State of the race, mid September

[AUDub 11,158]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

LOL!  Not gonna lie, I had a gummy for the time in a long while last night.  That **** hit me hard.

Man, I had to grow the hell up and stop that stuff. Got kids, a wife, a j-o-b.

Gonna tell y'all something those stupid PSAs never will. I did drugs and...

 

 

 

 

 

...I had a really good time! Never beat nobody never robbed nobody never killed nobody quit when becoming a functional adult required it and haven't looked back since as I have no desire to chase the life I had at 16. At worst, should weed and such become legal, my nightly beer would be replaced with a nightly joint. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Man, I had to grow the hell up and stop that stuff. Got kids, a wife, a j-o-b.

Gonna tell y'all something those stupid PSAs never will. I did drugs and...

 

 

 

 

 

...I had a really good time! Never beat nobody never robbed nobody never killed nobody quit when becoming a functional adult required it and haven't looked back since as I have no desire to chase the life I had at 16. At worst, should weed and such become legal, my nightly beer would be replaced with a nightly joint. 

Oh it was the first time in a few years that I've indulged.  But, I have no kids and was home the entire time.  I brought some back from a work trip and they've sitting here for about two years.  Gave them to a friend last night who enjoys that stuff more than I do, but I took one as a tax LOL

Still my favorite ads from Auburn were for Willie's Wings.  Essentially: Are you as a kite at 3 am?  Call us.  We'll deliver until 4!

[SLAG-91 1,483]

8 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

So whats everyone's plans when Trump wins the election? 

If this happens, the same thing that will happen if Biden wins...and the same thing that happened when Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump won before...

I'll get up and go to work the next day...although in 2000, I never went to bed...worked on zero sleep the next day.

I'll leave the wall-eyed hissy fits and hyperbolic "OmGz, the Republic is over!" proclamations from the losing side, along with the "Yay, my guy!" hooting and hollering from the winning side, to others.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

Man, I had to grow the hell up and stop that stuff. Got kids, a wife, a j-o-b.

If the job tests, then yeah, ya obviously gotta put it down. But I wouldn't say that wife, kids or maturity preclude it. Certainly not any more than they would preclude alcohol consumption or legitimate behavioral medication. 

@Brad_ATX, split one with the Mrs. Friday night. We have to split them because they are so freaking potent. And they are a commitment. They take an hour to kick in and then you are strapped into that ride for the next 3-4 hours. We had a kick ass Friday night after the kids went to bed, though!

[McLoofus 35,182]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:31 PM, Leftfield said:

Agreed, but how/why has our culture gotten this way? 

Because there's more money in treatment than prevention. But that's another reason to have the government more involved. To incentivize  healthier living. 

Quote

Not often, but at times, yes, it's been a problem, and this is part of my point. You're looking at the static picture. Consider what could happen if our economic outlook severely declines, which isn't much of a stretch considering the national debt. What happens when non-payment to employees becomes more and more of an issue? Less will want to work if they aren't getting paid, or more likely, if they aren't getting paid what they thought they would when training for the field. What happens to health care when there aren't enough people to provide it? 

I just don't see these hypotheticals as superseding the very real problems we currently have with people not being able to afford critical health care. You're suggesting we don't change from this extremely flawed system to a system that would ensure health care for all because the new system, under certain, specific, rare, and very hypothetical conditions might leave some without the care they need.

Quote

Not even remotely the same, and I think you know that. You have the right to own a gun. You do not have the right to use it to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property unless they are a legitimate aggressor to do the same to you or someone else.

Yes, the people around me have the right to own weapons that necessarily make everyone around them less safe. As long as that's the case, I'm not really listening to arguments against universal health care.

Quote

 I'm not solely putting it on the patient, and I'm not saying it was all intentional, but there is no small responsibility there for the way things have changed. It's only human nature for things to be out-of-sight-out-of-mind, particularly when it's something you really don't care to deal with. And yes, many get care they don't need because they don't even know they don't need it.

So patients are going to the trouble of getting health care they don't need. I wonder why? Perhaps because of profit motive for those charged with providing that care? Maybe if health care were more affordable and accessible, it wouldn't be so out of sight out of mind. 

Quote

Understood, considering most of my posts so far, but remember that I lean mostly Libertarian, so I'm certain we will disagree on a number of issues. We definitely share a hatred of Trump, however. 😁

That explains a lot.

Quote

slippery slope

If we'd listened to slippery slope arguments over the years, white people would still be able to own black people and women wouldn't be able to vote.

Quote

I'm not saying government health care couldn't or even shouldn't be implemented, and it may very well be the only thing that can save our system considering how ridiculous it's become. However, the vast majority of countries with socialized medicine began at completely different starting points and the approach was already fairly ingrained in their cultures. They also benefitted for a long time from advancements made in our health care systems, which theirs were able to get at much lower costs, particularly with pharmaceuticals. And their systems do still have problems. Wait times for surgeries tend to be much longer, and you are at the mercy of what treatments the government allows. Yes, it's the same with insurance, but more tends to be available, at least for now.

I didn't say any other country is perfect. Or that change would be easy. But to dismiss the idea entirely because there will still be some problems (albeit far fewer) or that the change will be difficult (but not impossible and resulting in far better circumstances for Americans overall) is sad.

Quote

I think a solution can be made where government is the main provider and private entities take up some of the slack for things the government won't or shouldn't cover, but it's an intimidating task. We are a much larger country than most, with far more diversity and a large undercurrent of resentment and distrust toward government. Wish I could say I had the answers.

I actually agree with this 100%. I'm not suggesting that government should have to provide elective care, or that private insurance/care for those who want or can afford it shouldn't be an option. I'm just saying that no American should go without needed health care because they can't afford it.

[AUDub 11,158]

53 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

If the job tests, then yeah, ya obviously gotta put it down. But I wouldn't say that wife, kids or maturity preclude it. Certainly not any more than they would preclude alcohol consumption or legitimate behavioral medication. 

I get tested. DOT stuff, complex sensitive medical equipment. A little fun isn't worth the risk.

[AUDub 11,158]

Fivethirtyeight.com has released a released their penultimate forecast, and it's 90-10 in favor of Biden. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

45 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I get tested. DOT stuff, complex sensitive medical equipment. A little fun isn't worth the risk.

If my company tested, half the work force would be gone.   Including ownership.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

You're suggesting we don't change from this extremely flawed system to a system that would ensure health care for all because the new system, under certain, specific, rare, and very hypothetical conditions might leave some without the care they need.

So patients are going to the trouble of getting health care they don't need. I wonder why? Perhaps because of profit motive for those charged with providing that care? Maybe if health care were more affordable and accessible, it wouldn't be so out of sight out of mind. 

That explains a lot.

If we'd listened to slippery slope arguments over the years, white people would still be able to own black people and women wouldn't be able to vote.

I didn't say any other country is perfect. Or that change would be easy. But to dismiss the idea entirely because there will still be some problems (albeit far fewer) or that the change will be difficult (but not impossible and resulting in far better circumstances for Americans overall) is sad.

First off, I never suggested we don't change. However, do you not think it's at least feasible to consider trying to correct a flawed system that's already in place as opposed to implementing a system that a large number of people don't want? You say the other system will be better, and with our system as it is that isn't difficult, but does that mean it would be better than our system could be?

I will also point out that if government health care is more affordable and accessible, it will still need to be more transparent so people can be educated on it and know what they need. Yes, there is certainly a profit motive for the current system to inflate the care needed, but I'd love to know why you think there wouldn't be the same issue with a government run system when cost overruns and cronyism can be just as rampant as they already are in many other areas.

I'm not sure what I did to you to warrant your tone or shoving words into my mouth, but at NO point did I outright dismiss the idea as you suggest, and your jab about the slippery slope pisses me right off. Painting me with your own brush just because I disagree with you on health care being a right is unbecoming and a sh***y tactic. I have no idea how you expect to have a civil conversation about this with someone who is less inclined than me to listen to your side, particularly when we've been on the same side of many other things so far, but you're only damaging yourself here, so back off.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

First off, I never suggested we don't change. However, do you not think it's at least feasible to consider trying to correct a flawed system that's already in place as opposed to implementing a system that a large number of people don't want? You say the other system will be better, and with our system as it is that isn't difficult, but does that mean it would be better than our system could be?

I am quite confident that a for-profit health industry, just like every other industry, will continue to increasingly favor the rich and discriminate against the poor. That is the very nature of capitalism so no, I don't think we can fix the current system. 

Quote

I will also point out that if government health care is more affordable and accessible, it will still need to be more transparent so people can be educated on it and know what they need. Yes, there is certainly a profit motive for the current system to inflate the care needed, but I'd love to know why you think there wouldn't be the same issue with a government run system when cost overruns and cronyism can be just as rampant as they already are in many other areas.

The same issue, perhaps. The same issue to the same degree? No, I don't think so. Could be wrong.

Quote

I'm not sure what I did to you to warrant your tone or shoving words into my mouth, but at NO point did I outright dismiss the idea as you suggest, and your jab about the slippery slope pisses me right off. Painting me with your own brush just because I disagree with you on health care being a right is unbecoming and a sh***y tactic. I have no idea how you expect to have a civil conversation about this with someone who is less inclined than me to listen to your side, particularly when we've been on the same side of many other things so far, but you're only damaging yourself here, so back off.

Whoa. Didn't realize anything I said was that inflammatory. Certainly not "damaging myself". And I don't expect to have a civil political conversation with someone not inclined to listen to me. Does anyone here actually expect to change anyone else's mind?? But noted. 

Oh, "slippery slope"- feel free to be more specific. But 99.9% of the time that phrase is used, it's out of lazy "devil you know" resignation. Look at every conversation about every rule change in sports. (Not sure if you heard, but college football as we know it is over and it's a free agency free for all because players aren't punished to the same degree for wanting to change schools.) 

[Leftfield 2,617]

29 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh, "slippery slope"- feel free to be more specific. But 99.9% of the time that phrase is used, it's out of lazy "devil you know" resignation. Look at every conversation about every rule change in sports. (Not sure if you heard, but college football as we know it is over and it's a free agency free for all because players aren't punished to the same degree for wanting to change schools.) 

Your comment about abolishing slavery and women's voting rights being slippery slopes came across as an equivalency and did not sit well with me at all.

Slippery slope may not have been the best phrase to use, but in my opinion when you start saying someone must be provided a service which necessarily requires others to provide it, that sets a very dangerous precedent. What other "rights" would eventually have to be provided? Is food a right? Housing? Transportation? Clothing? Certainly as a responsible society we try to help provide these things to those that can't afford it, but do you consider them rights?

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Your comment about abolishing slavery and women's voting rights being slippery slopes came across as an equivalency and did not sit well with me at all.

Slippery slope may not have been the best phrase to use, but in my opinion when you start saying someone must be provided a service which necessarily requires others to provide it, that sets a very dangerous precedent. What other "rights" would eventually have to be provided? Is food a right? Housing? Transportation? Clothing? Certainly as a responsible society we try to help provide these things to those that can't afford it, but do you consider them rights?

Yes, I would consider basic necessities for life to be rights in any civilized society. However, food and clothing in particular seem much easier for one to procure for oneself than health care. 

Public transportation is woefully inadequate in this country but I don't expect it to ever be free. But it should be available at a reasonable cost. It should be considered critical infrastructure just like roads and police.

Housing is trickier. However, it is my belief that measures addressing transportation, health care and education would greatly reduce the need for it. 

Looking at it from a capitalist perspective, human lives need to be looked at as investment opportunities and not liabilities. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Scott Rasmussen, who founded Rasmussen Reports but sold the company a few years ago, still does polling of his own, completely independent of his namesake firm.  His final national poll has Biden winning 51-44%.

https://scottrasmussen.com/election-polls-2020/

http://politicaliq.com/2020/11/02/numbers-look-good-for-joe-biden-analysis-by-scott-rasmussen

Final state numbers.  If these are right, it's lights out:

[AUDub 11,158]

This is an important case. This Reuters reporter is one of the few that got into the room. 

 

[AUDub 11,158]

Reason to be optimistic. Judge Hanen is famously highly conservative,  but he led off by essentially saying the plaintiff is more than likely full of s***. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This is an important case. This Reuters reporter is one of the few that got into the room. 

 

To all those who scoffed at the notion of trump trying to subvert a legal election process...

Let's hope the checks and balances can hold.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This is an important case. This Reuters reporter is one of the few that got into the room. 

 

I don't understand the issue here.  Other than "voter suppression" what is the rationale for questioning these votes?

[AUDub 11,158]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I don't understand the issue here.  Other than "voter suppression" what is the rationale for questioning these votes?

You already know the answer. Highly Democratic area.

Yes, they're trying to suppress the vote.

Can only hope Hanen comes through.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

You already know the answer. Highly Democratic area.

Yes, they're trying to suppress the vote.

Can only hope Hanen comes through.

I get that.  I guess I'm asking, what is the "official" rationale being offered?

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I get that.  I guess I'm asking, what is the "official" rationale being offered?

I believe the assertion is that allowing drive-thru voting should have been decided at the state level and not at the county level. Which is inaccurate based on previous rulings.

[AUDub 11,158]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I get that.  I guess I'm asking, what is the "official" rationale being offered?

That these are illegaly cast ballots that will "dilute" the real voters. Apparently the hoop they're hanging their hat on is whether or not a vehicle voting curbside counts as a "structure" for voting purposes lol. 

Don't read too much into it, Titan. The rationale doesn't make sense and was never meant to. It's contemptible bull****. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

That these are illegaly cast ballots that will "dilute" the real voters. Apparently the hoop they're hanging their hat on is whether or not a vehicle voting curbside counts as a "structure" for voting purposes lol. 

Don't read too much into it, Titan. The rationale doesn't make sense and was never meant to. It's contemptible bull****. 

Is this a case that can escalate past the TX Supreme Court?

[AUDub 11,158]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Is this a case that can escalate past the TX Supreme Court?

The Texas State Supreme Court has already told the plaintiff to buzz off. This is the federal hearing. 

[homersapien 11,396]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

 

Slippery slope may not have been the best phrase to use, but in my opinion when you start saying someone must be provided a service which necessarily requires others to provide it, that sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

Well, I suppose that's a libertarian perspective, but I think it's more accurate to say everyone will have access to some minimal level of healthcare insurance which is paid by us all.  It provides for the most efficient way to manage cost - as many other countries demonstrate on a daily basis.

Don't forget, most - if not all - uninsured people get care now. Only it's often the most expensive care since they avoid preventative care and go to the ER when problems become critical.  And that's paid (indirectly) by us all.