News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

That is a positive thing at least if they could keep the good parts (like pre-existing conditions and young adults to be insured on their parents' policies) but tweak and improve the parts that don't really work. Trump: Obamacare key provisions to remain - BBC News
The Republicans are willing to keep those two specific provisions because they know that their base will be significantly impacted if they don't, and they will thus face a direct political backlash.

However, they are not interested in extending coverage to those who had no coverage prior to Obamacare. That was the whole reason they fought tooth and nail against it, and why the existing legislation has the issues it has.

It was always, and continues to be, a matter of "We want what benefits us, and to hell with everyone else."

Also, make no mistake about it - it comes down to being a racial issue. The people that are being visualized as benefiting from "my money" are people of color, not the white family living down the street.

However, you simply can't require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without either (a) subsidizing that coverage (which could cost millions per person) or (b) an individual mandate (and then subsidizing premiums for those who can't afford it on their own).

This article explains it in easy terms: Donald Trump is about to face a rude awakening over Obamacare
 
Last edited:
It was always, and continues to be, a matter of "We want what benefits us, and to hell with everyone else."

Exactly. I'm getting annoyed with all the articles about how backlash will prevent him from getting much done and that progress will continue. While I hope that's true, I'm under no illusion that any progress achieved under his 'administration' will be anything other than incidental to his insidious goals. There is no 'getting him to see the light,' there is no compromise here.
 
Easy terms, thanks so much. I will try and read it and get back to you. If there are any difficult words it might take me a while.

I didn't mean it like that.

It just puts in very clear terms. A lot of people (at least here in the U.S.) seem to think that pre-existing conditions can be covered without some corresponding universal (or near universal coverage) and the subsidization that is required as part of that. The press was really abysmal at explaining why that doesn't work, This article is one of the first that I've encountered that does it in non-wonkish terms.
 
You know, I was really starting to get used to the idea of being openly gay. Maybe I'd tell my friends soon. I might be able to even paint my nails or something. But this election has singlehandedly ensured I'm stuck in the closet for the next four years at least. So yeah, I'm gonna cry about it. I'm ****ing allowed that. I'm going to be sad, and mad, and every shade in-between.


Haven't we proven time and time again that this type of voter fraud doesn't really exist? I mean, to hell with facts and statistics or whatever though.

By quit crying I was referring to complaining about those who didn't vote your way, not about being upset with the results of the election. But it was rude and I shouldn't have said it and I'm sorry.

I know every time we hear about fraud (from either side) it's not necessarily true, but I don't believe it's never happened. The majority of politicians are not honest. But maybe I'm biased. I come from the land of convicted governors.
 
Yes:

Power of Progressive Economics: The Clinton Years – Center for American Progress

Household income growth under four American presidents | Brookings Institution

There are many things I don't like about Bill, but there is no question that middle and lower income people did much better during his administration than the one preceding and following him.

I don't even have to rely on reporting about it; I was a working adult, and remember quite clearly how different it was.
Citing the Center for American Progress to prove that the economy was good under Clinton, is like citing the Heritage Foundation to prove that the economy was good under Reagan.

Whether the economy was good or bad is subjective. But one thing that I think we can both agree on is that it was capitalism.
 
Citing the Center for American Progress to prove that the economy was good under Clinton, is like citing the Heritage Foundation to prove that the economy was good under Reagan.

Whether the economy was good or bad is subjective. But one thing that I think we can both agree on is that it was capitalism.
Which is why I also cited the Brookings Institution.

Capitalism isn't going anywhere. Even socialist countries are fueled by capitalism.
 
By quit crying I was referring to complaining about those who didn't vote your way, not about being upset with the results of the election. But it was rude and I shouldn't have said it and I'm sorry.

Thank you. It's okay to get a little rude here though, I think. This is a pretty fucked up time regardless of what angle you look at it from. I'll absolutely give you a pass on that because it's not like I've been super nice in this thread either.

I know every time we hear about fraud (from either side) it's not necessarily true, but I don't believe it's never happened. The majority of politicians are not honest. But maybe I'm biased. I come from the land of convicted governors.

I mean, I'm not going to fight you on that. Politicians can be, and usually are, pretty disgusting people.

It's just... if it were up to me we obviously wouldn't have this system in place. I don't think you want it either, given how dedicated you are to breaking it with your vote. But the reality of it is that we do, and my point of view is that unless any of us are willing and able to turn the entire country over to a new political system through violent revolution, we need to at the very least try to work within the constraints of that fucked up system to create something resembling change. Not the change we need, but the change we deserve... that sort of thing. And having to compromise there means, to me, sometimes voting to get some pretty fucked up people into power, because the alternative is so much worse.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe on every level, domestic and foreign, a Clinton presidency would be exactly the same as a Trump one? That Clinton being President would embolden evil people to do evil things here at home? Clinton supports the prison-industrial complex. She would continue the drone strikes abroad, she would probably end her term with Gitmo still up and running, she would undoubtedly continue the same shady dealings we've seen basically every President keep doing. But she would fight against LGBTQ and racial discrimination on a domestic level. She would negotiate with Russia and maybe, due to her experience, quiet the whole situation down a bit. She would continue the Obama administration's work of taking down terrorist organizations overseas, one leader at a time.

Agent Orange is the worst of both those camps. He's not going to advocate for anyone over here - he's going to do the opposite to the degree that he can get away with it. He's going to appoint some pretty disgusting people to his government, people who are even more dangerous than him. And he's still going to do the same level of shady **** overseas, he's still going to support the prison-industrial complex, he's sure as **** not going to close Gitmo.

If you can tell me honestly that you think I'm wrong about this, that they'd both be fundamentally the same, then there's really nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. But if you can recognize that although both are bad situations, one of them is truly worse than the other, then you should be able to understand where I'm coming from. Every action should have been taken to attempt to make the least awful reality come to be. Even if it's hard to stomach voting for someone who has done awful things. Even if it sets back the agenda of your preferred political party. That's what I believe.

Sometimes this whole thing just feels awful and ugly and broken, and I get really tired. We all clearly want change, but we squabble so much with each other over political differences that we never get anything done. I'm not saying this as an olive branch to people with ugly political agendas. It's just that the way we run things is practically designed to just tear us down when we try to do good with what we have. No option is going to be okay for all of the people trying to make the world a better place. It's fucked up, and no matter how much I might argue on here, no matter how much I oppose third party votes and lack of voting, please know that I do recognize that we are all trying to do good here in our own way. Being human and trying to be good in this world is **** and I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
You know, I was really starting to get used to the idea of being openly gay. Maybe I'd tell my friends soon. I might be able to even paint my nails or something. But this election has singlehandedly ensured I'm stuck in the closet for the next four years at least. So yeah, I'm gonna cry about it. I'm ****ing allowed that. I'm going to be sad, and mad, and every shade in-between.

This makes my heart hurt. I'm sorry, FortyTwo.
 
This makes my heart hurt. I'm sorry, FortyTwo.

Thanks for your support. It's tough, and it's getting me down, not gonna lie about that. But I have to hope that I can just keep moving forward despite this.

And anyway I'm not in the most danger of anyone here. You can't closet your skin color or your ethnicity. I'll at least be physically safe, that I can be sure of, even if I have to sacrifice some of my emotional comfort to do so. Don't worry too much about me - save it for the people who are in the most danger, like trans women of color.