For the love of god or whoever … VOTE!

[Ponzio]

This is just getting stupid.
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/plymouthwhitemarsh/s/hazgg/plot-to-attack-philly-vote-count-location-investigated-reports?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert

 

[Trell]

This is just getting stupid.
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/plymouthwhitemarsh/s/hazgg/plot-to-attack-philly-vote-count-location-investigated-reports?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert

What to expect from someone driving a car with a sticker for QAnon? Now we can wait for Trump posting on Twitter hailing them, perhaps even offering a pardon to anyone trying the same

 

[GO-NAD!]

Usually when people use the word 'but' it negates the first part of the statement as irrelevant bullshit but in your case you saved the bullshit for the second part of the statement that is normally factual. Standard sentence structure would have that read like this: America is in no way on board with the dem's WD for America but fired Trump. You see? The stupid part is first and then you negate it with 'but' and then you say the part that counts. Now you try. Let's see if you can start making sense.

I will say that this race was closer than Trump and Ivanka at a father daughter dance.

If I tell you that I will be stealing this, is it still plagiarism?

 

[ryanosaur]

closer than Trump and Ivanka at a father daughter dance.

 

[TankTop5]

Usually when people use the word 'but' it negates the first part of the statement as irrelevant bullshit but in your case you saved the bullshit for the second part of the statement that is normally factual. Standard sentence structure would have that read like this: America is in no way on board with the dem's WD for America but fired Trump. You see? The stupid part is first and then you negate it with 'but' and then you say the part that counts. Now you try. Let's see if you can start making sense.

I will say that this race was closer than Trump and Ivanka at a father daughter dance.

I’m impressed with your grasp of the English language, truly awe inspiring, only you’re wrong. Democrats did take a beating in the House and did not get control of the Senate and Republicans could pick up a Senate seat. Spelling and grammar are meaningless without comprehension.

 

[highfigh]

to answer your question.. i reckon i did.. although you were somewhat more eloquent and thorough...

You take that back!

 

[highfigh]

Sounds like you're arguing for a universal health care system. Am I wrong?

The problem with doing a 180 now is that everything has been established for so long that the cost would be incredibly high to implement it.

I'm not a fan of the way insurance works. They could have promoted good health for over 50 years, but they took peoples' money and let them eat, drink and smoke themselves to death. I'm not saying they should have been in control of peoples' lives, but it also shows human nature at its worst- if they tell people to eat & drink better and not smoke, people would have done the opposite. The food pyramid is inverted and because of that, millions have died from cardiac/inflammatory/immune system diseases, Diabetes, Cancer and suffered from all kinds of other maladies. We know that smoking kills due to cancer, vascular disease, Emphysema/COPD, etc yet, they just took the money and when possible, denied claims because the conditions existed before changing insurers and because they pulled a fast one when changing the conditions of the policies. Then, there are the malpractice settlements that cause the cost to skyrocket and drug companies and their price gouging.

I don't like monopolies.

I don't like government controlling much of anything- military, sure. National infrastructure, sure. In theory, education and health/safety, aviation, communications, energy policy and some other things, sure but the way they tend to meat things up and waste money, they need to do it much better. The attitude of "Yeah, we screwed it up but we can increase taxes to cover the additional cost" isn't working.

If they go to a government-run health care system, they'll end up eliminating a buttload of jobs at several levels, the drug companies may go into some other area of chemistry and we'll see many other consequences; intended, or not. I haven't seen a plan that makes sense, from anyone. Just shifting gears in the middle of the race is gonna leave a mark. If they had come up with a decent plan in the '30s, we wouldn't be discussing it now but then, politicians wouldn't have anything to yammer about.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Here's an interesting question. Are Trump's clutching at straws efforts to keep the presidency related to his pathological need to be seen as always winning? Or, is he just trying to kick his can full of legal woes four years down the road?

 

[GO-NAD!]

The problem with doing a 180 now is that everything has been established for so long that the cost would be incredibly high to implement it.

I'm not a fan of the way insurance works. They could have promoted good health for over 50 years, but they took peoples' money and let them eat, drink and smoke themselves to death. I'm not saying they should have been in control of peoples' lives, but it also shows human nature at its worst- if they tell people to eat & drink better and not smoke, people would have done the opposite. The food pyramid is inverted and because of that, millions have died from cardiac/inflammatory/immune system diseases, Diabetes, Cancer and suffered from all kinds of other maladies. We know that smoking kills due to cancer, vascular disease, Emphysema/COPD, etc yet, they just took the money and when possible, denied claims because the conditions existed before changing insurers and because they pulled a fast one when changing the conditions of the policies. Then, there are the malpractice settlements that cause the cost to skyrocket and drug companies and their price gouging.

I don't like monopolies.

I don't like government controlling much of anything- military, sure. National infrastructure, sure. In theory, education and health/safety, aviation, communications, energy policy and some other things, sure but the way they tend to meat things up and waste money, they need to do it much better. The attitude of "Yeah, we screwed it up but we can increase taxes to cover the additional cost" isn't working.

If they go to a government-run health care system, they'll end up eliminating a buttload of jobs at several levels, the drug companies may go into some other area of chemistry and we'll see many other consequences; intended, or not. I haven't seen a plan that makes sense, from anyone. Just shifting gears in the middle of the race is gonna leave a mark. If they had come up with a decent plan in the '30s, we wouldn't be discussing it now but then, politicians wouldn't have anything to yammer about.

This topic has been argued about here umpteen times, with no resolution, so I won't get into it here. It's just that your prior statement seemed to indicate that you were leaning towards a universal public system.

Now back to our regularly scheduled dumpster fire...

 

[highfigh]

This unfounded fear of The New Green Deal, as if it’s Armageddon Time, and that it will devastate the economy, and hence the US, is just fear-mongering.

I completely disagree with the fossil fuel/coal lobby and think it’s a new opportunity for the US to be the leader in this new technology and create new jobs with those very same employees that were affected and displaced. China has currently taking the lead in this field, in this very real existential threat to not only to US but to the whole world, and we need to take that challenge head on as quickly as possible before we're left metaphorically gagging on their fumes.

I have friends and family in the industry and based on my conversations with them I decided to buy a sizable chunk, relative to my savings, of Exxon stock. My nephew is a chemical engineer with Exxon and the company sees the handwriting on the wall and is slowly, if tentatively, transitioning over with acquisitions and R&D into solar technology.

....another quick-buck artist without any vision or understanding of the telecommunications market, which surprised me, considering he worked for IBM.

I don't see the resistance to elimination of oil/fossil fuels as fear-mongering; think of everything made from oil and how it's transported. If oil production drops drastically, the price of everything made from it will become unaffordable. Gasoline is hard to replace because the energy density is higher than most of the options. Also the transportation industry will take a huge hit because they won't have as much to move and they'll need to find a good alternative to diesel because trucks and trains run on it.

Photovoltaic cells don't produce enough electricity to run a train or truck, they would need huge storage batteries to allow making long trips although a train could add a couple of extra cars full of large batteries and use regenerative charging while heading downhill but I think cross-country trucking will require some drastic alterations of the current model and long trips will take more time.

I don't think the Green New Deal is realistic and if we can wean ourselves from oil-based fuels/combustion, it will help the environment- the slowdown of the economy must have made a difference in emissions of particulates, hydrocarbons and CO/CO2, but nobody is talking about it.

The guy from IBM isn't the first one at that place who didn't have much vision- I have read many times that the head of IBM was asked about home computers in 1959 and his response was "Why would anyone want a computer at home?".

 

[lovinthehd]

It's like mass transit in the US, such a late start it just doesn't come cheap. Makes some sense but I'm still all for junking the current "health" system, particularly the insurance companies. If we had a national Kaiser type implementation that could be interesting. Government isn't that different from typical corporate management.....neither are all that good.

 

[highfigh]

Here's an interesting question. Are Trump's clutching at straws efforts to keep the presidency related to his pathological need to be seen as always winning? Or, is he just trying to kick his can full of legal woes four years down the road?

Possibly/probably, but the Republicans obviously have different ideas of how things should be done and IMO, what Congress has been "doing" isn't where we need to go. Both parties dig their heels in when someone from the other side wants to do something and when the Speaker of the House snarls whenever she sees, thinks of, hears Trump's name, breathes and wants nothing more than to resist anything that's not a Democrat-led plan, it's time for changes and in a direct reflection, when someone like McConnell does his "I'm just gonna sit here and do nothing" in his position, it's time for change. However, Congress needs balance that can shift, not one party that can overtake and remain in power. If all three branches are all from one side, we're screwed unless they cause a revolt or some members decide that they can't sit by and let the bad changes happen.

His legal woes are his problem, not ours.

 

[highfigh]

It's like mass transit in the US, such a late start it just doesn't come cheap. Makes some sense but I'm still all for junking the current "health" system, particularly the insurance companies. If we had a national Kaiser type implementation that could be interesting. Government isn't that different from typical corporate management.....neither are all that good.

Right, but corporations in one industry don't charge taxes on people outside of their field. Government makes everyone pay, although they leave holes that can be exploited. The US government is the largest single employer in the country and they aren't exactly a stellar example of good employees.

 

[highfigh]

This topic has been argued about here umpteen times, with no resolution, so I won't get into it here. It's just that your prior statement seemed to indicate that you were leaning towards a universal public system.

Now back to our regularly scheduled dumpster fire...

If someone can come up with a workable plan, sure- I just don't have any hope that it will work, if the government designs and implements it. Maybe with new people in office, but not with the current mob.

 

[lovinthehd]

Right, but corporations in one industry don't charge taxes on people outside of their field. Government makes everyone pay, although they leave holes that can be exploited. The US government is the largest single employer in the country and they aren't exactly a stellar example of good employees.

That makes little sense, of course private companies can't levy taxes except their profit margin....and having dealt with quite a few large corporations, there are many examples of them being shitty in my experience. Nothing's perfect, particularly humans....who barely can wipe their own ass half the time it seems.

 

[panteragstk]

I still find it hilarious that someone had to tell Trump to stop telling everyone that the states need to stop counting, because if they did stop counting he would lose.

Also, Mitch already stated that if Biden won he had no problem working with him on anything that wasn't "too progressive". Remember, they worked together for years under Obama. Doesn't mean that anything meaningful will get done, but he at least is willing to work with Biden. Is that actually going to happen? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[highfigh]

That makes little sense, of course private companies can't levy taxes except their profit margin....and having dealt with quite a few large corporations, there are many examples of them being shitty in my experience. Nothing's perfect, particularly humans....who barely can wipe their own ass half the time it seems.

I should have used 'revenue', rather than 'taxes'.

WRT the last sentence- I like to refer to those people as being similar to a June bug that can't find its way out of a corner.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Possibly/probably, but the Republicans obviously have different ideas of how things should be done and IMO, what Congress has been "doing" isn't where we need to go. Both parties dig their heels in when someone from the other side wants to do something and when the Speaker of the House snarls whenever she sees, thinks of, hears Trump's name, breathes and wants nothing more than to resist anything that's not a Democrat-led plan, it's time for changes and in a direct reflection, when someone like McConnell does his "I'm just gonna sit here and do nothing" in his position, it's time for change. However, Congress needs balance that can shift, not one party that can overtake and remain in power. If all three branches are all from one side, we're screwed unless they cause a revolt or some members decide that they can't sit by and let the bad changes happen.

His legal woes are his problem, not ours.

I get you on congressional gridlock, but my question didn't pertain to that topic.

 

[highfigh]

I get you on congressional gridlock, but my question didn't pertain to that topic.

I started with "Possibly/probably". As I also wrote, his problems aren't our problems unless he commits criminal acts while in office and they're associated with any agreements with other countries or agencies and conviction would nullify them.

 

[lp85253]

I hope so, but McConnel took a "Our priority is to make Obama look bad" approach to the Senate, and I am not sure that will change for Biden. Maybe since Biden was in the Senate for so long he will have some contacts to help.

he and mcconnell actually have a decent history iirc