2020 Election

[Mickeypoo]

(09-24-2020, 01:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think you'd be in the minority.  I can't imagine Trump supporters accepting getting more votes but losing because "that's the way the system works" given how being furious about "the system" is the whole reason Trump is even president in the first place.

I also don't find it all that unreasonable that democrats were upset their candidate got more votes but lost.  That seems pretty natural to me, honestly.

I personally don't know anybody (Trump supporters) who would complain about that.  I like how the electoral college is setup.  I understand why it is not majority rule.  I think you can easily substitute "policies" for "system".

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

If you lose, then next time get a better candidate and/or better policies and try again. 

I'm not going to be upset if Biden wins.  Probably disappointed, but I will wish him well, respect the Presidency and hope the decisions he makes are the best for our Country.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2020, 02:56 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I personally don't know anybody (Trump supporters) who would complain about that.  I like how the electoral college is setup.  I understand why it is not majority rule.  I think you can easily substitute "policies" for "system".

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

If you lose, then next time get a better candidate and/or better policies and try again. 

I'm not going to be upset if Biden wins.  Probably disappointed, but I will wish him well, respect the Presidency and hope the decisions he makes are the best for our Country.

Again, this is easy to say but we also have to acknowledge that a republican winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college is almost impossible, where as it has happened to democrats multiple times.  It's easy to say "I'd be ok with losing that way if it were possible" when it pretty much isn't.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-24-2020, 03:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Again, this is easy to say but we also have to acknowledge that a republican winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college is almost impossible, where as it has happened to democrats multiple times.  It's easy to say "I'd be ok with losing that way if it were possible" when it pretty much isn't.

Fair enough and I can only speak for myself, but I don't even pay attention to popular vote in the Presidential election because I know it means nothing.  I truly only care who wins the EC.  I don't want to go away from the EC no matter who wins or what the popular vote is.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2020, 04:10 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Fair enough and I can only speak for myself, but I don't even pay attention to popular vote in the Presidential election because I know it means nothing.  I truly only care who wins the EC.  I don't want to go away from the EC no matter who wins or what the popular vote is.

And I haven't voted for a democrat in over a decade but I'd be ok with the popular vote settling elections.  Looks like we're a couple of easy going but biased types on this one.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-24-2020, 04:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: And I haven't voted for a democrat in over a decade but I'd be ok with the popular vote settling elections.  Looks like we're a couple of easy going but biased types on this one.

Yup.  lol.

I just hope whoever wins, wins in a landslide.  There is enough division as it is.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2020, 04:24 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Yup.  lol.

I just hope whoever wins, wins in a landslide.  There is enough division as it is.

That's a pipe dream.  Division is here to stay and it's way too profitable to go away (hey, that rhymed).


Additionally, Trump has convinced 40% of the people that democrats are cheating and Trump has admitted that he is cheating so I don't see how election 2020 calms anyone down.

[GMDino]

I'm old enough to remember when "how it will be paid for" was a legitimate argument by the GOP.  Not "because Trump said so is good enough for us".

This faithful recitation of facts on the ground is absolutely brutal. https://t.co/L5eCFJTFqJ pic.twitter.com/u8wBbAKpNP

— Adrianna McIntyre (@onceuponA) September 24, 2020

 

[NATI BENGALS]

^

Well if Moscow Mitch supports states being able to file bankruptcy why stop there? We all know Trump is a bankruptcy guru. We just let him lead the country through bankruptcy proceedings.

I’m pretty sure our country would go to bankruptcy court at the Supreme Court. Which will be loaded with trump appointees. We are sure to win there just like he feels they will protect him from any election results should these stupid peons vote him out.

[GMDino]

So this works for Trump on multiple levels.

He can tell Democratic voters that he "kept his promise" to keep the pre-existing conditions clause.

AND he can tell Republicans he "kept his promise" to try and get rid of the pre-existing conditions clause and all of Obamacare.



https://news.yahoo.com/trump-health-care-plan-preexisting-conditions-obamacare-repeal-221123672.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

Quote:Trump promises to preserve Obamacare protections he’s trying to eliminate


Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
,
Yahoo News•September 24, 2020


President Trump announced Thursday that he would seek to guarantee health care coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, a protection that is already part of the Affordable Care Act his administration is seeking to repeal.


“The historic action I’m taking today includes the first-ever executive order to affirm it is the official policy of the United States government to protect patients with preexisting conditions,” Trump said at an event in Charlotte, N.C., where he signed an executive order that he claimed would improve health care in the U.S. 
Under the ACA, which was passed under former President Barack Obama, Americans with preexisting health conditions cannot be denied health coverage by insurers. Trump’s new executive order, meanwhile, amounts to a pledge and comes after he has repeatedly attempted to gut current health care law. 

On a call earlier in the day, White House officials said that Trump’s “protections” for preexisting conditions would not actually be law should the ACA be repealed, but were a "defined statement of U.S. policy.” The White House also announced that Trump would be giving Congress a Jan. 1 deadline to pass legislation on surprise medical billing and encouraging more health care choice.

Without protections for preexisting conditions provided by Obamacare, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in 2016 that up to 52 million people could be denied coverage. Millions more would lose insurance if the Medicaid expansion that was adopted by dozens of states and Washington, D.C., is killed. A full repeal with no immediate replacement plan could also hurt the fight against opioid addiction and HIV.

For years, Trump has promised he would unveil a health care plan that would cost less than the ACA, or Obamacare, while providing better coverage. A Fox News poll released earlier this summer found that a record high of 56 percent of U.S. voters had a favorable view of Obamacare, which was up 4 percent from the prior year.

President Trump delivers remarks on health care in Charlotte, N.C., on Thursday. (Evan Vucci/AP)

In June, the Trump administration filed a brief to the Supreme Court urging it to overturn the ACA in a case backed by 20 Republican-led states. The brief included a section arguing that the ACA’s protections for those with preexisting conditions must be overturned as well, contradicting Trump’s repeated statements that he and Republicans supported maintaining them.

“If we win, we will have a better and less expensive plan that will always protect individuals with preexisting conditions,” Trump claimed Thursday, failing to mention that his administration has not produced a replacement plan for the millions who rely on the ACA for care, much less a bill to be debated in Congress. 

Health care was a top issue for Democrats in 2018, when they retook the House in the midterm elections. According to a Washington Post report, GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy blamed the party’s failures in the 2018 midterms on their attempts to roll back preexisting conditions. The issue is expected to be a key focus again in the wake of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats have already stated that if Trump is allowed to replace Ginsburg with a sixth Republican-appointed justice on the nine-person panel, then the ACA and the health care of millions are in danger. On Sunday, Biden said voters “know their health care hangs in the balance in the middle of the worst health crisis in living memory.”

More than 202,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus and millions have lost their health insurance due to unemployment.

Republicans made a sustained effort to replace the ACA with a new plan during the first two years of Trump’s term, when they had control of both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House. The Congressional Budget Office found in March 2017 that the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republicans’ replacement proposal, would knock 14 million people off insurance in one year and 24 million more by 2026, while the AARP estimated it would raise health care costs for older Americans by thousands of dollars.

A supporter of the Affordable Care Act at a 2017 rally in Los Angeles. (Ronen Tivony/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The Republican House passed an amended version of the AHCA in May 2017, leading to a Rose Garden celebration with Trump and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan, but the bill died in the Senate. The legislation would have slashed Medicaid for low-income Americans, despite Trump’s repeated promises to the contrary. The July 2017 “skinny repeal” vote that barely failed in the Senate following no votes from Republican Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. John McCain was estimated by the CBO to increase the number of uninsured Americans by 16 million by 2026 and bring about a 20 percent rise in premiums. Actuaries calculated that thousands more Americans would have died sooner if the Obamacare replacements had passed.

Early in his presidency, Trump was surprised by the complexities of attempting to overhaul a massive industry Americans use to stay alive.

“Now, I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” he said in February 2017. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”

During Thursday’s event, Trump also alluded to a plan that would send money to older Americans to spend on prescription drugs. 

“Under my plan, 33 million Medicare beneficiaries will soon receive a card in the mail containing $200 that they can use to help pay for prescription drugs,” Trump claimed. “Nobody has seen this before, these cards are incredible. The cards will be mailed out in the coming weeks.”

The details of the plan, such as how they would be paid for, are unclear. A similar deal was almost announced earlier this year, but negotiations between the White House and pharmaceutical companies collapsed over the president’s idea to send out what some in the industry called “Trump Cards.”

“We could not agree to the administration’s plan to issue one-time savings cards right before a presidential election,” Priscilla VanderVeer of PhRMA, the industry’s largest trade group, told the New York Times. “One-time savings cards will neither provide lasting help, nor advance the fundamental reforms necessary to help seniors better afford their medicines.”

I suppose it will all be settled when he releases his health care plan...any time now?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-25-2020, 08:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when "how it will be paid for" was a legitimate argument by the GOP.  Not "because Trump said so is good enough for us".

This faithful recitation of facts on the ground is absolutely brutal. https://t.co/L5eCFJTFqJ pic.twitter.com/u8wBbAKpNP

— Adrianna McIntyre (@onceuponA) September 24, 2020

 

So you're saying Trump should NOT send the $200 prescription drug coupon?

[*bfine32*]

Should it be legal to pay people to vote?

https://nypost.com/2020/09/22/bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32k-florida-felons-so-they-can-vote/

Quote:Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has helped pay the outstanding fines and fees of 32,000 convicted felons in Florida so they could regain their right to vote ahead of the November election, according to a report.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should it be legal to pay people to vote?

https://nypost.com/2020/09/22/bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32k-florida-felons-so-they-can-vote/

I don't think so.

But he didn't "pay people to vote".  He paid their fine and now they "can" vote.

Plus they are felons so I'd assume most vote republican anyway. 

[Benton]

(09-25-2020, 12:30 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you're saying Trump should NOT send the $200 prescription drug coupon?

It's a $7 billion unfunded gift to predominantly older Americans. That's sweet and all, but it doesn't fix the problem. It's just taxpayers (predominantly working middle class younger Americans) shouldering the cost of a system that isn't feasible. 

Personally, I'd rather that $7 billion go toward some kind of actual reform. It's similar to how I felt about Obamacare: the sentiment is great, but fix the problem instead of just trying to patch up what we've got.

(09-28-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should it be legal to pay people to vote?

https://nypost.com/2020/09/22/bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32k-florida-felons-so-they-can-vote/

That's almost as bad as using tax dollars to send people one time $200 coupons for their prescriptions right before an election.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2020, 02:08 PM)Benton Wrote: It's a $7 billion unfunded gift to predominantly older Americans. That's sweet and all, but it doesn't fix the problem. It's just taxpayers (predominantly working middle class younger Americans) shouldering the cost of a system that isn't feasible. 

Personally, I'd rather that $7 billion go toward some kind of actual reform. It's similar to how I felt about Obamacare: the sentiment is great, but fix the problem instead of just trying to patch up what we've got.


That's almost as bad as using tax dollars to send people one time $200 coupons for their prescriptions right before an election.

Almost.

One used their own money.

Of course one HAS money. 

[GMDino]

https://www.newsweek.com/over-860000-americans-have-already-voted-compared-fewer-10000-this-point-2016-1534452

Quote:Over 860,000 Americans Have Already Voted, Compared to Fewer Than 10,000 by This Point in 2016

BY JOCELYN GRZESZCZAK ON 9/26/20 AT 1:31 PM EDT

More than 860,000 Americans have already cast their vote in the 2020 election—a number much higher than the reported 9,525 votes that were returned at this point in 2016.

At least 866,734 people have voted in this year's election as of September 26, according to the U.S. Elections Project, which is run by University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald. The number is based on 25 states whose early voting data is available, meaning it does not convey the entire picture.

"These states are those where I have current data on mail ballot activity," McDonald wrote in a blog post Saturday morning. "More states will be added as state reports become available."

Still, the large number is a sign of Americans' excitement for the upcoming election, as well as an increased commitment to voting early fueled by the coronavirus pandemic and concern over U.S. Postal Service delays.

Numbers gathered by McDonald in 2016 highlight just how different this election cycle may be than the previous one. For the week ending September 25, 2016, 9,525 people had voted early, according to the reporting states and localities.



While it is important to note that this number is only an estimate and could've been higher depending on whether McDonald had access to more states' data, the difference of more than 850,000 votes from this time in 2016 is astonishing.

As McDonald acknowledged in a blog post written at the time, the pace of early voting will naturally increase as Election Day draws nearer and more people finalize their choices. Just one week later—on October 2, 2016—at least 78,836 people had cast their ballot early in the reporting states, McDonald found. By October 16, 2016, that number had increased even further to be around 1.4 million voters.

Newsweek contacted McDonald for comment, but did not hear back in time for publication.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should it be legal to pay people to vote?

https://nypost.com/2020/09/22/bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32k-florida-felons-so-they-can-vote/

The other issue with this entire scenario:

Here’s the conundrum: Florida law states felons can’t vote before paying all their sentence-related debts. Problem is: many can’t find out how much they owe. There’s no centralized system. We saw old debts handwritten on index cards. https://t.co/BqGkKrGPAm pic.twitter.com/UBDbggWted

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 27, 2020

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-28-2020, 04:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: The other issue with this entire scenario:

Here’s the conundrum: Florida law states felons can’t vote before paying all their sentence-related debts. Problem is: many can’t find out how much they owe. There’s no centralized system. We saw old debts handwritten on index cards. https://t.co/BqGkKrGPAm pic.twitter.com/UBDbggWted

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 27, 2020

 

Your probation officer or parole agent can tell you.  That's part of their job.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2020, 02:08 PM)Benton Wrote: It's a $7 billion unfunded gift to predominantly older Americans. That's sweet and all, but it doesn't fix the problem. It's just taxpayers (predominantly working middle class younger Americans) shouldering the cost of a system that isn't feasible. 

Personally, I'd rather that $7 billion go toward some kind of actual reform. It's similar to how I felt about Obamacare: the sentiment is great, but fix the problem instead of just trying to patch up what we've got.


That's almost as bad as using tax dollars to send people one time $200 coupons for their prescriptions right before an election.

Waiting for the Whataboutism police. I'm sure they're coming.

Any thoughts on what Bloomburg is doing?

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2020, 04:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: The other issue with this entire scenario:

Here’s the conundrum: Florida law states felons can’t vote before paying all their sentence-related debts. Problem is: many can’t find out how much they owe. There’s no centralized system. We saw old debts handwritten on index cards. https://t.co/BqGkKrGPAm pic.twitter.com/UBDbggWted

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 27, 2020

 

Well we cannot expect them to be responsible enough to determine the debt they owe, just as long as we entrust them to pick POTUS.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2020, 05:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well we cannot expect them to be responsible enough to determine the debt they owe, just as long as we entrust them to pick POTUS.

They are trying to find out and the state doesn't know.  

Think of it as if you got a speeding ticket and then showed up to pay and the court said "Eh, it's around here somewhere.  Meanwhile you can't drive until you pay." And then they never tell you how much you owe.