in the US and that's basically the reason.  Europe has a much higher tax rate. The rich obviously don't want to be taxed more in the US. Don't get me started on the middle and lower classes who refuse to band together and make the rich pay more.

 

So truly, if we can't tax the rich to make the ACA affordable to anyone but the poor, were does the money come from? I'd much rather see the debt increase then kick people off their health care. Maybe we can hope that's the direction the Republicans will go in rather than take away a benefit that people have become accustomed to and facing the political fallout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There's also the problem that healthcare is a market that just keeps exploding in regards to cost. It's a for profit industry that doesn't really care at all about it's consumers, patients or sick people. They just want to make money. I don't necessarily think the problem is just taxation, it's that the healthcare industry doesn't want healthcare to be affordable, or work for everyone. That's why the costs keep escalating. A lot of people belief that the ACA is the reason for their increased health costs and bills, but it's really just the messenger or something that has been escalating at a great rate for years now.

 

 

I was reading an article, and I agree with it, it basically said that the floor for Republican voters is going to be around 20-30% with Latino voters, which makes sense. Not everyone is going to have Republicans with a fervor. It's just not in the cards. The solidly liberal camp is only but maybe 15-20% of Americans, and then we start delving further into the spectrum of left leaning, moderate, and right leaning. If these latino voters stay in this 20% I don't think that's much of an issue. The Hispanic/Latino population is diverse, and you have some that have internalized hatred for their race, and others who are angry with undocumented immigrants because they feel they got over when they didn't. That kind of infighting can't really be helped. You also have segments of the population who can "pass" for white or who have accumulated a sense of economic status like Cubans who left Castro - and they feel they belong to that demographic more then those who recognize their diversity and true heritage. Colorism is alive in all races. Some feel they can "pass" for white, and they would rather indulge that belief. As white-Hispanics grow in the population this may happen. But there is more growth outside of the latinx/Hispanic demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yep.

 

Anti-vaxxers are like climate change deniers: no amount of scientific evidence or consensus among experts on the subject will ever change their minds.  And that's their right.  Just as it's MY right to vaccinate my kids (should I ever have any) against whatever diseases THEIR kids will undoubtedly spread because they weren't vaccinated.  So, unless and until the anti-vaxxers succeed in doing away with vaccines altogether, I'm good, thank you.

 

Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing?  Not that I'm wishing for anyone, especially any children, to die.  But, you know, a few less stupid people in this world DOES affords some benefits to others.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.




  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Surely we (and Billy Flynn) are not going to be saddled with a character named Aristotle Dumas? This isn't 1970's Edge of Night.
    • What annoys me a little bit about the "day players" is they sound a bit too "Brooklyn-ish" sometimes.  Obviously, the show was taped in New York City, and the actors are all New York actors, but Monticello is supposed to be located in Illinois or Ohio.  Occasionally, they grab actors and actresses for small roles who have VERY distinct New York accents, which contrasts sharply with the main cast, none of whom have noticeable accents (except for our dashing European gigolo, Eliot Dorn, of course).  The heavy Brooklyn accent works fine if the character is a bookie, or the owner of a pawn shop, or a guy who's selling stolen guns on the street corner.  But when it's a steadily recurring character -- such as the first Mrs. Goodman, who worked for Miles and Nicole -- it's pretty jarring to me sometimes.  And you'll see it often -- such as an "under-five" character who witnesses a car accident, or a character who witnesses a shooting, or the occasional desk clerk, or waiter.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
    • I tend to have two minds about Tawny (Kathy Najimy) fainting during Soapdish's big reveal. You're the costume designer, if anything, you should have known the whole time. I guess it's an application of what TV Tropes calls the "Rule of Funny." Every time I watch Delirious, I always want the genuine romance in John and Mariel's reunion at the deli counter to last longer. Film critics had their knives out for Sally in this period. I'll start a separate thread on the movies page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy