![]() |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12702668)
Here's a timely article about how the Democrats could put defeat from the jaws of victory. Nice list of 11 ways to lose the election.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...on-2020-227215 They can still lose this thing, that's for sure! Reparation is a very difficult issue. One which New Zealand has been dealing with for many many decades now. Social welfare and healthcare should of course be for everyone in this day and age & it certainly should not be employer/ins company dependant, however I can quite see those that have cover begrudging the have nots if it means it costs the individual more. Many wish to live within societies but don't want to pay to make societies work well for all. |
Re: 2020 Election
Fox New's has a "pop" @ Donny over the conditions the poor kids are confined in.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ne...isoners-of-war Will Donny call it "Fake News" ? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12702779)
I think the bigger picture here, and the part that is relevant to the 2020 election and this thread, is that there are all manner of groups that have suffered 'injustices', in one way or another. Racial injustice is just one aspect. If you are gay and missed out on a tax credit, is that an injustice worthy of setting up a formalized, government program to 'address'? Should we extend it to those who lived in poor school districts (not just racial minorities, but financially disadvantaged groups)? It's one thing to acknowledge these issues exist and to take steps to address them (stop them happening in the future); but to retroactively attempt to 'repay' is a "whole 'nother ballgame".
As an aside, what about straight people like me who never married in order to avoid the 'marriage penalty' (taking advantage of the fact that married couples pay more tax than unmarried couples) ... do I need to repay that now? Racial (and other) injustices are real and should be acknowledged and addressed; but should they be handled by 'reparations' .... ? I think not, and I think it's just election pandering to pretend otherwise. Reparations are not handing a check to everyone concerned, but racism is deep rooted and exists to this day, with disproportionate incarceration and the list is a long one. Is this not due to race or are African Americans just a bad lot and it's all their own fault. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 12702804)
Taking that out of context just a little aren’t we? I already said I could see the case with AA and NA peoples but let’s not let the facts get in the way of your belief! |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12702870)
I think Native Americans and African Americans are a case apart. Adding other groups that have been treated badly are just a red herring.
Reparations are not handing a check to everyone concerned, but racism is deep rooted and exists to this day, with disproportionate incarceration and the list is a long one. Is this not due to race or are African Americans just a bad lot and it's all their own fault. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12702873)
I would think The Chinese Exclusion Act was an even more compelling situation, the Chinese in some cases were treated even worse than slaves and many were expelled. Slaves had a value, indentured labourers did not and were replaced for free.
Reparations are not just about slavery. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12702892)
Reparations or to right a wrong that still exists to a large extent today?
Reparations are not just about slavery. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12702872)
Your second post cancelled out your first, or is it the other way round. I guess if you make contradictory posts one of them may be right?
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12702870)
I think Native Americans and African Americans are a case apart. Adding other groups that have been treated badly are just a red herring.
Reparations are not handing a check to everyone concerned, but racism is deep rooted and exists to this day, with disproportionate incarceration and the list is a long one. Is this not due to race or are African Americans just a bad lot and it's all their own fault. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12702870)
I think Native Americans and African Americans are a case apart. Adding other groups that have been treated badly are just a red herring.
Reparations are not handing a check to everyone concerned, but racism is deep rooted and exists to this day, with disproportionate incarceration and the list is a long one. Is this not due to race or are African Americans just a bad lot and it's all their own fault. |
Re: 2020 Election
Contractors in 18 States, Including CA, Got $300M by Claiming to Be Cherokee Despite White Ancestryhttps://ktla.com/2019/06/26/contract...hite-ancestry/ This sort of combines both issues, can not believe it is uncommon. |
Re: 2020 Election
i may not like all of Warrens policies (and I don't) but I really like her as a person. She really believes what she's saying it appears, which makes a change for a politician.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Thus far I quite like Warren and Harris. Warren seems a person of conviction and given the potential wreck she could have had given her strange Native American thing, she seems to rise above it well, unlike Clinton who seemed to come across as belittling everyone. Harris would be my choice to take on Trump if I had any vested interest, for fun more than anything. I don't know much about her policy positions but she strikes me as able to make someone else look silly without looking like nasty know it all, again a Clinton failing from what I saw.
Warren's biggest issue is she has a strong point on Healthcare, but seems determined to just stamp all over private healthcare. We all know the USA mind is a tough one to budge on Universal Healthcare as it is, but they keep ignoring that healthy Private industries survive still in countries like the UK. They'd do well to position it as a Basic Human Right Care with the option of Private Top-Ups. Everyone can carry on as is if they like, but you'd expect the Private Top Up to reduce in price as the Taxation covered portion of Healthcare will reduce the burden on Insurers. Now, stamping over the Drug pricing,that one will likely go down well, so they can after that. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robtuck
(Post 12703693)
Thus far I quite like Warren and Harris. Warren seems a person of conviction and given the potential wreck she could have had given her strange Native American thing, she seems to rise above it well, unlike Clinton who seemed to come across as belittling everyone. Harris would be my choice to take on Trump if I had any vested interest, for fun more than anything. I don't know much about her policy positions but she strikes me as able to make someone else look silly without looking like nasty know it all, again a Clinton failing from what I saw.
Warren's biggest issue is she has a strong point on Healthcare, but seems determined to just stamp all over private healthcare. We all know the USA mind is a tough one to budge on Universal Healthcare as it is, but they keep ignoring that healthy Private industries survive still in countries like the UK. They'd do well to position it as a Basic Human Right Care with the option of Private Top-Ups. Everyone can carry on as is if they like, but you'd expect the Private Top Up to reduce in price as the Taxation covered portion of Healthcare will reduce the burden on Insurers. ... Harris remains my preference and yes, I think she more than anyone could take on Trump verbally and do him harm. |
Re: 2020 Election
Assuming you layer into some form of taxation, if everyone decided to keep their Private as was, then the cost would actually be split quite well - some people essentially paying twice for their healthcare coverage. Everyone pays a small amount for the Basic universal cover, even if they also have Private - that can either be direct on the employee/self employed, or you can take some via companies and they'd automatically reduce their own provision anyway. If you grapple drug costs at the same time, the net cost to anyone with Insurance today will unlikely increase - if I remember correctly the USA spends double what the UK does on healthcare all rolled-up, mostly due to the NHS purchasing power over drug companies.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:45 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.