I can't speak for the Republicans, but maybe they don't have a plan because they don't want no plan. Their efforts so far have been expended towards opposing socialized medicine, so why would they have a plan to support socialized medicine? Trump said that he had a plan, which mostly involved keeping certain provisions of Obamacare, like pre-existing conditions, while scrapping other provisions, like the individual mandate. I didn't read it, if it was ever indeed published, but it sounded to me like what I said before, he wanted to patch up Obamacare and re-brand it as Trumpcare. I personally like the Canadian system, but I would never vote for any Democrat, even if they proposed the exact same thing for us, because the Democrats want to take away our guns. I might vote for a Republican who proposed the Canadian system, all other factors being equal.
I am a little confused by Uncle Ken' references to "the migrant vote". Non-citizens aren't supposed to vote, although I read someplace that California is considering allowing them to vote in local elections. It wouldn't surprise me if they were voting in Chicago, since they even let dead people vote there, but I haven't read that they were. Are they? Anything's possible, but I find it hard to believe that a recently naturalized citizen would be spooked by the word "citizen" on a government form. Even if their command of English is limited, they must know that they are indeed citizens now.
"Beagles claimed in his earlier post that he didn't understand why anybody objects to the citizenship question on the seminar, but in his later post he admits that well, maybe he did hear something about why they object on those mysterious news apps where he browses. Then I have to assume he is equally aware of the memo of the dead guy who wrote to the reps that is why they ought to do it, and that is why they have done it, and that is why the supreme court, though Trump-loaded, has rejected it, so I don't think I have to say anything more here." - From Uncle Ken's last post
I can't seem to make much sense of this paragraph. What seminar? What dead guy? As for my "mysterious news apps", there is nothing mysterious about it. It came pre-installed from Microsoft and, as far as I know, everybody who is using Windows 10 has one. All they do is reprint articles from a wide range of sources, some more reliable than others. I avoid the extreme ones like FOX and MSNBC, and I seem to remember that most of the articles on immigration that I have cited came from the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
the answer man answers again
Trump never had a healthcare plan beyond telling people that they would have the best healthcare ever in the history of the planet. I was speaking of the Republicans, who are theoretically responsible, as the party who are constantly bleating about healthcare but in like fifteen years have come up with no plan of their own. The mandate goes to the government not the insurance companies. I suppose in a sense it increases insurance participation which is a boon for the insurance companies, but it's also a boon for government revenue and for getting some money out of uninsured freeloaders. I quite agree that the insurance companies have driven up the cost of healthcare. So I reckon then that Beagles is planning on voting for one of the more progressive democrats if they win the primary.
Beagles claimed in his earlier post that he didn't understand why anybody objects to the citizenship question on the seminar, but in his later post he admits that well, maybe he did hear something about why they object on those mysterious news apps where he browses. Then I have to assume he is equally aware of the memo of the dead guy who wrote to the reps that is why they ought to do it, and that is why they have done it, and that is why the supreme court, though Trump-loaded, has rejected it, so I don't think I have to say anything more here.
Of course that citizenship thing on the ballot (useless though it may be as Beagles points out) is meant to keep the migrant/democrat vote down. Why else would the Republicans put it in?
I reckon Beagles feels pretty secure in his citizenship in the swamp, but immigrants, even those who may have recently become citizens, fear the rhetoric and the actual raids that pick up everybody in the vicinity make them nervous and that's why they shy away from anything that mentions citizenship as the Republicans know full well (see above).
Do the dawgs remember when going to their physicals being asked if they were a commie or maybe just planning on overthrowing the government? Well the thing was, even to our eighteen year old minds, it seemed a little silly, I mean if I am a commie or intent on overthrowing the government aren't I going to lie on that? In Catch 22 there was some character that everybody disliked so they made up so loyalty oath which they would never let him take.
It seems to me that classism is more of a leftist thing, working class vs ruling class, it requires a bit of theory, whereas populism is simpler, throw the bums out, but in essence, yeah they are quite similar.
Beagles claimed in his earlier post that he didn't understand why anybody objects to the citizenship question on the seminar, but in his later post he admits that well, maybe he did hear something about why they object on those mysterious news apps where he browses. Then I have to assume he is equally aware of the memo of the dead guy who wrote to the reps that is why they ought to do it, and that is why they have done it, and that is why the supreme court, though Trump-loaded, has rejected it, so I don't think I have to say anything more here.
Of course that citizenship thing on the ballot (useless though it may be as Beagles points out) is meant to keep the migrant/democrat vote down. Why else would the Republicans put it in?
I reckon Beagles feels pretty secure in his citizenship in the swamp, but immigrants, even those who may have recently become citizens, fear the rhetoric and the actual raids that pick up everybody in the vicinity make them nervous and that's why they shy away from anything that mentions citizenship as the Republicans know full well (see above).
Do the dawgs remember when going to their physicals being asked if they were a commie or maybe just planning on overthrowing the government? Well the thing was, even to our eighteen year old minds, it seemed a little silly, I mean if I am a commie or intent on overthrowing the government aren't I going to lie on that? In Catch 22 there was some character that everybody disliked so they made up so loyalty oath which they would never let him take.
It seems to me that classism is more of a leftist thing, working class vs ruling class, it requires a bit of theory, whereas populism is simpler, throw the bums out, but in essence, yeah they are quite similar.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Clean Repeal
I seem to remember that Trump had a healthcare plan, which is why he was not able to persuade Congress to repeal Obamacare. What most of the Republicans wanted was a "clean repeal", and what Trump wanted was "repeal and replace". All he was trying to do was patch up Obamacare and re-brand it as Trumpcare. In my opinion, Canada has the best plan of all, but nobody in the US seems interested in copying that. I am against the individual mandate because it's a sweetheart deal for the insurance companies, and they're the ones who drove up the cost of healthcare in the first place.
I have read that putting the citizenship question on the census might discourage illegal immigrants from contributing to the count. The thing is they're not supposed to be here in the first place, so send them back where they came from and they won't need to be counted. The legal immigrants shouldn't have anything to worry about because they are here legally and, yes, they should be counted. As far as I know, the proposed question just asks if you are a citizen, it doesn't ask non citizens if they are here legally or illegally, so I still don't understand why Trump or anybody wants it put on in the first place.
The citizenship question on Michigan's ballot request slip is another useless thing. Since only citizens are supposed to be registered voters, what's the point of restating the obvious? Before they give you your ballot, they check your name against their list of registered voters anyway, which is why they have you fill out the slip in the first place. Be that as it may, I don't see how the citizenship question would keep the migrant vote down, unless Uncle Ken is suggesting that non-citizens should be given voting rights.
Something has been bothering me about this populism thing, and I finally identified it. Populism is just another word for classism, and I don't believe in classism. I know that lots of people do, but it's just a social thing that is not mandated by any law in this country. I am an American, I ain't got no class.
I have read that putting the citizenship question on the census might discourage illegal immigrants from contributing to the count. The thing is they're not supposed to be here in the first place, so send them back where they came from and they won't need to be counted. The legal immigrants shouldn't have anything to worry about because they are here legally and, yes, they should be counted. As far as I know, the proposed question just asks if you are a citizen, it doesn't ask non citizens if they are here legally or illegally, so I still don't understand why Trump or anybody wants it put on in the first place.
The citizenship question on Michigan's ballot request slip is another useless thing. Since only citizens are supposed to be registered voters, what's the point of restating the obvious? Before they give you your ballot, they check your name against their list of registered voters anyway, which is why they have you fill out the slip in the first place. Be that as it may, I don't see how the citizenship question would keep the migrant vote down, unless Uncle Ken is suggesting that non-citizens should be given voting rights.
Something has been bothering me about this populism thing, and I finally identified it. Populism is just another word for classism, and I don't believe in classism. I know that lots of people do, but it's just a social thing that is not mandated by any law in this country. I am an American, I ain't got no class.
ask the answer man
I too was surprised to see that that thing about the mandate was still rattling around. I think previously it was seen as being a long shot, but lately it has seemed more likely. If Obamacare gets knocked down that's a whole passel of people who will lose their insurance and that will leave the finger pointing at the republicans who, of course, have no plan at all, after all these years, Obama times and Trump times, times of holding the senate and not, times of holding the house and not, times of bleating incessantly at Obamacare, all those years and all those fears and they have no fucking plan at all/ Incredible.
The single mandate, which was first proposed by the republicans, requires people who don't buy insurance to pay a fine to the government. People who don't have insurance have to be carried by the rest of us, and this is just a way of encouraging them not to be such freeloaders, and also to get some money out of them for what they cost the rest of us. What is not to like about it?
Yes, apparently software recognition software is not as good on faces that are lily white. I don't know why that is, and I am not accepting that research burden this morning.
I find it hard to believe that Beagles has read about the US census citizenship question and not read what is usually the second paragraph in any such article, why the democrats oppose it. The citizenship question was proposed by a Republican operative because asking the question would make Mexicans leery of filing the form and therefore places where they live, which are mostly democrat, would receive less representation in congress. This is why the supreme court rejected it, and now the Republicans are trying to come up with some other reason that they wanted it to be in the census, but so far they have nada.
The way the constitution is written representation is based on the residents of any district, not the eligible voters or US citizens. I am again surprised that our constitutional scholar is not aware of this.
They don't ask those questions in Illinois, They never did in Michigan I'll wager until the republicans, using gerrymandered districts, took over the state government. They added that question for the same reason they want it on the census, to keep the migrant (democratic) vote down.
The single mandate, which was first proposed by the republicans, requires people who don't buy insurance to pay a fine to the government. People who don't have insurance have to be carried by the rest of us, and this is just a way of encouraging them not to be such freeloaders, and also to get some money out of them for what they cost the rest of us. What is not to like about it?
Yes, apparently software recognition software is not as good on faces that are lily white. I don't know why that is, and I am not accepting that research burden this morning.
I find it hard to believe that Beagles has read about the US census citizenship question and not read what is usually the second paragraph in any such article, why the democrats oppose it. The citizenship question was proposed by a Republican operative because asking the question would make Mexicans leery of filing the form and therefore places where they live, which are mostly democrat, would receive less representation in congress. This is why the supreme court rejected it, and now the Republicans are trying to come up with some other reason that they wanted it to be in the census, but so far they have nada.
The way the constitution is written representation is based on the residents of any district, not the eligible voters or US citizens. I am again surprised that our constitutional scholar is not aware of this.
They don't ask those questions in Illinois, They never did in Michigan I'll wager until the republicans, using gerrymandered districts, took over the state government. They added that question for the same reason they want it on the census, to keep the migrant (democratic) vote down.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
More Questions Than Answers
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAE48fU?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
It's news to me that Obamacare is still rattling around the courts. I had heard that they weren't currently enforcing the individual mandate, but I thought it was by executive order, not an act of Congress. So if Congress has already repealed the mandate, why does the court have to decide whether or not the mandate was unconstitutional? In my opinion, the mandate was the worst part of Obamacare and, if that's gone, I don't care what they do with the rest of it.
I read something the other day on my news app, but I didn't save the link. It seems that several jurisdictions have banned the use of face recognition technology because they say it discriminates against colored people. What's up with that? Are they saying that all colored people look alike to the machine? Maybe the article explained it but I didn't get it, must have been tired when I read it.
Another thing that's got me puzzled is the big uproar about asking people on the census if they are US citizens. I don't know why Trump wants to do it, but that could be said about a lot of things Trump wants to do. I also don't understand why anybody objects to it. What's the big deal? They already ask us about our race and how many bathrooms we have in our homes, so what's one more stupid question more or less? They count everybody whether they are citizens or not, don't they? The only time citizenship becomes relevant is when people go to vote.
A few elections ago, they started asking people if they were US citizens on their ballot request slip. I don't know if they have that in Illinois, but we fill out a slip with our name and address and give it to the lady who hands out the ballots. I think it's so we don't vote in the wrong precinct or something like that. Anyway, one year they added the question, "Are you a US citizen? check yes or no." The courts subsequently said that they can't ask that question because it's an invasion of privacy. So now, instead of checking a box, you sign a statement that says you are a US citizen and eligible to vote in this precinct. That's been on the form for a few elections now, and I've not heard of anybody objecting to it. First of all, if you're not a citizen, you shouldn't be voting in the first place, so what's wrong with asking about it? Second of all, if a non-citizen wanted to vote, he could just lie on the form. And, last but not least, why is it wrong to require people to check a box when it's okay to require them to sign a statement that says essentially the same thing?
It's news to me that Obamacare is still rattling around the courts. I had heard that they weren't currently enforcing the individual mandate, but I thought it was by executive order, not an act of Congress. So if Congress has already repealed the mandate, why does the court have to decide whether or not the mandate was unconstitutional? In my opinion, the mandate was the worst part of Obamacare and, if that's gone, I don't care what they do with the rest of it.
I read something the other day on my news app, but I didn't save the link. It seems that several jurisdictions have banned the use of face recognition technology because they say it discriminates against colored people. What's up with that? Are they saying that all colored people look alike to the machine? Maybe the article explained it but I didn't get it, must have been tired when I read it.
Another thing that's got me puzzled is the big uproar about asking people on the census if they are US citizens. I don't know why Trump wants to do it, but that could be said about a lot of things Trump wants to do. I also don't understand why anybody objects to it. What's the big deal? They already ask us about our race and how many bathrooms we have in our homes, so what's one more stupid question more or less? They count everybody whether they are citizens or not, don't they? The only time citizenship becomes relevant is when people go to vote.
A few elections ago, they started asking people if they were US citizens on their ballot request slip. I don't know if they have that in Illinois, but we fill out a slip with our name and address and give it to the lady who hands out the ballots. I think it's so we don't vote in the wrong precinct or something like that. Anyway, one year they added the question, "Are you a US citizen? check yes or no." The courts subsequently said that they can't ask that question because it's an invasion of privacy. So now, instead of checking a box, you sign a statement that says you are a US citizen and eligible to vote in this precinct. That's been on the form for a few elections now, and I've not heard of anybody objecting to it. First of all, if you're not a citizen, you shouldn't be voting in the first place, so what's wrong with asking about it? Second of all, if a non-citizen wanted to vote, he could just lie on the form. And, last but not least, why is it wrong to require people to check a box when it's okay to require them to sign a statement that says essentially the same thing?
some populists
I've plugged All the King's Men, both the book and the movie.(1949 version) in these annals, I don't recall if either of the dawgs was moved to read it or watch it. The movie was based on the book and the book was based on Huey Long who was shot ten years before I was born. Now there was a populist. If you consider giving money to the poor (or promising to) a leftist thing to do, then he was to the left of the Roosevelt.
In the book and the movie he is a rather nice hick who gets pissed off when the local school collapses and he learns that this was because it was made of shoddy materials and campaigns to run for some local office and gets stiffed by the powers that be, which gets his back up, and he campaigns even harder and wins one office and then another. The story is told through the eyes of a cynical yet idealistic (all cynics are failed idealists) reporter who is sympathetic, but somewhat mocking of Willie Stark (the character's name) at the beginning, but then becomes a true believer, but less and less a believer as Willie, having amassed all this power to do go, uses it to increase his power.
I don't know if you remember a guy named Fred Harris from Oklahoma. He was a minor candidate running in the 72 and 76 dem primaries. He came to campus in one of those years and we lefty student types were glad to have him. All the other dems seemed mealy mouthed in light of his fiery rhetoric, smash the establishment, right on! But when we tried to suss him out on race he didn't want to say much and we rather lost interest,
Trump having been born pretty rich, and not at all interested in redistributing any wealth (except for the stuff that goes into his pocket), doesn't fit into the mode of Willy or Fred. He really doesn't promise the people much. The only thing I can think of offhand is lowering drug prices which is kind of a toss away line that not much has been done about. What he offers them is hate and they eat it up because they are plenty angry too. If he had a brain, and I don't think he does. he would be glad that he has not built The Wall, because in actual fact it would be a tawdry thing and do little to keep anyone out, but as an ideal, as something to rant about, it is so much more, how the crowd does roar just at the name of it, and isn't that really what it is all about?
In the book and the movie he is a rather nice hick who gets pissed off when the local school collapses and he learns that this was because it was made of shoddy materials and campaigns to run for some local office and gets stiffed by the powers that be, which gets his back up, and he campaigns even harder and wins one office and then another. The story is told through the eyes of a cynical yet idealistic (all cynics are failed idealists) reporter who is sympathetic, but somewhat mocking of Willie Stark (the character's name) at the beginning, but then becomes a true believer, but less and less a believer as Willie, having amassed all this power to do go, uses it to increase his power.
I don't know if you remember a guy named Fred Harris from Oklahoma. He was a minor candidate running in the 72 and 76 dem primaries. He came to campus in one of those years and we lefty student types were glad to have him. All the other dems seemed mealy mouthed in light of his fiery rhetoric, smash the establishment, right on! But when we tried to suss him out on race he didn't want to say much and we rather lost interest,
Trump having been born pretty rich, and not at all interested in redistributing any wealth (except for the stuff that goes into his pocket), doesn't fit into the mode of Willy or Fred. He really doesn't promise the people much. The only thing I can think of offhand is lowering drug prices which is kind of a toss away line that not much has been done about. What he offers them is hate and they eat it up because they are plenty angry too. If he had a brain, and I don't think he does. he would be glad that he has not built The Wall, because in actual fact it would be a tawdry thing and do little to keep anyone out, but as an ideal, as something to rant about, it is so much more, how the crowd does roar just at the name of it, and isn't that really what it is all about?
Monday, July 8, 2019
Let's pull Warren's name out of the hat
Amash is the founder of the Freedom Caucus which is what drove John Bonner out into the wilderness, He's an acolyte of Ron Paul but mostly on the right wing side. He is rather dovish, but that's not enough to make me like him. I guess there is something to be said for a man who stands up for what he believes in, but not so much when what he believes in is against everything you believe in.
Democratic clown car? Well there is something clownish about any big group of people running in the primaries because they have to lash out at each other to get to the top of the heap. I am sticking to my pull a name out of a hat idea, but more and more and more lately I am leaning towards the woman who has a plan for everything.
There are a lot of spiders hanging out on high rises, and Old Dog is correct in that they get their sustenance from what the wind blows their way. I had curtains when I first moved in here, but I never drew them closed. Even without the stress of being open and closed they fell into disrepair and rather than replacing them I have gone without for the last ten years, I doubt that anybody is looking in my windows and if they do I don't care. When they were filming Batman the IBM building was standing in for the Gotham Chronicle, I could see them across the way and I waved to them and they waved back, but that is as close as I got to Hollywood stardom.
I think Old Dog's last appearance at the Ten Cat was in September at my last show, or that's the last time I saw him there. I do miss those seminars on Friday nights.
For populism the people is the masses, Joe Sixpack, the unwashed crowd, basically everybody that they see as having power over them. The fact that the 'elite are fighting each other means nothing to them. The early tea partiers were ostensibly against the fat cats and the educated, but later they cozied up to the billionaires, not only because the billionaires gave them a lot of cash, but because anybody can become a billionaire in America, but not everybody can pass Rhetoric 102.
A populist doesn't have to actually be for the 'people', he just has to appear to them to be for the 'people',When Trump rails against the 'elties,' he is speaking for them. He is the man on a horse and they will follow him to the gates of hell. Though they are sticking with him, they are only 40 percent of the electorate.
Democratic clown car? Well there is something clownish about any big group of people running in the primaries because they have to lash out at each other to get to the top of the heap. I am sticking to my pull a name out of a hat idea, but more and more and more lately I am leaning towards the woman who has a plan for everything.
There are a lot of spiders hanging out on high rises, and Old Dog is correct in that they get their sustenance from what the wind blows their way. I had curtains when I first moved in here, but I never drew them closed. Even without the stress of being open and closed they fell into disrepair and rather than replacing them I have gone without for the last ten years, I doubt that anybody is looking in my windows and if they do I don't care. When they were filming Batman the IBM building was standing in for the Gotham Chronicle, I could see them across the way and I waved to them and they waved back, but that is as close as I got to Hollywood stardom.
I think Old Dog's last appearance at the Ten Cat was in September at my last show, or that's the last time I saw him there. I do miss those seminars on Friday nights.
For populism the people is the masses, Joe Sixpack, the unwashed crowd, basically everybody that they see as having power over them. The fact that the 'elite are fighting each other means nothing to them. The early tea partiers were ostensibly against the fat cats and the educated, but later they cozied up to the billionaires, not only because the billionaires gave them a lot of cash, but because anybody can become a billionaire in America, but not everybody can pass Rhetoric 102.
A populist doesn't have to actually be for the 'people', he just has to appear to them to be for the 'people',When Trump rails against the 'elties,' he is speaking for them. He is the man on a horse and they will follow him to the gates of hell. Though they are sticking with him, they are only 40 percent of the electorate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)