Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
I think that, every 8 years or so, the Boss should ask federal agencies to take a good, hard look at what they’re doing, to ask if efficiencies or technologies should change their way of doing business. As long as it’s done with good intent (i.e., not as an ideological crusade disguised as a cost-saving measure).
Also, inasmuch as I think climate change is a pressing issue for our time, the EPA got way out in front of the legislature there; that was a house of cards waiting to collapse - the best long-lasting environmental policies have been bipartisan. To bring us back to a bipartisan discussion, I hope conservative counterparts would meet me halfway by saying that while we can debate the right policy and responses going forward, we need to start by supporting the actual science. I will acknowledge the science currently shows a wide range of possible outcomes - but that’s uncertainty in the degree, not in the underlying drivers, and calls for greater, not less, investment in the solid science.
I don’t think that the government should be able to force a person to purchase something just by virtue of them being alive. If the government believes it is worthwhile that everyone have a certain thing like food stamps at certain income levels, lunches in schools for certain income levels, or health insurance - they can provide it or fund it. With the way that the ACA operates Congress could force everyone to buy broccoli or Trump University diplomas. I don’t think Congress should have this power. The proper way to enact this would be through an entitlement program. At least that would be clearly constitutional.
Some people pre-ACA could not obtain health insurance due to health or other circumstances. That those folks were able to obtain insurance after the ACA, that’s good for them. I wish it was via different means.
I don’t think there is a conflict to reconcile.
Resist, don’t capitulate.
Ah. So you’re for universal healthcare, if I understand you correctly. Me too.
I’m not opposed to it from a constitutional standpoint. I think I’m biased to be opposed generally because it would be expensive, but without details I’d reserve judgment. I’m definitely opposed to the ACA.
I don’t think he’s necessarily for UHC, he’s definitely opposed the structural way that they tried to implement the ACA in that it expands the powers of Congress wrt forcing compliance in purchasing insurance (or anything else). I agree that the proper way to do this would be through entitlements if you want to ensure it’s in accordance with the constitution, and Obama et al screwed up in trying to do it the way they did it. ETA: or what Bone said.
Myself, FWIW, I’ve kind of come to the view that a single payer system is what we should try and implement. We would need to work out a lot of details as far as exactly what coverage would be the basic level and how the system would work (and what the budget would be realistically, and what the realistic growth path for that budget would be), and I think a tiered approach would be best (i.e. everyone gets basic services, but folks who actually pay into the system via taxes would get higher levels of service…seems more fair to me, YMMV of course).
Since we’re on the subject of health care, 2 question for Trump supporters:
-
If you are currently covered by the ACA, are you concerned about losing that coverage if it is repealed and replaced by what the GOP is currently proposing?
-
Would you be in favor of a Universal Health Care system in line with entitlements like SS or Medicare & Medicaid?
Trump-supporters:
There are various estimates as to the projected cost of the southern border wall with Mexico. It’s my understanding they range from $20B-$45B. It’s not clear to me when construction is expected to begin or end.
Do you believe there is a way that Mexico can be made to pay for the wall?
If that’s not going to be possible, are you in favor of building the wall, funded by federal funds?
Would you be willing to pay additional taxes, e.g. fuel or pizza sur-tax, to pay for the construction of the wall?
The thing that is necessary to make finding common ground possible, not to mention useful, is a principled foundation for the behavior of the two or more parties. For instance, you ask people “to keep hostilities and animosity at bay.” If one party sees this as a requirement to have a discussion of common ground and another party sees nothing wrong with it, then it becomes near impossible to have such a discussion unless one party changes their position. If, more hyperbolically, one party believes they should not be assaulted, but another believes they should and actively do assault the other party, then it would be irrational for the assaulted party to have such a discussion until they can get the assaulting party to cease change their position.
This can also be applied to the position you brought up. Some people think that words, when spoken, have a definitive meaning that can, or at least should, have a relatively easily discernible meaning that does not change over time. Or at the very least, the speaker should be able to clarify their meaning when asked and that their clarification is reasonably connected to what they originally said. Another party, however, may think that words, when spoken, mean whatever the speaker says they mean each time he references them.
So, for instance, explicit references to wire taping, and Obama personally having a hand in it, thus making Obama a terrible person, should, in my opinion, always mean what they clearly mean to any reasonable person. Some, however, believe that clarification that is contrary to the clear, reasonable meaning of these references actually changes the meaning of these original references. How could two parties possibly find common ground when one has such a drastically different usage of language, something that is foundational for having any sort of rational discussion?
Put more simply, and perhaps divisively, how can one party who puts stock in the truth have a meaningful discussion of common ground with a group who puts more stock in cynical lies and personal feelings over the truth? What point of common ground would be meaningful in light of this fundamental divide until one side changes their position?
You’ll tax my pizza when you pry it from my cold, dead, greasy hand.
To the barricades!! I’m totally with you…THERE WILL BE NO PIZZA SUR-TAX ON MY WATCH!!! :mad:
To paraphrase from Les Miserables: Here upon these pizza stones we will build our barricade…
In the heart of the city we claim as our own…sausage and pepperoni with extra cheese!
Each man to his duty and don’t be afraid…have another slice!
Wait! I will need a report on the crust, to ensure it’s perfectly charred and delicious!
I read the thread title and laughed my ass off. Detente? When Trump resigns. When his supporters admit he’s the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War. And when pigs fly.
There’s no question that liberals and conservatives still have to work together on specific things if anything useful is going to get accomplished governance-wise. For example, I’m about to call my Trump-endorsing Republican state senator, with my nose firmly held, and express my appreciation for his voting for a legislative measure that I support. Would prefer to be saying that to the Democratic politician who lost the state-senator race to him in November, but that’s politics for ya: you exert your influence on the politicians you have, not on the politicians you wish you had.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that a large part of Trump’s appeal to his base, and a large part of what they want him to accomplish, consists merely of Pissing Off the Liberals. When liberals get angry at Trump, these Trump partisans don’t get concerned that they’re losing bipartisan support or maybe overstepping the bounds of practicable compromise: on the contrary, they get downright gleeful, because Pissing Off the Liberals is all they really care about. If Trump decided to bomb California, with all the disastrous consequences that would entail for liberals and conservatives alike for generations to come, these partisans would still be gleeful about it, because it would Piss Off the Liberals, and that’s what’s important to them.
There really isn’t a viable strategy of detente with people at the same time so malicious and so shallow.
I’m not covered by the ACA, so I don’t think 1) applies to me. FWIW, the ACA eliminated my very good HSA plan, so I’m miffed at it in general. I was one of the people who was lied to about “if you like your plan, you can keep it”. I liked my plan, didn’t get to keep it.
As for 2), I’m a bit more hardline in my views of the powers granted the federal government in the Constitution than Bone, so I’d oppose a federal-level universal healthcare system, but wouldn’t object if all 50 states chose to enact something like Massachusetts’ RomneyCare (or whatever number less than 50 chose to do it).
Yes (I’d love to hear the counter-arguments to this plan though).
Yes, but I don’t know if “wall” is the right solution for the entire length of the border. Perhaps it’s some combination of a “virtual fence” and increased patrols in some areas. The summary version is that I support additional border security, and I’d prefer we were smart about it (but I’d support a brute-force “dumb” approach like a 2,000 mile wall over doing nothing more).
I’d prefer we finance it through offsetting spending cuts elsewhere.
What is not helpful or productive is the implication that in the disagreement there are two sides with legitimate points of view when one of those sides is perniciously lying and denying evidential information as fact. Addressing Trump and his supporters as if they have a reasonable disagreement of opinion based upon differing but legitimate interpretations is normalizing the abnormal distortion of fact and irrational views that come from it. As an example, when someone holds the view that we should reduce or more tightly control immigration, that is a potentially reasonable position to hold; however, when their opinion stems from the believe that immigrants at large are the major source of terrorist events and violent crime in America, it is no longer a rational opinion because it isn’t rooted in fact, and when you have a difference of opinion that are based not on evidence but “alternative facts” there is no real basis for having a rational discussion.
Trump lies. He lies constantly. He lies unrepentantly. He lies in speeches, he lies on Twitter, he lies in the few press conferences that he bothers to hold, he hires people specifically to lie for him, and then he lies about what they do. None of this is opinion; it is objective fact, and while we’ve come to accept a certain level of distortion from politicians (sometimes even under oath) it is utterly abnormal for a president to lie in such a careless, persistent fashion. It not only speaks to the disrespect that Trump has for the American public but it also undermines the credibility of the institutions of the government. When Trump and his surrogates dispute the authenticity of the Congressional Budget Office report (without rationale), or claim that the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment numbers were falsified during the Obama administration but are legitimate under Trump (when the methodology for assessment is unchanged for decades), or claims that he was illegally surveilled during the election with no proof whatsoever, he isn’t just telling fibs; he’s persuading his base that the institutions of American governance are fundamentally untrustworthy, which is something no president should be doing without basis. The people who support Trump and excuse or deny these lies are contributing to the normalization of deviance, equivalencing these distortions with fact as if both are equally valid positions. This is how authoritarian and autocratic dictatorships operate, and giving this the patina of legitimacy by pretending that such positions are reasonable is not “detente”, it is facilitating the distortion of fact as a new normal.
I’m sorry if this comes across as “scream[ing] at the top of their lungs,” (and given that I’ve demurred from using personal disparagement or otherwise attacked Trump or his supplicants on a personal level, I don’t understand how you take it in this fashion) but it would be a disservice to pretend that we can have a rational discussion on the basis of non-factual claims.
Improvements in infrastructure, based upon sensible planning and funded appropriately through bond issues and finding credible budget reductions elsewhere to balance expenditures would be an outstanding benefit, both immediately for employment, and long term for public safety and commerce. Simply claiming a trillion dollar infrastructure “plan” based upon some kind of “public-private partnerships” and funded by some kind of vague combination of tax incentives and toll or usage fees is not a plan; it’s a bullshit sandwich. When Trump or his surrogates actually propose something of substance that appears to be more than a giant corporate entitlements plan, then there will be something useable to discuss.
Stranger
I think common ground is possible on a lot of issues – pizza toppings, football, TV shows, movies, cooking tips, and much more. But probably not on politics, at least not yet, for the vast majority in both camps, IMO. The only thing that could create some common ground on politics is either a massive catastrophe on the part of Trump, or some incredible and undeniable success. If he starts another war and gets thousands of Americans killed, or if he and Bannon are caught on record talking about shipping out the brown people, or if the economy takes a big dive and isn’t turned around, then at least some Trump supporters will probably start to be critical of him. And if crime plummets in the big cities, or manufacturing, coal, and the economy in general soars, then at least some Trump haters will grudgingly start to praise him.
But short of those two extremes, I think most of the two camps live in entirely different worlds and different realities, without enough overlap between them to create enough common ground to stand on.
I must be missing something. I read the article quickly, but this is simply a 20% tax on items imported from Mexico, right? So if I buy tequila, a sombrero, or a Ford, I’m paying that tax, correct?
If the money is coming out of my pocket, I don’t see how Mexico is paying for anything.
I think this misses the mark a little bit. The thread is ostensibly about interaction between people on different sides of particular issues, not necessarily about the lies that Trump tells.
Trump may say X and to support it tells lie #1. You think disagree with X and think Y is better. I could support X for a separate reason, or in spite of lie #1. This thread in my view is trying to get at those things, not the lies of Trump.
[ol]
[li]Not covered by ACA.[/li][li]Depending on details, I’d like to see it revenue neutral.[/li][/ol]
I do not believe Mexico can be made to pay for the wall in any reasonable scenario.
I’m not in favor of a border wall as described.
No additional taxes.
I’m in favor of much more open immigration. However, while the rules are currently in place they should be followed and enforced.
Trump is not worse that segregation, Japanese and other immigrant internment, the Vietnam War, and I’m sure many other things. Must be a matter of perspective.