7340 pts · November 22, 2016
No ... it's destined to succeed for it's own benefit, but fail the people it's supposed to be representing. Equally though, if it doesn't bow to high value donors, it will be out campaigned by an expensive, but effective, disinformation campaign. Until there is campaign finance reform, it's a no-win.
... but the treasure is not at the end of the rainbow ... it's at the OTHER end of the rainbow.
I don't know about abolishing pardons altogether, but maybe limit it to convictions. Abolish pre-pardons (my word) for things that have not yet been prosecuted and convicted? Absolutely. Or alternately, the specific actions for which a pre-pardon is being issued must be enumerated and detailed for each individual.
More importantly, it doesn't matter if you leave now ... or six weeks from now ... you arrive at the exact time regardless.
You don't do sarcasm well, do you?
Yes and yes and yes … but maybe no on term limits, only because of the risk of losing institutional knowledge and experience of those actually doing good work. Instead, implement ranked choice voting to make it easier to oust incumbents that need to go.
Not everyone gets a passport because unless we leave Canada/USA/Mexico, we don't need one (at least it used to be that way; it may have changed) and most Americans can't afford to travel outside the northwestern hemisphere anyway.
... and you would think that a state-issued ID would be suffcient here; we don't really have national IDs in the US (other than a passport, which is a voluntary option not everyone takes), instead IDs are issued at the state level usually in the form of a driver's license which doubles as an ID. But as way to try to disenfranchise as many people as possible that might vote to the left, the Republicans are trying to make it much harder to vote by increasing teh requirement.
Cue the next Disney movie ... Raving with Wolves ...
... why is John Stewart so orange?
The show has nothing on the comic ... nothing is as it seems.
And like I said, if the lack of funding is a roadblock, that slows down the science. Until science says "No, stop, we have more money than we can spend!" or there is a cure, we can afford to spend more.
... what other sources of funding? Pharma companies aren't in the business of CURING anything; they're in the business of treating illnesses ... for as long as possible. Outside of university research (often funded by Pharma or federal grants), there isn't much else. Money doesn't make science move faster ... unless it's the lack of funding slowing it down.
Tell that to the kids of someone that is going to die of cancer that was "this close" to being cured before funding was cut. There's more than enough money to all of that and find a cure for most cancers, we just won't.
I'd argue that until it's cured and we have bllionaires ... we haven't spent enough; therefore underfunded.
Oh no … those wheels are cranking. The last thing a cattle dog has is an empty head. Be afraid … be very afraid. 🤣
Amen!
That's a great idea and mostly circumvents what healthcare prefessionals (doctors, CMOs at local hospitals, nurses, etc.) I've personally interviewed claim as the biggest challenge: the influx of that many people with figuratively unlimited coverage will overwhelm the system (see: Covid) and folks will have to get used to a lower standard of care and long waits for the first few years as the healthcare system gets up to speed. Lowering the eligibility age slowly gives the system time.
I'm 100% for medicare for all, but ... $450Bn ... for whom? Insurance companies? Taxpayers? If it's the latter ... how?
I was just the opposite ... I grew into the Murphys sound as I got older. To each their own.
THIS!!!
Can I upvote this a few more times, please?
Do you know who YOU are?
... and Missouri; though one guy did lose a finger when the rope got wrapped too tight and the car lurched.
Yep; and that's the other half of the equation. The dems don't know how to talk to the blue-collar world, and the GOP knows SO well that they can lie to them and the voters still believe it. The dems are always playing catch-up in these situations; they need to get ahead of the issue and make sure that any economic impact of regulation is more than offset as part of the regulatory implementation instead of waiting for the impact to cause fear and hard feelingsfor the GOP to use.
Yep; in part because the dems don't know how to talk to the blue-collar/rural world. They don't understand the lives, challenges and needs, nor do they try to as those voters don't generate much in campaign funds. The left has decided those folks are a lost cause and instead focus on the coastal elites that they understand. The GOP figured out how to leverage fear and dissatisfaction to generate votes. The left needs to address the small picture, everyday concerns of the blue-collar/rural world.
Then why didn’t small town America vote for the left in droves? The message didn’t get to them, at least not in a way that they could understand the immediate benefits.
Environmental regulations played a large part and that’s generally attributed to the left. What dems certainly didn’t do is go to those communities with subsidies, retraining and new economic opportunities that would replace the collapsed economy. Trump pandered to those folks … and in that vacuum, the left lost.
I don’t know how well he’ll play to voters in the middle. Being from “Commiefornia” and demonized by the GOP might work against him.
The point is the dems want to talk big picture, but ignore the impact of some of those big picture items on individuals. Mitigating negative impacts in an immediate and meaningful way needs to be a part of policy.
No ... it's destined to succeed for it's own benefit, but fail the people it's supposed to be representing. Equally though, if it doesn't bow to high value donors, it will be out campaigned by an expensive, but effective, disinformation campaign. Until there is campaign finance reform, it's a no-win.
... but the treasure is not at the end of the rainbow ... it's at the OTHER end of the rainbow.
I don't know about abolishing pardons altogether, but maybe limit it to convictions. Abolish pre-pardons (my word) for things that have not yet been prosecuted and convicted? Absolutely. Or alternately, the specific actions for which a pre-pardon is being issued must be enumerated and detailed for each individual.
More importantly, it doesn't matter if you leave now ... or six weeks from now ... you arrive at the exact time regardless.
You don't do sarcasm well, do you?
Yes and yes and yes … but maybe no on term limits, only because of the risk of losing institutional knowledge and experience of those actually doing good work. Instead, implement ranked choice voting to make it easier to oust incumbents that need to go.
Not everyone gets a passport because unless we leave Canada/USA/Mexico, we don't need one (at least it used to be that way; it may have changed) and most Americans can't afford to travel outside the northwestern hemisphere anyway.
... and you would think that a state-issued ID would be suffcient here; we don't really have national IDs in the US (other than a passport, which is a voluntary option not everyone takes), instead IDs are issued at the state level usually in the form of a driver's license which doubles as an ID. But as way to try to disenfranchise as many people as possible that might vote to the left, the Republicans are trying to make it much harder to vote by increasing teh requirement.
Cue the next Disney movie ... Raving with Wolves ...
... why is John Stewart so orange?
The show has nothing on the comic ... nothing is as it seems.
And like I said, if the lack of funding is a roadblock, that slows down the science. Until science says "No, stop, we have more money than we can spend!" or there is a cure, we can afford to spend more.
... what other sources of funding? Pharma companies aren't in the business of CURING anything; they're in the business of treating illnesses ... for as long as possible. Outside of university research (often funded by Pharma or federal grants), there isn't much else. Money doesn't make science move faster ... unless it's the lack of funding slowing it down.
Tell that to the kids of someone that is going to die of cancer that was "this close" to being cured before funding was cut. There's more than enough money to all of that and find a cure for most cancers, we just won't.
I'd argue that until it's cured and we have bllionaires ... we haven't spent enough; therefore underfunded.
Oh no … those wheels are cranking. The last thing a cattle dog has is an empty head. Be afraid … be very afraid. 🤣
Amen!
That's a great idea and mostly circumvents what healthcare prefessionals (doctors, CMOs at local hospitals, nurses, etc.) I've personally interviewed claim as the biggest challenge: the influx of that many people with figuratively unlimited coverage will overwhelm the system (see: Covid) and folks will have to get used to a lower standard of care and long waits for the first few years as the healthcare system gets up to speed. Lowering the eligibility age slowly gives the system time.
I'm 100% for medicare for all, but ... $450Bn ... for whom? Insurance companies? Taxpayers? If it's the latter ... how?
I was just the opposite ... I grew into the Murphys sound as I got older. To each their own.
THIS!!!
Can I upvote this a few more times, please?
Do you know who YOU are?
... and Missouri; though one guy did lose a finger when the rope got wrapped too tight and the car lurched.
Yep; and that's the other half of the equation. The dems don't know how to talk to the blue-collar world, and the GOP knows SO well that they can lie to them and the voters still believe it. The dems are always playing catch-up in these situations; they need to get ahead of the issue and make sure that any economic impact of regulation is more than offset as part of the regulatory implementation instead of waiting for the impact to cause fear and hard feelingsfor the GOP to use.
Yep; in part because the dems don't know how to talk to the blue-collar/rural world. They don't understand the lives, challenges and needs, nor do they try to as those voters don't generate much in campaign funds. The left has decided those folks are a lost cause and instead focus on the coastal elites that they understand. The GOP figured out how to leverage fear and dissatisfaction to generate votes. The left needs to address the small picture, everyday concerns of the blue-collar/rural world.
Then why didn’t small town America vote for the left in droves? The message didn’t get to them, at least not in a way that they could understand the immediate benefits.
Environmental regulations played a large part and that’s generally attributed to the left. What dems certainly didn’t do is go to those communities with subsidies, retraining and new economic opportunities that would replace the collapsed economy. Trump pandered to those folks … and in that vacuum, the left lost.
I don’t know how well he’ll play to voters in the middle. Being from “Commiefornia” and demonized by the GOP might work against him.
The point is the dems want to talk big picture, but ignore the impact of some of those big picture items on individuals. Mitigating negative impacts in an immediate and meaningful way needs to be a part of policy.