Martha McSally appointed to fill McCain's seat.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-rep-m ... enate-seat

Excerpt:

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on Tuesday appointed Martha McSally to fill the Senate seat previously held by John McCain, according to the Washington Post. McSally, a prominent GOP voice in Arizona, lost her bid for the state’s other seat earlier this year. She will take the place of Jon Kyl, also a Republican, who has held the seat since McCain’s death in August. McSally, who rebranded herself as a Trump supporter during her Senate campaign against Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, reportedly spent recent weeks mending tensions with the family of McCain, who had been a vocal critic of the president. The Post notes that McSally plans to run for the seat during a special election in 2020. “With her experience and long record of service, Martha is uniquely qualified to step up and fight for Arizona’s interests in the U.S.,” Ducey said in a statement. “I thank her for taking on this significant responsibility.”

So, she lost her race for Senate, but ends up appointed anyway, to McCain's seat. This is also notable in that Arizona is now one of the few states to be represented by two female Senators.

[TimothyC]

One theory is that if McSally looses in November, that Kyl could resign, and the Arizona Governor Ducey could appoint her to McCain's seat, letting her get some incumbency in before the 2020 election.

I can't quite say I called it, but I did mention it as a possibility.

Also, statistically speaking, women hold about a quarter of all senate seats, so one would expect there to be about three states represented by two women - and there will be (I think) five after the start of the new term. So inline with what we would expect.

[Tsyroc]

I voted for McSally, and I still think this is a little distasteful, not sketchy but kind of bleh. I'd rather Kyle had finished out enough of McCain's term to get to the special election (2020). I also wish that McCain, knowing his health issues and age, had not run for reelection in 2016 but he did and he won so this is where we are.

McSally will do the job until 2020 and then has another shot at getting elected.

There were some shenanigans in the Republican primaries which ended up having Arpaio drawing votes away from Ward, which ended up giving McSally the primary win. Kelly Ward probably would have done better against Sinema since she was also from the Phoenix area but I don't see how the governor had much choice other than to go with McSally in this case.

[AniThyng]

I voted for McSally, and I still think this is a little distasteful, not sketchy but kind of bleh. I'd rather Kyle had finished out enough of McCain's term to get to the special election (2020). I also wish that McCain, knowing his health issues and age, had not run for reelection in 2016 but he did and he won so this is where we are.

McSally will do the job until 2020 and then has another shot at getting elected.

There were some shenanigans in the Republican primaries which ended up having Arpaio drawing votes away from Ward, which ended up giving McSally the primary win. Kelly Ward probably would have done better against Sinema since she was also from the Phoenix area but I don't see how the governor had much choice other than to go with McSally in this case.

I'd be interested to hear why you chose her over the democrat in this political climate given everything that had been said about the balance in the senate, if that's something you care to share.

[Tsyroc]

The balance in the senate is probably the main thing. I prefer the Supreme Court to lean more conservative mostly for second amendment reasons, but personal rights in general. If the ant-gun noise starts getting drowned out by attacks against Roe V. Wade from the right I'll be more inclined to vote Democrat the next time around.

As much as Trump is a douche I don't want the government wasting time trying to impeach him over partisan bullshit. So keeping the Senate Republican helps avoid that.

McSally was the representative for my congressional district for the last two terms. She's more conservative than I am but I've felt she's worked hard for Arizona and our district. She's done more that I'm nominally in favor of than stuff I'm nominally against. I don't particularly hate Sinema, she's more lefty than I like but I think she'll probably be an okay Senator for Arizona. I do think she benefited from an anti-Trump bump far more than McSally got a bump from supporting Trump.

As nasty as the election ads were going back and forth it's going to be interesting with them both going to the Senate this month. Yikes!

[Rogue 9]

The Democrats aren't interested in grabbing guns, not really. If they were they had their chance a decade ago and didn't take it. The NRA whips that up as a wedge issue because it's essentially a Republican PAC now. Meanwhile, they're hanging legal gun owners out to dry by refusing to participate in crafting firearms regulation of any type. Denying firearms expertise to the discussion on what to do about mass shootings, etc is how we get bullshit like the AWB.

[The Romulan Republic]

The balance in the senate is probably the main thing. I prefer the Supreme Court to lean more conservative mostly for second amendment reasons, but personal rights in general. If the ant-gun noise starts getting drowned out by attacks against Roe V. Wade from the right I'll be more inclined to vote Democrat the next time around.

As much as Trump is a douche I don't want the government wasting time trying to impeach him over partisan bullshit. So keeping the Senate Republican helps avoid that.

McSally was the representative for my congressional district for the last two terms. She's more conservative than I am but I've felt she's worked hard for Arizona and our district. She's done more that I'm nominally in favor of than stuff I'm nominally against. I don't particularly hate Sinema, she's more lefty than I like but I think she'll probably be an okay Senator for Arizona. I do think she benefited from an anti-Trump bump far more than McSally got a bump from supporting Trump.

As nasty as the election ads were going back and forth it's going to be interesting with them both going to the Senate this month. Yikes!

1. The reasons for impeaching Trump are not "partisan bullshit". Even leaving aside the questions of how broadly one defines "obstruction of justice" vs the President's authority, and whatever Mueller may yet turn up, the porn star pay offs thing alone implicates him directly in multiple felonies. Let me spell this out for you: IF HE WERE ANYONE OTHER THAN THE POTUS, HE WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY ALREADY BE INDICTED ON MULTIPLE FELONY COUNTS.

2. "Personal rights"? You mean like the right to have an abortion? Or marry who you choose? What you're really saying, in effect, is that you only care about civil rights violations if they affect you/white men. Because there's really no other way to say that a conservative court will do more to protect personal rights.

You know what your (R) Senate did? They put a probable rapist and perjurer who believes the President should be above the law as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, and basically killed whatever credibility the institution may have still had as a non-partisan arbiter of our Constitution.

With all due respect: considering that your reasons for voting (R) for Senate are just thin euphamisms for "protect Trump from the rule of law" and "I only care about civil rights if they affect me", why should we regard you as anything other than a closet Trumper (if closets can be made of glass)?

[AniThyng]

The balance in the senate is probably the main thing. I prefer the Supreme Court to lean more conservative mostly for second amendment reasons, but personal rights in general. If the ant-gun noise starts getting drowned out by attacks against Roe V. Wade from the right I'll be more inclined to vote Democrat the next time around.

As much as Trump is a douche I don't want the government wasting time trying to impeach him over partisan bullshit. So keeping the Senate Republican helps avoid that.

McSally was the representative for my congressional district for the last two terms. She's more conservative than I am but I've felt she's worked hard for Arizona and our district. She's done more that I'm nominally in favor of than stuff I'm nominally against. I don't particularly hate Sinema, she's more lefty than I like but I think she'll probably be an okay Senator for Arizona. I do think she benefited from an anti-Trump bump far more than McSally got a bump from supporting Trump.

As nasty as the election ads were going back and forth it's going to be interesting with them both going to the Senate this month. Yikes!

Thanks. It's always interesting to me to hear this perspective as one of the things I personally encountered when I was visiting the US was that some of the most articulate and polite people I met had actually indeed voted for Trump, while the most egregious rude and racist action I personally encountered was from an Asian American in SF. And I'm very obviously Asian and foreign myself. Granted this is all anecdotal and probably not representing general trends but...

[Tsyroc]

2. "Personal rights"? You mean like the right to have an abortion? Or marry who you choose? What you're really saying, in effect, is that you only care about civil rights violations if they affect you/white men. Because there's really no other way to say that a conservative court will do more to protect personal rights.

This is generally why I'm not here a lot. A few of you are damn spazzes when it comes to politics and it's irritating as fuck. I don't like Trump, I think he's stumbled into a few things that I agree with enough to give them a chance. For the most part he comes across as deranged/deluded as fuck but hearing constant shit fits about it isn't changing anything other than causing people to tune you out.

I think you missed the part where I said that I will go back and forth on who I vote for based on which personal right is being attacked the most at the time. Which right now has been mostly about guns. To be fair I wasn't all that clear in what I meant.

I have been and am for Gay marriage, it's only fair. I don't like abortion but I think it needs to be legal and readily available because the alternative is much worse.

I'm generally stuck going back and forth between whoever annoys me least. I've voted Libertarian and Green party more than once because what we generally get from the big two is more of the same shit and worse.

You know what your (R) Senate did? They put a probable rapist and perjurer who believes the President should be above the law as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, and basically killed whatever credibility the institution may have still had as a non-partisan arbiter of our Constitution.

I don't like the guy and would have prefered someone else but I also think that there needs to be some actual proof. I don't think Ford is a liar but even based on what she said happened I'm not sure I would have eliminated Kavanaugh solely on him groping someone when he was a drunk teenager. She thought it was going to go further, she said it didn't. For all we know he might be better in regards to some subjects that come before him because he acted poorly towards others when he was younger? There were several reasons I didn't like him based on his judicial record and I wish they had gone after him for those. From what I've seen he's pretty middle of the road now that he's on the Supreme Court.

With all due respect: considering that your reasons for voting (R) for Senate are just thin euphamisms for "protect Trump from the rule of law" and "I only care about civil rights if they affect me", why should we regard you as anything other than a closet Trumper (if closets can be made of glass)?

"All due respect" my ass.

So, has the Supreme Court or any other court done jack shit that has protected Trump from anything? I seem to recall some of his bullshit being struck down. I suspect that his bump stock ban will also get struck down. If Mueller finds something that can be used against Trump then go for it. I just get tired of hearing how he's done all of this stuff that he deserves to be impeached for without anyone actually charging him. I didn't vote for him because I thought he was crooked as hell before he even ran. I think Hillary is crooked as hell also. People with money and the right connections in this country get to be pieces of shit basically until enough people turn against them. If Mueller comes up with some legit stuff that can stick to Trump I think enough of Republicans will turn on him that he'll be gone.

[Tsyroc]

The Democrats aren't interested in grabbing guns, not really. If they were they had their chance a decade ago and didn't take it. The NRA whips that up as a wedge issue because it's essentially a Republican PAC now. Meanwhile, they're hanging legal gun owners out to dry by refusing to participate in crafting firearms regulation of any type. Denying firearms expertise to the discussion on what to do about mass shootings, etc is how we get bullshit like the AWB.

I think a few are, but I see your point. They are probably realistic enough to know it's not going anywhere for a long time. I think the more reasonable Republicans are also the same about Roe v. Wade.

[Tsyroc]

Thanks. It's always interesting to me to hear this perspective as one of the things I personally encountered when I was visiting the US was that some of the most articulate and polite people I met had actually indeed voted for Trump, while the most egregious rude and racist action I personally encountered was from an Asian American in SF. And I'm very obviously Asian and foreign myself. Granted this is all anecdotal and probably not representing general trends but...

You're welcome.

I still haven't quite figured that one out. Maybe it falls under the "lesser of two evils" and they chose Trump over Clinton? I didn't vote for either of them and still don't really get why people voted for Trump except for a few things. I understand why people voted for or against Hillary/Democrats better but the for Trump stuff is kind of baffling.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The Democrats aren't interested in grabbing guns, not really. If they were they had their chance a decade ago and didn't take it. The NRA whips that up as a wedge issue because it's essentially a Republican PAC now. Meanwhile, they're hanging legal gun owners out to dry by refusing to participate in crafting firearms regulation of any type. Denying firearms expertise to the discussion on what to do about mass shootings, etc is how we get bullshit like the AWB.

I think a few are, but I see your point. They are probably realistic enough to know it's not going anywhere for a long time. I think the more reasonable Republicans are also the same about Roe v. Wade.

The problem is, the more reasonable republicans don't actually exist in national politics. They're politically dead. You can tell because there aren't many republicans who actually vote against their bone-headed policies. Oh they'll talk about it, but they don't put their money where their mouth is. You might be able to find a few on the local level, but not nationally.

I have been and am for Gay marriage, it's only fair. I don't like abortion but I think it needs to be legal and readily available because the alternative is much worse.

And yet. Your preference for a conservative supreme court for 2nd amendment reasons is heavily correlated with said same supreme court justices who tend to side against both of these things. The idea that a supreme court that is conservative is more favorable to personal rights is ridiculous. It's those justices who have eroded protections against searches and seizure and substantive due process, oh... and vote against the legal equality and bodily autonomy of your fellow citizens. Hell, they don't even vote against outright politically motivated voter suppression.

So I'm really failing to see the logic here.

[Gandalf]

The Democrats aren't interested in grabbing guns, not really. If they were they had their chance a decade ago and didn't take it. The NRA whips that up as a wedge issue because it's essentially a Republican PAC now. Meanwhile, they're hanging legal gun owners out to dry by refusing to participate in crafting firearms regulation of any type. Denying firearms expertise to the discussion on what to do about mass shootings, etc is how we get bullshit like the AWB.

I think a few are, but I see your point. They are probably realistic enough to know it's not going anywhere for a long time. I think the more reasonable Republicans are also the same about Roe v. Wade.

The problem is, the more reasonable republicans don't actually exist in national politics. They're politically dead. You can tell because there aren't many republicans who actually vote against their bone-headed policies. Oh they'll talk about it, but they don't put their money where their mouth is. You might be able to find a few on the local level, but not nationally.

That got me thinking, when people try to discuss the idea of "reasonable" Republicans at the national level, is there someone to whom they usually point? I've occasionally heard people say Kasich is a moderate and reasonable Republican, but that's pretty scary as an idea.

[Crossroads Inc.]

That got me thinking, when people try to discuss the idea of "reasonable" Republicans at the national level, is there someone to whom they usually point? I've occasionally heard people say Kasich is a moderate and reasonable Republican, but that's pretty scary as an idea.

As far as I know "Moderatous Republicus" is an extinct species that saw itself die out around 2008 to 2010.
Any "moderate" elements that may see themselves as "conservatives" are typically no longer actually Republican.
More to the point, between the blood lust self purge of moderates during the Obama/Tea Party years, and the current Zombie like following of Trump... Any current Republican that, in other circumstances MIGHT be just SLIGHTLY moderate, are so blindly behind Trump that any remote notion of working together is laughable.

[The Romulan Republic]

At most, in Congress, you get someone like Flake, who will speak up and criticize Trump but usually end up voting for him anyway, and is probably only doing that much because he's going to be leaving soon and doesn't have to worry about reelection.

Where you get actual "moderate Republicans" is outside of elected office, particularly in the judicial system (Chief Justice Roberts and Robert Mueller would both be possible examples).

Both the base and the leadership, though, are pretty much lockstep behind Dickless. Moderates are the ones who have left or otherwise set themselves in opposition to the party on key issues.

[Tsyroc]

The problem is, the more reasonable republicans don't actually exist in national politics. They're politically dead. You can tell because there aren't many republicans who actually vote against their bone-headed policies. Oh they'll talk about it, but they don't put their money where their mouth is. You might be able to find a few on the local level, but not nationally.

Thinking on it I'd have to agree with you. "Reasonable Republicans" are rare and surprising if they show up. I don't know if there are any willing to show themselves these days. I think both parties have moved to the extreme of voting the party line over just about anything else, but the Republicans got that way first. Although, with the way the Democrats are going these days maybe they'll end up splitting into two parties, left and center left and we'll have more options. It's early with this new congress so we'll have to wait and see.

And yet. Your preference for a conservative supreme court for 2nd amendment reasons is heavily correlated with said same supreme court justices who tend to side against both of these things. The idea that a supreme court that is conservative is more favorable to personal rights is ridiculous. It's those justices who have eroded protections against searches and seizure and substantive due process, oh... and vote against the legal equality and bodily autonomy of your fellow citizens. Hell, they don't even vote against outright politically motivated voter suppression.

So I'm really failing to see the logic here.

In regards to the 2nd amendment I think it is more favorable, but when I comes to others I do agree that it can be worse.

Thanks for the response. You've caused me to think about this a lot more.

[Tsyroc]

At most, in Congress, you get someone like Flake, who will speak up and criticize Trump but usually end up voting for him anyway, and is probably only doing that much because he's going to be leaving soon and doesn't have to worry about reelection.

Where you get actual "moderate Republicans" is outside of elected office, particularly in the judicial system (Chief Justice Roberts and Robert Mueller would both be possible examples).

Both the base and the leadership, though, are pretty much lockstep behind Dickless. Moderates are the ones who have left or otherwise set themselves in opposition to the party on key issues.

I think you can get some at a local level if they are truly concerned with local issues and not using the position as a stepping stone. I suppose it all depends on what the party is like locally (city, state level) and how much toeing the national party line is a priority. Of course, at my local level the politicians are mostly about spending or not spending money, and what to or not spend it on.

I've been a little surprised that the national Republicans seem to be going along with Trump as much as they are. I know a few right-wingish political commentators that are pretty sure that Trump will get reelected if the economy is doing well and he gets some of THE WALL going, and I think that some of the Republicans in congress are holding on for dear life in hope that will happen and they'll be able to ride it into reelection.

Personally, I'm not seeing it. I think things need to be doing a lot better for that to happen. A fair to middling candidate from the Democrats and he's probably out.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The problem is, the more reasonable republicans don't actually exist in national politics. They're politically dead. You can tell because there aren't many republicans who actually vote against their bone-headed policies. Oh they'll talk about it, but they don't put their money where their mouth is. You might be able to find a few on the local level, but not nationally.

Thinking on it I'd have to agree with you. "Reasonable Republicans" are rare and surprising if they show up. I don't know if there are any willing to show themselves these days. I think both parties have moved to the extreme of voting the party line over just about anything else, but the Republicans got that way first. Although, with the way the Democrats are going these days maybe they'll end up splitting into two parties, left and center left and we'll have more options. It's early with this new congress so we'll have to wait and see.

That's another mistake I think you're making. Even the new wave of democrats are not advocating policies that are objectively that extreme. Actually doing something about climate change in the face of reports that we have decades left to avoid runaway greenhouse warming? That is objectively sane and rational. Rejecting that is madness. Getting in line with the rest of the civilized world on healthcare and student debt? We can quibble about the details of any given policy but in principle that is objectively sane and rational. Our healthcare and higher education systems are fundamentally broken. Doing something about our GINI coefficient (the UN's measure of wealth inequality) that is up there at "african kleptocracy" levels? That is objectively sane and rational.

Doing things like fully funding education and healthcare through taxpayer funds, and raising taxes on the wealthiest in our society to pay for it are not extremist policies. Those are mainstream everywhere else in the western world, they only seem like extremist crazy-pants policies here because the republicans are very good at defining the terms of political discourse in this country by ramping up the crazy and shifting the overton window, to the point where hum-drum policies used everywhere else that are supported by most americans seem extremist - or become extremist in the public perception.

Thanks for the response. You've caused me to think about this a lot more.

My pleasure. There are plenty of democrats who are sane on gun control and the second amendment. The reality is, we need more data to make any kind of educated policy regarding gun violence. We can start by letting the NIH do its job and research gun violence as a public health issue. At which point, we can start discussing legislation that can address those problems while maintaining the right to bear arms.

Right now though, we can't even have that because the GOP has shifted the overton window to the point where the victims of a mass shooting can't speak up on our gun problem without being crucified in the press and dealing with death threats.

[Tsyroc]

That's another mistake I think you're making. Even the new wave of democrats are not advocating policies that are objectively that extreme. Actually doing something about climate change in the face of reports that we have decades left to avoid runaway greenhouse warming? That is objectively sane and rational. Rejecting that is madness. Getting in line with the rest of the civilized world on healthcare and student debt? We can quibble about the details of any given policy but in principle that is objectively sane and rational. Our healthcare and higher education systems are fundamentally broken. Doing something about our GINI coefficient (the UN's measure of wealth inequality) that is up there at "african kleptocracy" levels? That is objectively sane and rational.

Doing things like fully funding education and healthcare through taxpayer funds, and raising taxes on the wealthiest in our society to pay for it are not extremist policies. Those are mainstream everywhere else in the western world, they only seem like extremist crazy-pants policies here because the republicans are very good at defining the terms of political discourse in this country by ramping up the crazy and shifting the overton window, to the point where hum-drum policies used everywhere else that are supported by most americans seem extremist - or become extremist in the public perception.

I think the last couple of years I've been overwhelmed by the "noise" that I didn't like coming from the left that it drowned out the parts that are bigger and more important, and probably more real.

I didn't think that there was a large group rejecting runaway greenhouse warming anymore? I know there's a few nutbars who think that, and some of their close relatives who believe we don't have anything to do with causing it, but I thought the majority of that side of the argument had moved into some degree of we can't do anything to stop it at all or without destroying ourselves financially.

Something has to be done about the wealth inequality but I'm not sure taxes are the best way. They tend to stick around as inflation drives everyone up the income ladder and into those higher tax brackets. Plus, the government has a pretty bad track record spending the money we already give them. Some of the change needs to come from better wages and profit sharing. We still need to leave some room for creative and innovative people who are motivated by greed so they will keep creating and not run off to some tax haven. Probably a combo of multiple things will end up being best but I tend to prefer taxes for everyone to be lower rather than higher. Except in the cases where low inheritances taxes fund society damaging douches in perpetuity.

My pleasure. There are plenty of democrats who are sane on gun control and the second amendment. The reality is, we need more data to make any kind of educated policy regarding gun violence. We can start by letting the NIH do its job and research gun violence as a public health issue. At which point, we can start discussing legislation that can address those problems while maintaining the right to bear arms.

Right now though, we can't even have that because the GOP has shifted the overton window to the point where the victims of a mass shooting can't speak up on our gun problem without being crucified in the press and dealing with death threats.

I don't know why they won't just work out and agree on the methodology and let it be researched. They keep going on about how the data and statistics back up their side. If the study comes out with raw statistics whichever side can argue what they think they mean or don't mean and refine things from there. Then give the people the data and we can decide from there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's another mistake I think you're making. Even the new wave of democrats are not advocating policies that are objectively that extreme. Actually doing something about climate change in the face of reports that we have decades left to avoid runaway greenhouse warming? That is objectively sane and rational. Rejecting that is madness. Getting in line with the rest of the civilized world on healthcare and student debt? We can quibble about the details of any given policy but in principle that is objectively sane and rational. Our healthcare and higher education systems are fundamentally broken. Doing something about our GINI coefficient (the UN's measure of wealth inequality) that is up there at "african kleptocracy" levels? That is objectively sane and rational.

Doing things like fully funding education and healthcare through taxpayer funds, and raising taxes on the wealthiest in our society to pay for it are not extremist policies. Those are mainstream everywhere else in the western world, they only seem like extremist crazy-pants policies here because the republicans are very good at defining the terms of political discourse in this country by ramping up the crazy and shifting the overton window, to the point where hum-drum policies used everywhere else that are supported by most americans seem extremist - or become extremist in the public perception.

I think the last couple of years I've been overwhelmed by the "noise" that I didn't like coming from the left that it drowned out the parts that are bigger and more important, and probably more real.

I didn't think that there was a large group rejecting runaway greenhouse warming anymore? I know there's a few nutbars who think that, and some of their close relatives who believe we don't have anything to do with causing it, but I thought the majority of that side of the argument had moved into some degree of we can't do anything to stop it at all or without destroying ourselves financially.

Something has to be done about the wealth inequality but I'm not sure taxes are the best way. They tend to stick around as inflation drives everyone up the income ladder and into those higher tax brackets. Plus, the government has a pretty bad track record spending the money we already give them. Some of the change needs to come from better wages and profit sharing. We still need to leave some room for creative and innovative people who are motivated by greed so they will keep creating and not run off to some tax haven. Probably a combo of multiple things will end up being best but I tend to prefer taxes for everyone to be lower rather than higher. Except in the cases where low inheritances taxes fund society damaging douches in perpetuity.

There are plenty of climate change deniers. Including the president, and pretty much every political appointee in the EPA and Department of the Interior. Seriously bro, pay attention. They're not most of the population, but they have disproportionate political power because the fossil fuel industry gives them campaign contributions.

Granted my fellow leftists (because I've gone full commie these days in sheer frustration, so I'm not going to knock better wages and profit sharing; we're just not going to get that without forcing the issue because private companies won't do it on their own. Trickle down is a farce.) don't do us many favors by rejecting nuclear power; but we can't even have that conversation realistically because of rampant denial of the problem.

The government has a terrible track record with money largely because of regulatory capture and self-sabotage by congress. Let's take public housing as an example. We could build good public housing, but the laws under which the federal government does that are the result of a set of compromises such that public housing has to replace and not add to the housing supply; we don't subsidize the operational budget; and our welfare agencies are obsessed with strange social control mechanisms. But programs like SNAP and WIC? Those programs actually make money. The government sees an ROI on those programs of 1.3

As for healthcare and education, what exactly are we do about it other than tax? Take health insurance as an example. Obamacare isn't going to work long term because we don't control medication prices, nor do we do anything to stop insurance companies from arbitrarily raising premiums over time. The only long-term solution is to do what Germany does which is to relegate them all to non-profits and put them under price controls with heavy subsidization for policyholders, or nationalize them outright. Even with the higher tax burden, the population saves money if we do the latter. That frees up expendable income and that gets spent in the rest of the economy, increasing tax revenue without increasing nominal tax rates.

The same with education. Once fully operational, the increased revenue might actually permit taxes to be reduced in the long run.

I don't know why they won't just work out and agree on the methodology and let it be researched. They keep going on about how the data and statistics back up their side. If the study comes out with raw statistics whichever side can argue what they think they mean or don't mean and refine things from there. Then give the people the data and we can decide from there.

Well, the side keeping actual research from happening is the pro-gun side; so draw your own conclusions regarding their motive. They're not data driven except what they can cherry pick. They've already reached the conclusion....

[Tsyroc]

There are plenty of climate change deniers. Including the president, and pretty much every political appointee in the EPA and Department of the Interior. Seriously bro, pay attention. They're not most of the population, but they have disproportionate political power because the fossil fuel industry gives them campaign contributions.

Apparently I need to.

I generally don't listen to most of what Trump says (I'd go crazy if I did) and even when he says he believes something I'm not sure he does, or if it's what he believes now, but he'll change his tune later. In this regard I just assumed he was pandering and then being obstinate about it because he's like that.

I'd still thought most of them had shifted from straight up denial to blaming natural heating/cooling cycle of the Earth, the sun getting hotter, and other natural stuff that we can't control.

Granted my fellow leftists (because I've gone full commie these days in sheer frustration, so I'm not going to knock better wages and profit sharing; we're just not going to get that without forcing the issue because private companies won't do it on their own. Trickle down is a farce.) don't do us many favors by rejecting nuclear power; but we can't even have that conversation realistically because of rampant denial of the problem.

The issue has to be forced. I was just thinking laws regarding pay, benefits and profit sharing for all workers, maybe maximum salary differential limits between the chiefs and the peons, before going to taxes. Although, I would be for dealing with loopholes and income would be income even if it wasn't from salary.

The government has a terrible track record with money largely because of regulatory capture and self-sabotage by congress. Let's take public housing as an example. We could build good public housing, but the laws under which the federal government does that are the result of a set of compromises such that public housing has to replace and not add to the housing supply; we don't subsidize the operational budget; and our welfare agencies are obsessed with strange social control mechanisms. But programs like SNAP and WIC? Those programs actually make money. The government sees an ROI on those programs of 1.3

As for healthcare and education, what exactly are we do about it other than tax? Take health insurance as an example. Obamacare isn't going to work long term because we don't control medication prices, nor do we do anything to stop insurance companies from arbitrarily raising premiums over time. The only long-term solution is to do what Germany does which is to relegate them all to non-profits and put them under price controls with heavy subsidization for policyholders, or nationalize them outright. Even with the higher tax burden, the population saves money if we do the latter. That frees up expendable income and that gets spent in the rest of the economy, increasing tax revenue without increasing nominal tax rates.

The same with education. Once fully operational, the increased revenue might actually permit taxes to be reduced in the long run.

There aren't alternatives to those than tax.

Making insurance companies non-profits would probably help and might be a good stepping stone.

Whenever it comes to going full government provided healthcare I get concerned about the healthcare industry as a whole. I just wonder if much of the rest of the world hasn't benefited from the US paying way too much for the same drugs? Are we defacto subsidizing and that's why their systems work, or are the companies just screwing us to make enormous profits? How much price controlling can we do and still incentivize innovation?

Just concerns I have, that I have no idea how much water they hold.


I seriously dislike the alternatives that they keep coming up with for public schools. Letting people redirect part of their taxes and those of whoever else they can rope in to help fund their children's private school annoys me the most. How about you put that much effort into making your local public school work?

Well, the side keeping actual research from happening is the pro-gun side; so draw your own conclusions regarding their motive. They're not data driven except what they can cherry pick. They've already reached the conclusion....

Possibly. I've seen some pretty good cherry picking and spin on the anti-gun side too so I can sort of see the concern. I'm annoyed that they block the study anyway. I'm not sure it would really matter anyway. The hard core 2nd amendment people are primarily concerned with the countless deaths that will happen under some future tyrannical socialist version of our government. Even if the study showed that x amount of people are dying now they'd focus on the XXX that could be dying in the future.