Being married to a woman does not mean a person isn't misogynistic or racist.
Do you think that the segregation supports(racists) will marry with an woman of clearly african ancestry???
There's more than just one kind of racism. Not all racists are necessarily supporters of segregation, just like not all anti-Semites are Holocaust supporters. There are degrees of racism, and types of racism. As we've discussed earlier in the thread, Thomas Jefferson explicitly claimed that blacks were the intellectual inferiors of whites and even opposed miscegenation, but that never stopped him from taking a black mistress after his white wife died.
I don't know if it matters, but I would not have guessed that that woman had African ancestry. Looking at her features and skin color, I'd have guessed she was primarily European in ancestry, with a small amount of Hispanic blood.
You are right, there are a lot of degrees of racism. Tomas Jefferson, he had a mistress but din't married to her. That is a huge difference. An casual relation and a marriage are two different things.
But i disagree with just a single word, there are no "hispanic blood", hispanic is just a therm created in usa usually to refer to a mestizo with a lot of indigenous blood but an Aztec and a Fuegian are completely different despite both being native americans
You are right, there are a lot of degrees of racism. Tomas Jefferson, he had a mistress but din't married to her. That is a huge difference. An casual relation and a marriage are two different things.
I dont think that @semiticgod 's point was that had Thomas Jefferson married Sally Hemings, we wouldnt consider him a racist (Miscegenation was illegal at the time, also). He was obviously a racist due to owning slaves, supporting other people's right to own slaves, his racial views on the abilities and characteristics of blacks, freed and enslaved. It doesnt matter that someone is married (or in a relationship with) a person of color, it's still very possible for that person to be explicitly racist.
That Bolsonaro is married to a woman of mixed race does not mean he cannot be a racist.
I'd also recommend you take a deeper dive into his views on homosexuality. He appears to have said a lot more than "they dont deserve preferential treatment". It looks a lot like he's prejudiced against the LGBTQ community.
This whole "gays want special rights" is nothing more than a backlash by people who think the LGBT community shouldn't have had them in the first place. Need I remind people that at the absolute CORE of George W. Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 was pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. We aren't even a decade removed from them being in full-out assault mode on gay rights, and the only reason they have dialed it down is because the majority of corporate America won't tolerate them actively trying to make the gay community second-class citizens any longer because it is horrible business. Mike Pence was ready to sign employment discrimination into law in Indiana until the corporate community of Indianapolis revolted.
Again, when a group is denied equality for DECADES, what is actually just evening the playing field all of a sudden comes across as "special" to the people who have enjoyed those rights since the day they were born.
USA today let Trump publish a lie filled bonaza of whoppers. Disgusting.
Lies like Democrats want to turn the USA into Venezuela with socialism. No Democrat has ever said that. Some do want to turn to the USA into Sweden, Norway, maybe France, Australia with a little more Socialism sure. But it's always Venezuela these liars pick. Two can play that game but this isn't a lie- Republicans want to turn America into capitalist Russia with oligarchs and peasants and religious oppression of rights and freedom.
Trump said socialism never works and it's a radical change. Americans already have social security and Medicare - socialism. And the mixed socialism and capitalism examples in every other European nation is our goal - better benefits, healthcare and education.
Trump spent a lot of time lying that Democrats want to take away Medicare and harm seniors. Lies. Lies. Lies. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicare, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie wants to expand it.
How can you vote for a party that enables the whims of this liar?
Here's facts: Every Republican Senator (but Murkowski) proved to be a spineless follower when voting for Kavanaugh. Credible rape allegations and his alocholism were ignored. His many lies during the confirmation hearing were ignored. And his rage filled conspiracy theories, promises of revenge on half of America and his awful temperament alone are disqualifiying.
The House Republicans are even worse. They are just waiting to take away your healthcare and Medicare. The freedom caucus and Nunes have been running interference to hinder the Russia probe.
Together they jammed that terrible tax cuts for the rich through Congress which will balloon the deficit.
balsanaro quotes: - “If I see two men kissing in the street, I will hit them.”
-“I would not be able to love a gay son. I would rather he die in an accident,” he told Playboy magazine in 2011.
- On a radio program in 2016, Bolsonaro said the error of the dictatorship had been “to torture and not to kill.” Brazil’s national truth commission found that 440 people died under the 1964-85 military rule, of which 210 disappeared without trace.
- During 2016 impeachment proceedings against former leftist President Dilma Rousseff, who was jailed and tortured during Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1970s, Bolsonaro dedicated his vote to the colonel who tortured her.
-- In 2003, Bolsonaro pushed a congresswoman and told her: “I would never rape you because you do not deserve it.” He repeated the comment in 2014 in the chamber and as a result is facing trial for inciting rape.
So it's going to be a mistake to elect this guy like we made a mistake with Trump. Oh well make a mistake now and hopefully it doesn't end your country and not too many people die due to your willful blindness to the ugliness inside this guy.
Trump spent a lot of time lying that Democrats want to take away Medicare and harm seniors. Lies. Lies. Lies. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicare, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie wants to expand it.
This is just bizarre. How can you flat-out confuse a long-running Republican policy like removing Medicare with a long-running Democratic policy like bolstering it? It's like saying Democrats want to outlaw abortion, or that Republicans want to fight global warming.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower-court order requiring voters in North Dakota to present certain forms of identification and proof of their residential address in order to cast a ballot in next month’s elections. A case challenging this requirement on behalf of the state’s sizable Native American populations alleged that the requirement would disenfranchise tribal residents, many of whom lack the proper identification and do not have residential addresses on their identification cards.
The Supreme Court’s order will likely make it harder for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate, to retain her seat in November. Heitkamp won her seat by less than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong backing from Native Americans, and she is the only statewide elected Democrat.
North Dakota Republicans began changing voting rules to make it harder to cast a ballot months after Heitkamp’s victory six years ago. Republicans have claimed the changes to voter ID requirements are intended to stop voter fraud, even though in-person fraud is virtually non-existent.
...
So the rules will be changed right before a general election. The rules will be different than they were in the primaries causing confusion. According to facts presented in the case, as Ginsberg also noted...
**20% of voters likely to try to vote in the general will lack proper id.**
This is another atrocity against the rule of law and democracy
I fail to understand how any American--anyone born and raised in this country, anyone who attended an American school, anyone who has any sense of loyalty to the United States--could even consider trying to stop people from voting, much less actually implement it. I cannot imagine anything more anti-democracy than attacking the right to vote.
Trump spent a lot of time lying that Democrats want to take away Medicare and harm seniors. Lies. Lies. Lies. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicare, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie wants to expand it.
This is just bizarre. How can you flat-out confuse a long-running Republican policy like removing Medicare with a long-running Democratic policy like bolstering it? It's like saying Democrats want to outlaw abortion, or that Republicans want to fight global warming.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower-court order requiring voters in North Dakota to present certain forms of identification and proof of their residential address in order to cast a ballot in next month’s elections. A case challenging this requirement on behalf of the state’s sizable Native American populations alleged that the requirement would disenfranchise tribal residents, many of whom lack the proper identification and do not have residential addresses on their identification cards.
The Supreme Court’s order will likely make it harder for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate, to retain her seat in November. Heitkamp won her seat by less than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong backing from Native Americans, and she is the only statewide elected Democrat.
North Dakota Republicans began changing voting rules to make it harder to cast a ballot months after Heitkamp’s victory six years ago. Republicans have claimed the changes to voter ID requirements are intended to stop voter fraud, even though in-person fraud is virtually non-existent.
...
So the rules will be changed right before a general election. The rules will be different than they were in the primaries causing confusion. According to facts presented in the case, as Ginsberg also noted...
**20% of voters likely to try to vote in the general will lack proper id.**
This is another atrocity against the rule of law and democracy
I fail to understand how any American--anyone born and raised in this country, anyone who attended an American school, anyone who has any sense of loyalty to the United States--could even consider trying to stop people from voting, much less actually implement it. I cannot imagine anything more anti-democracy than attacking the right to vote.
What kind of person is opposed to voting?
I sometimes fear the answer to your question is something that is really tough for someone as open-minded as yourself to face, but the answer is right there in front of you. And it's not just North Dakota in this cycle, it's also Georgia, in the most high profile governors race in the country. From Esquire:
Under the policy, information on voter applications must precisely match information on file with the Georgia Department of Driver Services or the Social Security Administration. Election officials can place non-matching applications on hold. An application could be held because of an entry error or a dropped hyphen in a last name, for example. Appling-Nunez says she never saw any notice from Kemp’s office indicating a problem with her application. An analysis of the records obtained by The Associated Press reveals racial disparity in the process. Georgia’s population is approximately 32 percent black, according to the U.S. Census, but the list of voter registrations on hold with Kemp’s office is nearly 70 percent black. Kemp’s office blamed that disparity on the New Georgia Project, a voter registration group founded by Abrams in 2013.
Kemp is the Secretary of State. He is also the Republican candidate for governor. His office is LITERALLY holding the votes of over 50,000 people hostage because of typos and technicalities because that group of people are likely to vote against him.
Let's say for the sake of argument that this asinine Republican argument about "voter fraud" (which statistically barely exists) results in, on the high end, 2 or 3 people casting illegitimate ballots (even though doing so can result in incarceration). In what universe is stopping those 3 hypothetical votes from being cast even REMOTELY preferable to stopping 50,000 from voting just so you can make sure those other 3 don't go through?? As Frank Zappa said during the PMRC Hearings about music censorship, that is like treating dandruff by decapitation. Of course, it isn't about voter fraud, because the fractional amount that exists is so statistically insignificant you would need 5 or 6 zeros after the decimal point to even register it. It's about not letting minorities vote. Which, quite frankly, is as American as apple pie. The Republican attack on voting rights is going on EVERYWHERE and it is a coordinated strategy that has been being conducted across the country for at least the last 10 years. Hell, some of state officials in North Carolina and Pennsylvania in the last few election cycles have flat-out ADMITTED that preventing large numbers of minorities from voting is the goal. At a certain point, why deny the obvious?? Especially since, at large, no one seems to give a shit.
In brighter news, the U.S. has captured a Chinese spy who has been stealing trade secrets from American aviation companies. The Chinese have shown zero interest in respecting proprietary information and copyrights, so we have little choice but to crack down on the behavior directly. I hope to see more examples of this in the coming years.
USA today let Trump publish a lie filled bonaza of whoppers. Disgusting.
I actually think he defended many of his points well and had them well sourced. No opinion on his stance on how Democrats changes to Medicare will affect seniors, but, after reading it, i'm more convinced then ever Medicare for All won't work in the U.S, provided the study being referenced for the cost of it is accurate, and further research seems to bear that out.
The yearly cost of medicare for all would be much larger than the military budget and would be basically equal with our yearly revenues. Completely unworkable for a variety of reasons.
Lies like Democrats want to turn the USA into Venezuela with socialism. No Democrat has ever said that. Some do want to turn to the USA into Sweden, Norway, maybe France, Australia with a little more Socialism sure. But it's always Venezuela these liars pick.
While i'm certain no Democrat has ever said they want to bring the country to near starvation levels, it's certainly a credible argument to make that attempting to adopt this policy as it is would look a lot more like a Venezuela than a Norway, just based on the numbers.
In all fairness, the study being referenced does line out a set of plausible scenarios that could lead to an overall savings during that period, but the assumptions underlying that are generous to the extreme and the real cost is likely much higher, according to the author of the study who explains it in the links below. And even if one takes that position, one has to weigh the consequences of doubling the personal income and corporate tax, if such a thing is even feasible, and what the ramifications of it would be. You have to fit that into the budget somewhere and there isn't nearly enough military to cut.
It's also worth noting that the *quality* of U.S health care is the best in the world for many major diseases. We are #1 in survival rates for most cancers and other serious illnesses. If you care more about living then saving money, the US is the place to go.
I fail to understand how any American--anyone born and raised in this country, anyone who attended an American school, anyone who has any sense of loyalty to the United States--could even consider trying to stop people from voting, much less actually implement it. I cannot imagine anything more anti-democracy than attacking the right to vote.
Another Red State disenfranchising voters to try and get Republicans in office....
Brian Kemp, Republican candidate for governor in Georgia, is in charge of elections and voter registration in Georgia because he's currently the GA Republican Secretary of State.
Kemp has put a hold on processing 53,000 voter registrations, 70% of them Black Georgians.
I actually think he defended many of his points well and had them well sourced. No opinion on his stance on how Democrats changes to Medicare will affect seniors, but, after reading it, i'm more convinced then ever Medicare for All won't work in the U.S, provided the study being referenced for the cost of it is accurate, and further research seems to bear that out. ...
It's also worth noting that the *quality* of U.S health care is the best in the world for many major diseases. We are #1 in survival rates for most cancers and other serious illnesses. If you care more about living then saving money, the US is the place to go.
That's unfortunate that you think his points are valid because they are not. They are cherry picked. They are lies, they are pure spin, and fear mongering. They are just not true.
Medicare for all, while expensive, would save the US money.
Trump said Medicare for All "would cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years”. While this is not necessarily a lie, Trump’s framing is grossly misleading. The president cites a Koch-funded study, which, yes, found that Medicare for All would cost $32.6 trillion over a decade. What he fails to mention, however, is that the $32.6 trillion number is $2 trillion less than what the U.S. currently spends on health care. In other words, Medicare for All would save money.
And we'd be covered. No more medical bankruptcies.
The United States also ranks 26th in the world for human life expectancy.
I encourage anyone interested in this topic to do the research. We are literally the only developed country without socialized medicine. And we are not better off with the current system.
It's also worth noting that the *quality* of U.S health care is the best in the world for many major diseases. We are #1 in survival rates for most cancers and other serious illnesses. If you care more about living then saving money, the US is the place to go.
That's the problem though. If you have effectively unlimited money then the US provides health care as good as anywhere in the world. Most people though don't have unlimited money which is why overall health care outcomes for the US, despite spending far more than any other country, are indifferent and gradually getting comparatively worse. Below are comparative figures for mortality rates, but you get a consistent picture across all health data - the US performs well for interventions actually made, but poorly for outcomes across the population.
I am a statistican and the cancer survival rates are not a good indicator. It increases by detecting and treating cancers that would never have killed the patient anyway (prostate in old men) and by early detecting of cancer that kills anyway (easier to survive 5 years when date of diagnosis is earlier while similar date of death regardless of early diagnosis).
The US also has a record problem with death.
I think childhood cancer might be a good thing to focus on. It is always serious and extremely likely to kill the patient rather quickly without treatment, so the issues above have less of an impact. There is no US advantage when looking at those.
One more observation: in other countries you can still buy more care with private insurance or by paying cash.
Comparing the people who can afford good private health care in the UD with everyone in the EU would be misleading. You would need to apply a similar socioeconomic filter. It is also confounded that people with education and good jobs tend to have healthier habits and do better even with the same quality of health care. Also better treatment compliance, likely to go to the doctor earlier... and so on.
Count on Facebook users passing around stupid stories they haven't fact-checked. When I signed on tonight, someone I know had a "Unbelievable! Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soro's (sic) nephew!"
First I posted "Grammar Police- It should be George Soros' nephew, because his name isn't "George Soro", it's George Soros."
3 minutes later, when I'd looked it up, I provided a link to snopes.com with the line. "I's unbelievable because it's not true!" And posted the link to Snopes' refutation. Considering this person also posts links from CRTV (which is pretty right wing from their commercials). CRTV stands for "Conservative Review TV", and has been so right wing leaning, I refuse to even watch their commercials all the way through.
In brighter news, the U.S. has captured a Chinese spy who has been stealing trade secrets from American aviation companies. The Chinese have shown zero interest in respecting proprietary information and copyrights, so we have little choice but to crack down on the behavior directly. I hope to see more examples of this in the coming years.
I have an very different opinion but IMHO copyright laws should't exist; at the moment it only makes big corporations stronger and prejudices the technological development, if you develop an game and someone starts to legally offers an way to download for free your product, it should be considering contract breaking(aka he had signed an contract to have access to your content), you had a lot of cultural contributions before copyright laws. And even without this type of contract, there are a lot of companies who profit with Linux. From Small companies to big corporations like Google(Android)
In general both patents and copyright pose one of the most difficult economic and social tricky problems in our time.
In the industry they are a very strong barrier to entry in many fields. For medication it causes issues like people not being able to afford a drug that costs a pittance to produce. At the same time the inventive they provide is sometimes absolutely needed, for example it does not any sense for a company to develop drugs for rare diseases, if they are not allowed to patent them. Also, if you are a developing country and start your own car company how many patents would you have to license? It is a huge barrier to development and I can see why China thinks they should not need to do this.
Not sure how to resolve this. If you look at existing products you could look at the ratio of research cost to production cost and only allow patent protection of that ratio is high. But this can't really be done in advance and it hard to measure honestly (e.g. for each successful drugs you have 10 failed ones, which would need to turn up as part of general research costs). Maybe ratio of research cost to market size (in terms of consumers) would also be a good thing to look at?
Another option I like is for the state to have the option to buy out patents for a price that covers the research cost + a nice percentage as a reward, and then everyone is allowed to produce it.
In general both patents and copyright pose one of the most difficult economic and social tricky problems in our time.
In the industry they are a very strong barrier to entry in many fields. For medication it causes issues like people not being able to afford a drug that costs a pittance to produce. At the same time the inventive they provide is sometimes absolutely needed, for example it does not any sense for a company to develop drugs for rare diseases, if they are not allowed to patent them. Also, if you are a developing country and start your own car company how many patents would you have to license? It is a huge barrier to development and I can see why China thinks they should not need to do this.
Not sure how to resolve this. If you look at existing products you could look at the ratio of research cost to production cost and only allow patent protection of that ratio is high. But this can't really be done in advance and it hard to measure honestly (e.g. for each successful drugs you have 10 failed ones, which would need to turn up as part of general research costs). Maybe ratio of research cost to market size (in terms of consumers) would also be a good thing to look at?
Another option I like is for the state to have the option to buy out patents for a price that covers the research cost + a nice percentage as a reward, and then everyone is allowed to produce it.
I agree but considering how powerful the companies are, i don't expect any changes on copyright law to make small companies in developing countries more competitive. In fact, i expect that is very likely that even fair use therms will be revoked.
While Hurricane Michael was hitting Florida, Trump was in Pennsylvania, holding a rally, the same thing he decried President Obama for doing six days after a hurricane (Sandy) hit the US East Coast.
Brian Kemp, Georgia's Secretary of State, is holding 53,000 Voter registrations and not letting people know that they are not registered. And while about 30% of the State is Black, 70% of the Held applications are from Black people.
Count on Facebook users passing around stupid stories they haven't fact-checked. When I signed on tonight, someone I know had a "Unbelievable! Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soro's (sic) nephew!"
First I posted "Grammar Police- It should be George Soros' nephew, because his name isn't "George Soro", it's George Soros."
3 minutes later, when I'd looked it up, I provided a link to snopes.com with the line. "I's unbelievable because it's not true!" And posted the link to Snopes' refutation. Considering this person also posts links from CRTV (which is pretty right wing from their commercials). CRTV stands for "Conservative Review TV", and has been so right wing leaning, I refuse to even watch their commercials all the way through.
I have given up on Facebook. It's just another place on the Internet that is completely toxic. Too many lunatics/trolls/bots. It's way too easy to hide anonymously and spew hate.
Same deal with Twitter. Full of hate. Trump uses it to say nasty stuff he wouldn't even say in real life - and he's a guy who says nasty stuff in real life but he says stuff on Twitter that he won't out loud.
Reddit is the only one that is kinda effective against hate speech in that it's simple algorithms of posts that get down voted enough get hidden I think.
Count on Facebook users passing around stupid stories they haven't fact-checked. When I signed on tonight, someone I know had a "Unbelievable! Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soro's (sic) nephew!"
First I posted "Grammar Police- It should be George Soros' nephew, because his name isn't "George Soro", it's George Soros."
3 minutes later, when I'd looked it up, I provided a link to snopes.com with the line. "I's unbelievable because it's not true!" And posted the link to Snopes' refutation. Considering this person also posts links from CRTV (which is pretty right wing from their commercials). CRTV stands for "Conservative Review TV", and has been so right wing leaning, I refuse to even watch their commercials all the way through.
I have given up on Facebook. It's just another place on the Internet that is completely toxic. Too many lunatics/trolls/bots. It's way too easy to hide anonymously and spew hate.
Same deal with Twitter. Full of hate. Trump uses it to say nasty stuff he wouldn't even say in real life - and he's a guy who says nasty stuff in real life but he says stuff on Twitter that he won't out loud.
Reddit is the only one that is kinda effective against hate speech in that it's simple algorithms of posts that get down voted enough get hidden I think.
I don't like social media in general. Unfortunately I still have to hear all about it because there's just no escaping it anymore, unless I move to an uninhabited island somewhere remote and live like a hermit. Kind of tempting actually...
That Bolsonaro is married to a woman of mixed race does not mean he cannot be a racist.
I'd also recommend you take a deeper dive into his views on homosexuality. He appears to have said a lot more than "they dont deserve preferential treatment". It looks a lot like he's prejudiced against the LGBTQ community.
This whole "gays want special rights" is nothing more than a backlash by people who think the LGBT community shouldn't have had them in the first place. Need I remind people that at the absolute CORE of George W. Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 was pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. We aren't even a decade removed from them being in full-out assault mode on gay rights, and the only rea(...)
Look, the problem is not the marriage. Is that gays wanna push an "anti discrimination law" making impossible to preach the religion. An pastor will be able to criticize and say that is sinful to had relations with prostitutes if the guy is heterosexual, if he is homosexual then the pastor can't say that this is a sin. Nothing should be immune to critiques. Doesn't matter if you disagree with the critique.
Marriage is not the problem. What two adults do in their bed is not my concern, the contract that they do too. But put transsexual on UFC against biological woman, criminalizes religious speech,put over 18 material for 6 yo child etc is very different. I don't see any problem with marriage.
---------------------------------
@smeagolheart , again. You are misinterpreting. Dilma was a member of the communists guerrillas and Ustra wasen't considered guilty by any tribunal. He is not in favor of using force against democratic left. Only because left is democratic on USA, doesn't means that the left is democratic in the rest of the world. Mujira and Maduro are lefitists but Maduro is much more authoritarian than Mujica. Note that during dictadorship was in cold war period and the reality was very different. I an not justifying the dictatorship because was not a good period. We had an Weimar republic like hyperinflation in the last years.
The media loves to distorts whats he says. He says that will crack down FRAUD on welfare programs and the media says that he will end up welfare programs.
That's unfortunate that you think his points are valid because they are not. They are cherry picked. They are lies, they are pure spin, and fear mongering. They are just not true.
Trump said Medicare for All "would cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years”. While this is not necessarily a lie, Trump’s framing is grossly misleading. The president cites a Koch-funded study, which, yes, found that Medicare for All would cost $32.6 trillion over a decade. What he fails to mention, however, is that the $32.6 trillion number is $2 trillion less than what the U.S. currently spends on health care. In other words, Medicare for All would save money.
And we'd be covered. No more medical bankruptcies.
His framing is completely correct and in line with that the researches themselves say, actually. Did you read that link? The whole fact check was about why Sanders claims are misleading, and the chances of those savings actually occurring are unrealistic and based upon best case scenario factors, with the likely outcome being a substantial increase, according to the author of the study. It does not do to cherry pick favorable information and ignore the broader context. And this completely ignores the fact that you need to double the tax burden, at least, on individuals and businesses, likely leading to a backlash that kills the whole thing or damages the society in another way.
Nobody is saying the health care system of the U.S doesn't need structural changes. It absolutely does, most notably in negotiating drug prices to a lower amount and giving greater access to low income folks. But this policy has no feasible way forward politically, or economically, and looks like it would do more harm than good.
I encourage anyone interested in this topic to do the research. We are literally the only developed country without socialized medicine. And we are not better off with the current system.
This is, essentially, the major argument the left uses to push this policy, and it's not really an argument at all. There is no accurate economic or social comparison between the United States or any European nation.
Numbers of deaths isn't casually related to treatment outcomes unless you adjust for the differences in population, which the graph didn't, because that wasn't what it was trying to do. To put it another way, a more disease ridden population is going to experiences more cases of sickness and death even if their health care is more efficient.
- We are the most obese nation on Earth by a significant margin, explaining right away many of the greater disease burdens the United States faces when compared to other first world nations. We also have 40+ million people living in poverty in this country, if you believe the numbers, likely much higher. That is quadruple the amount of poor folks that the second most populated European nation, Germany, had in it's worst year in recent memory of 2015. Poverty is a significant contributor to disease, especially the lifestyle diseases like the US faces with great regularity.
Not saying other nations don't have better treatment outcomes for certain, other diseases, but mortality rate alone doesn't indicate better quality health care unless you look at the whole picture. And we have two major burdens the rest of the world doesn't, a less healthy population, and less access. The care can be top notch, best in the world, but if you can't afford it, you're gonna be a statistic unless you have a GoFundMe or a kind doctor. Which is terrible and needs to be fixed. Just not in the Sanders way.
Hopefully this can be read, but these are the requirements to vote in an municipal election coming up in Ottawa, ON, Canada.
I tend to get confused when Americans say they are going to purge voting lists, because in Canada, they really are just glorified mailing lists.
If you are not on the Voters list, you can still go to your closest voting station and show them a piece of mail saying this is who you are, and this is where you live. Even if you don’t have a piece of mail, you can fill out a form declaring who you are and where you live.
At the bottom, it states someone can actually go vote for you, however, I think that is only for municipal elections.
Hopefully this can be read, but these are the requirements to vote in an municipal election coming up in Ottawa, ON, Canada.
I tend to get confused when Americans say they are going to purge voting lists, because in Canada, they really are just glorified mailing lists.
If you are not on the Voters list, you can still go to your closest voting station and show them a piece of mail saying this is who you are, and this is where you live. Even if you don’t have a piece of mail, you can fill out a form declaring who you are and where you live.
At the bottom, it states someone can actually go vote for you, however, I think that is only for municipal elections.
The rules are different in every state. And the purging of the rolls refers to (always, without exception) Republican Secretaries of State removing people who are legitimately registered to vote from being on that list, almost always based on technicalities. When that person shows up on election day, they can't vote (provisional ballots are worthless). The only remedy is if the State has same day registration. If not, you've effectively been eliminated from the democratic process. And these purges are almost always overwhelmingly targeted at African-Americans. This isn't new. It's part of the reason Bush "won" Florida in 2000. His brother and Katherine Harris did the exact same thing we are talking about now.
Voting is enshrined in the Constitution as a RIGHT, not a privilege. The idea it should be able to be legislated or cheated away so casually is the most heinous kind of anti-democratic activity.
If I have proof of residence as well as proof of citizenship, I should be able to walk into a voting station and vote.
There should be a master list, but that list should not ever be considered complete.
I should also be able to sue my state if they refuse to let me vote for any reason as it is my democratic right to exercise my vote. I am surprised someone hasn’t done this yet to be honest. This BS continues because people let it continue.
Over a million people are without power due to Hurricane Michael. Four have died so far, and the damage is incredible, having wiped out wide swathes of homes. Houses torn apart, communities flattened--they say it's the strongest to hit the U.S. in decades.
If I have proof of residence as well as proof of citizenship, I should be able to walk into a voting station and vote.
There should be a master list, but that list should not ever be considered complete.
I should also be able to sue my state if they refuse to let me vote for any reason as it is my democratic right to exercise my vote. I am surprised someone hasn’t done this yet to be honest. This BS continues because people let it continue.
Unfortunately, how it "Should be" and "How it is" are often very different things.
Comments
But i disagree with just a single word, there are no "hispanic blood", hispanic is just a therm created in usa usually to refer to a mestizo with a lot of indigenous blood but an Aztec and a Fuegian are completely different despite both being native americans
That Bolsonaro is married to a woman of mixed race does not mean he cannot be a racist.
I'd also recommend you take a deeper dive into his views on homosexuality. He appears to have said a lot more than "they dont deserve preferential treatment". It looks a lot like he's prejudiced against the LGBTQ community.
Again, when a group is denied equality for DECADES, what is actually just evening the playing field all of a sudden comes across as "special" to the people who have enjoyed those rights since the day they were born.
Lies like Democrats want to turn the USA into Venezuela with socialism. No Democrat has ever said that. Some do want to turn to the USA into Sweden, Norway, maybe France, Australia with a little more Socialism sure. But it's always Venezuela these liars pick. Two can play that game but this isn't a lie- Republicans want to turn America into capitalist Russia with oligarchs and peasants and religious oppression of rights and freedom.
Trump said socialism never works and it's a radical change. Americans already have social security and Medicare - socialism. And the mixed socialism and capitalism examples in every other European nation is our goal - better benefits, healthcare and education.
Trump spent a lot of time lying that Democrats want to take away Medicare and harm seniors. Lies. Lies. Lies. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicare, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie wants to expand it.
How can you vote for a party that enables the whims of this liar?
Here's facts:
Every Republican Senator (but Murkowski) proved to be a spineless follower when voting for Kavanaugh. Credible rape allegations and his alocholism were ignored. His many lies during the confirmation hearing were ignored. And his rage filled conspiracy theories, promises of revenge on half of America and his awful temperament alone are disqualifiying.
The House Republicans are even worse. They are just waiting to take away your healthcare and Medicare. The freedom caucus and Nunes have been running interference to hinder the Russia probe.
Together they jammed that terrible tax cuts for the rich through Congress which will balloon the deficit.
- “If I see two men kissing in the street, I will hit them.”
-“I would not be able to love a gay son. I would rather he die in an accident,” he told Playboy magazine in 2011.
- On a radio program in 2016, Bolsonaro said the error of the dictatorship had been “to torture and not to kill.” Brazil’s national truth commission found that 440 people died under the 1964-85 military rule, of which 210 disappeared without trace.
- During 2016 impeachment proceedings against former leftist President Dilma Rousseff, who was jailed and tortured during Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1970s, Bolsonaro dedicated his vote to the colonel who tortured her.
-- In 2003, Bolsonaro pushed a congresswoman and told her: “I would never rape you because you do not deserve it.” He repeated the comment in 2014 in the chamber and as a result is facing trial for inciting rape.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-bolsonaro-factbox/factbox-far-right-brazilian-candidate-thrives-on-controversy-idUSKCN1II2T3
---
So it's going to be a mistake to elect this guy like we made a mistake with Trump. Oh well make a mistake now and hopefully it doesn't end your country and not too many people die due to your willful blindness to the ugliness inside this guy.
What kind of person is opposed to voting?
I sometimes fear the answer to your question is something that is really tough for someone as open-minded as yourself to face, but the answer is right there in front of you. And it's not just North Dakota in this cycle, it's also Georgia, in the most high profile governors race in the country. From Esquire:
Under the policy, information on voter applications must precisely match information on file with the Georgia Department of Driver Services or the Social Security Administration. Election officials can place non-matching applications on hold. An application could be held because of an entry error or a dropped hyphen in a last name, for example. Appling-Nunez says she never saw any notice from Kemp’s office indicating a problem with her application. An analysis of the records obtained by The Associated Press reveals racial disparity in the process. Georgia’s population is approximately 32 percent black, according to the U.S. Census, but the list of voter registrations on hold with Kemp’s office is nearly 70 percent black. Kemp’s office blamed that disparity on the New Georgia Project, a voter registration group founded by Abrams in 2013.
Kemp is the Secretary of State. He is also the Republican candidate for governor. His office is LITERALLY holding the votes of over 50,000 people hostage because of typos and technicalities because that group of people are likely to vote against him.
Let's say for the sake of argument that this asinine Republican argument about "voter fraud" (which statistically barely exists) results in, on the high end, 2 or 3 people casting illegitimate ballots (even though doing so can result in incarceration). In what universe is stopping those 3 hypothetical votes from being cast even REMOTELY preferable to stopping 50,000 from voting just so you can make sure those other 3 don't go through?? As Frank Zappa said during the PMRC Hearings about music censorship, that is like treating dandruff by decapitation. Of course, it isn't about voter fraud, because the fractional amount that exists is so statistically insignificant you would need 5 or 6 zeros after the decimal point to even register it. It's about not letting minorities vote. Which, quite frankly, is as American as apple pie. The Republican attack on voting rights is going on EVERYWHERE and it is a coordinated strategy that has been being conducted across the country for at least the last 10 years. Hell, some of state officials in North Carolina and Pennsylvania in the last few election cycles have flat-out ADMITTED that preventing large numbers of minorities from voting is the goal. At a certain point, why deny the obvious?? Especially since, at large, no one seems to give a shit.
The yearly cost of medicare for all would be much larger than the military budget and would be basically equal with our yearly revenues. Completely unworkable for a variety of reasons.
While i'm certain no Democrat has ever said they want to bring the country to near starvation levels, it's certainly a credible argument to make that attempting to adopt this policy as it is would look a lot more like a Venezuela than a Norway, just based on the numbers.
In all fairness, the study being referenced does line out a set of plausible scenarios that could lead to an overall savings during that period, but the assumptions underlying that are generous to the extreme and the real cost is likely much higher, according to the author of the study who explains it in the links below. And even if one takes that position, one has to weigh the consequences of doubling the personal income and corporate tax, if such a thing is even feasible, and what the ramifications of it would be. You have to fit that into the budget somewhere and there isn't nearly enough military to cut.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
It's also worth noting that the *quality* of U.S health care is the best in the world for many major diseases. We are #1 in survival rates for most cancers and other serious illnesses. If you care more about living then saving money, the US is the place to go.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/practice-management/news/in-the-journals/{f958e84b-6d0e-48cd-8f46-05911f4d31ec}/us-cancer-survival-rates-remain-among-highest-in-world
Another Red State disenfranchising voters to try and get Republicans in office....
Brian Kemp, Republican candidate for governor in Georgia, is in charge of elections and voter registration in Georgia because he's currently the GA Republican Secretary of State.
Kemp has put a hold on processing 53,000 voter registrations, 70% of them Black Georgians.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/410839-53k-georgia-voter-registration-applications-on-hold-in-kemps-office-report
Did you read that link?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Medicare for all, while expensive, would save the US money.
Trump said Medicare for All "would cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years”. While this is not necessarily a lie, Trump’s framing is grossly misleading. The president cites a Koch-funded study, which, yes, found that Medicare for All would cost $32.6 trillion over a decade. What he fails to mention, however, is that the $32.6 trillion number is $2 trillion less than what the U.S. currently spends on health care. In other words, Medicare for All would save money.
And we'd be covered. No more medical bankruptcies.
While it may be true that one factor is that the U.S. has lower than average mortality rates for cancers but it has higher than average rates in the other causes of death.
Cancer is literally the only one that has a lower mortality rates than other comparable countries
According to studies, "per capita spending on healthcare is estimated to be 50 to 200 percent greater in the United States than in other economically developed countries." However, that money may not be as well spent as it could be.
The United States also ranks 26th in the world for human life expectancy.
I encourage anyone interested in this topic to do the research. We are literally the only developed country without socialized medicine. And we are not better off with the current system.
The US also has a record problem with death.
I think childhood cancer might be a good thing to focus on. It is always serious and extremely likely to kill the patient rather quickly without treatment, so the issues above have less of an impact. There is no US advantage when looking at those.
Comparing the people who can afford good private health care in the UD with everyone in the EU would be misleading. You would need to apply a similar socioeconomic filter. It is also confounded that people with education and good jobs tend to have healthier habits and do better even with the same quality of health care. Also better treatment compliance, likely to go to the doctor earlier... and so on.
First I posted "Grammar Police- It should be George Soros' nephew, because his name isn't "George Soro", it's George Soros."
3 minutes later, when I'd looked it up, I provided a link to snopes.com with the line. "I's unbelievable because it's not true!" And posted the link to Snopes' refutation. Considering this person also posts links from CRTV (which is pretty right wing from their commercials). CRTV stands for "Conservative Review TV", and has been so right wing leaning, I refuse to even watch their commercials all the way through.
----------------------
Anyway, about my point that you should be considered innocent until prove guilty here is an interesting video about a real case
Here is the story on text for those who don't like video https://apnews.com/34e672ffb06d4d229dbe21a52939bf0f
In the industry they are a very strong barrier to entry in many fields. For medication it causes issues like people not being able to afford a drug that costs a pittance to produce. At the same time the inventive they provide is sometimes absolutely needed, for example it does not any sense for a company to develop drugs for rare diseases, if they are not allowed to patent them. Also, if you are a developing country and start your own car company how many patents would you have to license? It is a huge barrier to development and I can see why China thinks they should not need to do this.
Not sure how to resolve this. If you look at existing products you could look at the ratio of research cost to production cost and only allow patent protection of that ratio is high. But this can't really be done in advance and it hard to measure honestly (e.g. for each successful drugs you have 10 failed ones, which would need to turn up as part of general research costs). Maybe ratio of research cost to market size (in terms of consumers) would also be a good thing to look at?
Another option I like is for the state to have the option to buy out patents for a price that covers the research cost + a nice percentage as a reward, and then everyone is allowed to produce it.
Brian Kemp, Georgia's Secretary of State, is holding 53,000 Voter registrations and not letting people know that they are not registered. And while about 30% of the State is Black, 70% of the Held applications are from Black people.
Same deal with Twitter. Full of hate. Trump uses it to say nasty stuff he wouldn't even say in real life - and he's a guy who says nasty stuff in real life but he says stuff on Twitter that he won't out loud.
Reddit is the only one that is kinda effective against hate speech in that it's simple algorithms of posts that get down voted enough get hidden I think.
Marriage is not the problem. What two adults do in their bed is not my concern, the contract that they do too. But put transsexual on UFC against biological woman, criminalizes religious speech,put over 18 material for 6 yo child etc is very different. I don't see any problem with marriage.
---------------------------------
@smeagolheart , again. You are misinterpreting. Dilma was a member of the communists guerrillas and Ustra wasen't considered guilty by any tribunal. He is not in favor of using force against democratic left. Only because left is democratic on USA, doesn't means that the left is democratic in the rest of the world. Mujira and Maduro are lefitists but Maduro is much more authoritarian than Mujica. Note that during dictadorship was in cold war period and the reality was very different. I an not justifying the dictatorship because was not a good period. We had an Weimar republic like hyperinflation in the last years.
The media loves to distorts whats he says. He says that will crack down FRAUD on welfare programs and the media says that he will end up welfare programs.
That's unfortunate that you think his points are valid because they are not. They are cherry picked. They are lies, they are pure spin, and fear mongering. They are just not true.
Did you read that link?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Trump said Medicare for All "would cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years”. While this is not necessarily a lie, Trump’s framing is grossly misleading. The president cites a Koch-funded study, which, yes, found that Medicare for All would cost $32.6 trillion over a decade. What he fails to mention, however, is that the $32.6 trillion number is $2 trillion less than what the U.S. currently spends on health care. In other words, Medicare for All would save money.
And we'd be covered. No more medical bankruptcies.
His framing is completely correct and in line with that the researches themselves say, actually. Did you read that link? The whole fact check was about why Sanders claims are misleading, and the chances of those savings actually occurring are unrealistic and based upon best case scenario factors, with the likely outcome being a substantial increase, according to the author of the study. It does not do to cherry pick favorable information and ignore the broader context. And this completely ignores the fact that you need to double the tax burden, at least, on individuals and businesses, likely leading to a backlash that kills the whole thing or damages the society in another way.
Nobody is saying the health care system of the U.S doesn't need structural changes. It absolutely does, most notably in negotiating drug prices to a lower amount and giving greater access to low income folks. But this policy has no feasible way forward politically, or economically, and looks like it would do more harm than good.
This is, essentially, the major argument the left uses to push this policy, and it's not really an argument at all. There is no accurate economic or social comparison between the United States or any European nation.
Numbers of deaths isn't casually related to treatment outcomes unless you adjust for the differences in population, which the graph didn't, because that wasn't what it was trying to do. To put it another way, a more disease ridden population is going to experiences more cases of sickness and death even if their health care is more efficient.
- We are the most obese nation on Earth by a significant margin, explaining right away many of the greater disease burdens the United States faces when compared to other first world nations. We also have 40+ million people living in poverty in this country, if you believe the numbers, likely much higher. That is quadruple the amount of poor folks that the second most populated European nation, Germany, had in it's worst year in recent memory of 2015. Poverty is a significant contributor to disease, especially the lifestyle diseases like the US faces with great regularity.
Not saying other nations don't have better treatment outcomes for certain, other diseases, but mortality rate alone doesn't indicate better quality health care unless you look at the whole picture. And we have two major burdens the rest of the world doesn't, a less healthy population, and less access. The care can be top notch, best in the world, but if you can't afford it, you're gonna be a statistic unless you have a GoFundMe or a kind doctor. Which is terrible and needs to be fixed. Just not in the Sanders way.
Hopefully this can be read, but these are the requirements to vote in an municipal election coming up in Ottawa, ON, Canada.
I tend to get confused when Americans say they are going to purge voting lists, because in Canada, they really are just glorified mailing lists.
If you are not on the Voters list, you can still go to your closest voting station and show them a piece of mail saying this is who you are, and this is where you live. Even if you don’t have a piece of mail, you can fill out a form declaring who you are and where you live.
At the bottom, it states someone can actually go vote for you, however, I think that is only for municipal elections.
Voting is enshrined in the Constitution as a RIGHT, not a privilege. The idea it should be able to be legislated or cheated away so casually is the most heinous kind of anti-democratic activity.
If I have proof of residence as well as proof of citizenship, I should be able to walk into a voting station and vote.
There should be a master list, but that list should not ever be considered complete.
I should also be able to sue my state if they refuse to let me vote for any reason as it is my democratic right to exercise my vote. I am surprised someone hasn’t done this yet to be honest. This BS continues because people let it continue.