Quest for the Presidency (2020 Edition) - Page 37

**Arturo2nd** · July 18th, 2019, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I may have missed why the Civil War posts started but I would like to know what it has to do with the 2020 elections?

There is a Civil War thread by the way.

One of my great-great-grandfather's brothers was killed during Gen. Sherman's Georgia campaign, which I happened to mention in an earlier post. This sent AtemiWaza and scoundrel into debating the civil war and one thing led to another. Mr Trump's race baiting plays into our original constitutional sin and the revisionist history around the 1861-1865 shooting war.

It's partly my fault because I have little tolerance for those who want to justify treason and rebellion for the purpose of expanding slavery as some sort of noble effort. Andrew Jackson, a native of South Carolina and a slave owner, put the lie to the whole secessionist argument when it first arose during his administration.

I don't have any tolerance for neo-Nazis either, but I will leave the explanation for that to palo5 as the peoples of the former Soviet Union paid a much greater price than the men of my father's generation. But one of my uncles did liberate a couple of the concentration camps. I really don't understand why folks are allowed to wear armbands and carry flags with swastikas without being shot on sight.

**scoundrel** · July 18th, 2019, 10:35 PM

The relevance of the Civil War has to do with the (IMHO) extremely strange notion being circulated that someone somewhere should pay compensation in the Year of Our Lord 2019 for the fact that American people were being held in a state of slavery in 1865. But just how rational is that, when the last US citizen known to have been a slave died in 1948 and probably doesn't even have any surviving grandchildren?

The equally remarkable notion that the descendents of the victims of General Sherman's progress through the South in 1864-65 should likewise be compensated struck me as even more absurd, in that these were not even "victims" - but rather were rebels and traitors and quite fortunate not to be hanged. In some ways I can respect and even admire the fighting spirit of the CSA, but I can think for very few worse causes than theirs. The only honourable motive possible for men who fought in grey in 1860-65 is those cases where they fought to preserve their own hearth and home - that is just about the oldest cause for war there is. But the descendants of people who picnicked on the grass and cheered on their own side as it bombarded Fort Sumter have no case to argue for compensation in 2019.

Actually I feel quite strongly that people should be required to learn history. It would be harder for someone as palpably false and empty of substance as Donald Trump to gain influence over voters if the American people collectively knew more about their own past.

**Dr Pepper** · July 18th, 2019, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Actually I feel quite strongly that people should be required to learn history. It would be harder for someone as palpably false and empty of substance as Donald Trump to gain influence over voters if the American people collectively knew more about their own past.

Great idea-and should be required in ALL countries.....but who then gets to decide the syllabus.....a variation on the 'qui custodiet custodes?' dilemma...

**SanteeFats** · July 18th, 2019, 11:17 PM

Well okay then thanks for the info. Carry on Sirs.

**Devius** · July 21st, 2019, 02:41 PM

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is coming under pressure to define her policy proposals from rivals raising questions about where she stands on “Medicare for All” and other key issues.

Allies for former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), both of whom are seeking to beat back a challenge from Harris’s surging campaign, are calling Harris’s past remarks into question, saying she has obfuscated her positions in an effort to endear herself to the liberal base.

“I think her statements, campaign are smoke and mirrors,” said Dick Harpootlian, a Biden campaign surrogate and the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. “As the campaign wears on and as she’s pressed to prove details, I think she’s going to find herself realizing this isn’t a campaign for attorney general of California. This is a presidential campaign, and what you say has to be verifiable, and so far it has not been.”

Harris’s allies roll their eyes at such criticisms, saying her rivals are playing an insider game of trying to pin her down on obscure matters that ordinary Americans don’t care anything about.

They say Harris is resonating with voters as an aspirational figure — a woman of color who rose to attorney general of California and a U.S. senator — not because of policy minutiae.

“People are responding to her for who she is and what she says about the future,” said Marguerite Willis, a Harris supporter and former Democratic candidate for governor in South Carolina.

“She talks about the promise of expanding health care, of better race relations, of taking care of our teachers, of getting our terrible gun problem under control. That’s what people are looking for, and that’s what she speaks about on the stump with eloquence and believability. The rest of it is just politics.”

Critics have centered their fire on Harris’s position on Medicare for All, the single-payer health care proposal championed most prominently by Sanders.

Harris is a co-sponsor of the legislation that Sanders introduced earlier this year. But she has gone back and forth on the specifics, such as whether it should abolish employer-sponsored private insurance or how to pay for it.

During a CNN town hall event in January, Harris appeared to say she would “eliminate all of that” on a question about private health insurance.

At another town hall on CNN in May, she clarified that she would eliminate the “bureaucracy” but that she believes consumers should have the option to use a supplemental private insurer.

But at the first presidential debate last month, Harris raised her hand when the candidates were asked if their plans would "abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan."

She clarified immediately after the debate that “private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage.”

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are all co-sponsors of Sanders’s bill, though Booker and Gillibrand have said that they do not support shutting down private insurance.

Warren has sided with Sanders on the matter, insisting that private health insurance should be done away with.

Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, avoided a direct attack on Harris when asked about her position on Medicare for All but said supporting the proposal means backing the elimination of private insurance.

“Look, she will articulate her position, and voters can evaluate it,” he said. “That’s what this process is. But if you’re for Medicare for All, then you’re for eliminating private insurance in the area of covered services. If you’re not for that, you’re not for Medicare for All.”

In an interview on MSNBC earlier in the week, Weaver also rebuffed Harris’s suggestion that Medicare for All could be implemented without a middle-class tax hike. Doing so, he said, would be impossible “without unicorns, magic wands.”

Harris’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but her supporters dismissed the criticism as unfair.

Source:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...licy-proposals

**scoundrel** · July 21st, 2019, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devius

“Look, she will articulate her position, and voters can evaluate it,” he said. “That’s what this process is. But if you’re for Medicare for All, then you’re for eliminating private insurance in the area of covered services. If you’re not for that, you’re not for Medicare for All.”

Source:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...licy-proposals

Britain has a single payer public healthcare system but has made no attempt to prevent people from having private heath insurance if they so wish. In fact, many facilities are shared and the private sector subsidises the public sector, making public healthcare more affordable to the government. There's no automatic reason why private health insurance needs to be abolished - it merely not a viable alternative to having a public health system.

TBH, it looks to me as though Mr Sanders and Ms Warren are being rather anal about something which really doesn't matter. It just isn't true that you can't have Medicare for all and still allow private medical insurance. It's a fuss about nothing.

For clarification though I should point out that British healthcare comes from national insurance contributions and general taxation and you will pay the same if you buy private medical insurance; it isn't a deductable expense for individuals. In fact, if you get PMI from your employer it is a taxable benefit and you will pay Class 1A national insurance at 13.8% on the value of the benefit. So you are allowed to have private medical but it is strictly at your own cost - the state will not subsidise it.

**diamelsx** · July 21st, 2019, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Britain has a single payer public healthcare system but has made no attempt to prevent people from having private heath insurance if they so wish. In fact, many facilities are shared and the private sector subsidises the public sector, making public healthcare more affordable to the government. There's no automatic reason why private health insurance needs to be abolished - it merely not a viable alternative to having a public health system.

TBH, it looks to me as though Mr Sanders and Ms Warren are being rather anal about something which really doesn't matter. It just isn't true that you can't have Medicare for all and still allow private medical insurance. It's a fuss about nothing.

For clarification though I should point out that British healthcare comes from national insurance contributions and general taxation and you will pay the same if you buy private medical insurance; it isn't a deductable expense for individuals. In fact, if you get PMI from your employer it is a taxable benefit and you will pay Class 1A national insurance at 13.8% on the value of the benefit. So you are allowed to have private medical but it is strictly at your own cost - the state will not subsidise it.

What medicare-for-all plan did you read? Not Sanders plan or the house bill abolishes Private health insurance as a matter of fact the only people that make that claim are the ones paid by the Private health insurance industry to speak on their behalf. Kamala has been Slippery When discussing medicare-for-all, but so has Elizabeth Warren. Both were going to have to clarify their positions at some point before the general election. a lot of the democratic field is acting like they are for Medicare for all but the more you look into it you realize that there really are not and the media is trying to let them go along with the LIE.

**charliels531** · July 22nd, 2019, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamelsx

What medicare-for-all plan did you read? Not Sanders plan or the house bill abolishes Private health insurance as a matter of fact the only people that make that claim are the ones paid by the Private health insurance industry to speak on their behalf. Kamala has been Slippery When discussing medicare-for-all, but so has Elizabeth Warren. Both were going to have to clarify their positions at some point before the general election. a lot of the democratic field is acting like they are for Medicare for all but the more you look into it you realize that there really are not and the media is trying to let them go along with the LIE.

Agreed. the House bill is simply an updated version of the Public Option provision of the original Affordable Care bill.

**Arturo2nd** · July 22nd, 2019, 05:25 AM

I live in California and believe Kamala Harris is an opportunist who will say anything she believes will get her the most votes. I have seen no evidence of a commitment to principles or good government in any of the offices she has held. And for the record, I voted for the opposing Democrat in the 2016 senatorial race.

**cicciobuki** · July 23rd, 2019, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

I live in California and believe Kamala Harris is an opportunist who will say anything she believes will get her the most votes. I have seen no evidence of a commitment to principles or good government in any of the offices she has held.

Perfect candidate!

July 18th, 2019, 10:35 PM	#362
scoundrel Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 26,268 Thanks: 162,490 Thanked 278,849 Times in 26,213 Posts	The relevance of the Civil War has to do with the (IMHO) extremely strange notion being circulated that someone somewhere should pay compensation in the Year of Our Lord 2019 for the fact that American people were being held in a state of slavery in 1865. But just how rational is that, when the last US citizen known to have been a slave died in 1948 and probably doesn't even have any surviving grandchildren? The equally remarkable notion that the descendents of the victims of General Sherman's progress through the South in 1864-65 should likewise be compensated struck me as even more absurd, in that these were not even "victims" - but rather were rebels and traitors and quite fortunate not to be hanged. In some ways I can respect and even admire the fighting spirit of the CSA, but I can think for very few worse causes than theirs. The only honourable motive possible for men who fought in grey in 1860-65 is those cases where they fought to preserve their own hearth and home - that is just about the oldest cause for war there is. But the descendants of people who picnicked on the grass and cheered on their own side as it bombarded Fort Sumter have no case to argue for compensation in 2019. Actually I feel quite strongly that people should be required to learn history. It would be harder for someone as palpably false and empty of substance as Donald Trump to gain influence over voters if the American people collectively knew more about their own past. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

July 21st, 2019, 02:41 PM	#365
Devius Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: It's a London Thing.... Posts: 23,600 Thanks: 142,488 Thanked 228,951 Times in 23,636 Posts	Harris faces pressure to define policy proposals Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is coming under pressure to define her policy proposals from rivals raising questions about where she stands on “Medicare for All” and other key issues. Allies for former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), both of whom are seeking to beat back a challenge from Harris’s surging campaign, are calling Harris’s past remarks into question, saying she has obfuscated her positions in an effort to endear herself to the liberal base. “I think her statements, campaign are smoke and mirrors,” said Dick Harpootlian, a Biden campaign surrogate and the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. “As the campaign wears on and as she’s pressed to prove details, I think she’s going to find herself realizing this isn’t a campaign for attorney general of California. This is a presidential campaign, and what you say has to be verifiable, and so far it has not been.” Harris’s allies roll their eyes at such criticisms, saying her rivals are playing an insider game of trying to pin her down on obscure matters that ordinary Americans don’t care anything about. They say Harris is resonating with voters as an aspirational figure — a woman of color who rose to attorney general of California and a U.S. senator — not because of policy minutiae. “People are responding to her for who she is and what she says about the future,” said Marguerite Willis, a Harris supporter and former Democratic candidate for governor in South Carolina. “She talks about the promise of expanding health care, of better race relations, of taking care of our teachers, of getting our terrible gun problem under control. That’s what people are looking for, and that’s what she speaks about on the stump with eloquence and believability. The rest of it is just politics.” Critics have centered their fire on Harris’s position on Medicare for All, the single-payer health care proposal championed most prominently by Sanders. Harris is a co-sponsor of the legislation that Sanders introduced earlier this year. But she has gone back and forth on the specifics, such as whether it should abolish employer-sponsored private insurance or how to pay for it. During a CNN town hall event in January, Harris appeared to say she would “eliminate all of that” on a question about private health insurance. At another town hall on CNN in May, she clarified that she would eliminate the “bureaucracy” but that she believes consumers should have the option to use a supplemental private insurer. But at the first presidential debate last month, Harris raised her hand when the candidates were asked if their plans would "abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan." She clarified immediately after the debate that “private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage.” Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are all co-sponsors of Sanders’s bill, though Booker and Gillibrand have said that they do not support shutting down private insurance. Warren has sided with Sanders on the matter, insisting that private health insurance should be done away with. Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, avoided a direct attack on Harris when asked about her position on Medicare for All but said supporting the proposal means backing the elimination of private insurance. “Look, she will articulate her position, and voters can evaluate it,” he said. “That’s what this process is. But if you’re for Medicare for All, then you’re for eliminating private insurance in the area of covered services. If you’re not for that, you’re not for Medicare for All.” In an interview on MSNBC earlier in the week, Weaver also rebuffed Harris’s suggestion that Medicare for All could be implemented without a middle-class tax hike. Doing so, he said, would be impossible “without unicorns, magic wands.” Harris’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but her supporters dismissed the criticism as unfair. Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...licy-proposals __________________ "I've had it with them, I've had it with you, I've had it with ALL THIS - I WANT ROOM SERVICE!* I want the club sandwich, I want the cold Mexican beer, I want a $10,000-a-night hooker!"* Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

July 18th, 2019, 11:17 PM	#364
SanteeFats Super Moderator Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Santee, Ca Posts: 60,942 Thanks: 282,146 Thanked 815,700 Times in 60,990 Posts	Well okay then thanks for the info. Carry on Sirs.

July 22nd, 2019, 05:25 AM	#369
Arturo2nd Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980 Posts: 8,955 Thanks: 103,061 Thanked 151,627 Times in 8,946 Posts	I live in California and believe Kamala Harris is an opportunist who will say anything she believes will get her the most votes. I have seen no evidence of a commitment to principles or good government in any of the offices she has held. And for the record, I voted for the opposing Democrat in the 2016 senatorial race.