Meryl Streep; Keith Olbermann

[Reddy]

Who gets credit for starting this white privilege issue nationally? Who is the one person who first brought it up? Somebody should ask the liberal white Hollywood people if they are willing to admit their white privilege. I wonder how many would cave and smile at the interrigator and say, "Well of course I do. Thanks for asking. Of course I admit my white privilege, every day of my life."

I actually bet many of them would, just like I do - as someone in the entertainment business who knows a lot of people in the entertainment business.

[knightni]

The bottom line is, that Republicans are more concerned with removing ACA because it came from Obama, than they are about actually fixing the healthcare system.

 

This is what's wrong with the bipartisan political system in this country.

[Y2HH]

That's literally not what I said. I said you had a leg up, and that in Trump's America you will continue to have a leg up, and as such, it's easy for you to sit back and "enjoy life".

 

That's the problem with this, and why it's simplistic jibberish.

 

No, it's not.

[Jenksismyhero]

The bottom line is, that Republicans are more concerned with removing ACA because it came from Obama, than they are about actually fixing the healthcare system.

 

This is what's wrong with the bipartisan political system in this country.

 

Nah, it's a fundamental disagreement about what government should provide and who should pay for it.

[Soxbadger]

Nah, it's a fundamental disagreement about what government should provide and who should pay for it.

 

I agree that it should be a fundamental difference. But as we both know, the Republican party really has thrown a lot of its core values out the window (small government, free trade, etc.) The catchphrase seems to be "repeal and replace" which suggests that the Republican party is seeking to create some sort of comprehensive health care law.

 

Impossible to tell what they really mean though, as Obamacare has become more popular now, so I think that many Republican's may get scared when they realize its "their" constituents who are going to get hit the worst.

[Reddy]

That's the problem with this, and why it's simplistic jibberish.

 

No, it's not.

 

Compared to a woman, a gay person or a minority, it IS. Come on. Wake up.

[brett05]

Americans voted in conservatives knowing full well that ACA was going to be repealed.

[Balta1701]

Compared to a woman, a gay person or a minority, it IS. Come on. Wake up.

I think he has a point. Telling a person who is working hard, has no health insurance because they don't deserve it, who is one paycheck from bankruptcy, who has a relative they're supporting after a meth/opioid addiction, that they're sailing by smoothly doesn't get the point across. They're not going to consider the alternate case where they got pulled over for having a taillight out and were shot.

[BigSqwert]

Americans voted in conservatives knowing full well that ACA was going to be repealed.

 

You mean 62 million out of the 300 million Americans did. 65 million Americans voted to keep it.

[Y2HH]

I think he has a point. Telling a person who is working hard, has no health insurance because they don't deserve it, who is one paycheck from bankruptcy, who has a relative they're supporting after a meth/opioid addiction, that they're sailing by smoothly doesn't get the point across. They're not going to consider the alternate case where they got pulled over for having a taillight out and were shot.

 

No, I think it's an ignorant thing to say that just because a person is white it's easy for them to "sit back and enjoy life", which is what he's saying VERBATIM.

 

Being white doesn't mean you're successful, or rich...or without struggle.

 

There are more white people on welfare than any other race...I'd love to see Reddy tell them how "easy" their lives are...I mean, they're white...so s*** must be easy!

 

The problem with his entire statement is the same bulls*** ignorance used against Black Lives Matter. Just because they're saying Black Lives Matter doesn't mean they're saying other lives don't...I'm not saying others don't struggle...or have it hard. What I am saying is that just because I'm white doesn't mean s*** just came easy to me. It's simplistic bulls*** is what it is.

[Balta1701]

No, I think it's an ignorant thing to say that just because a person is white it's easy for them to "sit back and enjoy life", which is what he's saying VERBATIM.

I think I agreed with you. I just used "Sailing by smoothly" to paraphrase "Sit back and enjoy life" because while typing I don't like to scroll up half a screen to see exactly what the verbatim text was to quote.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree that it should be a fundamental difference. But as we both know, the Republican party really has thrown a lot of its core values out the window (small government, free trade, etc.) The catchphrase seems to be "repeal and replace" which suggests that the Republican party is seeking to create some sort of comprehensive health care law.

 

Impossible to tell what they really mean though, as Obamacare has become more popular now, so I think that many Republican's may get scared when they realize its "their" constituents who are going to get hit the worst.

 

1) I think both parties do this as it is impossible to be absolute on just about any given policy. Liberals are the anti-war/anti-violation of rights party (ha ha, guns) and yet Obama loves his drone program and would (or did? I can't remember) take out an American citizen without due process. He's still holding detainees in Gitmo who are awaiting trial.

 

2) I think you can still have those beliefs but recognize they aren't always manageable or practical in a given situation. I'm all about smaller government but understood the need for an increase in national security post-9/11. I'm all about free market but understand it shouldn't come at the cost of the American people (Trump's America-First policy is one of the very few of his that I agree with in principle).

 

As to healthcare, it's a quagmire for sure. I don't believe it's a right, not do I believe it's the governments duty to force people to buy or pay for something they don't want.

[Jenksismyhero]

You mean 62 million out of the 300 million Americans did. 65 million Americans voted to keep it.

 

Nah, the vast majority voted for other reason because the vast majority don't have health care insurance issues or a need for the ACA.

[Kyyle23]

Not that anyone cares, I thought it was ridiculous Streep used MMA as an example to rip on the idea of the country not being all inclusive/international or whatever. The three biggest stars in MMA are an Irish guy, an American girl who used to be homeless and a Canadian dude.

 

That isnt how I interpreted what she was saying. right after she said MMA, and people started cheering, she said "those are not 'the arts'". I think her point was if you remove movies and music etc all you have is football and MMA, and that isnt everything we need(according to her).

 

I thought it was a strange shot at MMA and Football for sure

[StrangeSox]

Nah, the vast majority voted for other reason because the vast majority don't have health care insurance issues or a need for the ACA.

 

You're under the mistaken belief that 1) the ACA didn't impact employer-provided plans , providing consumer protections that didn't exist before and 2) that they won't be impacted again through whatever replacement plan, if any, the GOP comes up with.

[Jenksismyhero]

You're under the mistaken belief that 1) the ACA didn't impact employer-provided plans , providing consumer protections that didn't exist before and 2) that they won't be impacted again through whatever replacement plan, if any, the GOP comes up with.

 

But it's still a true statement that for the majority of people in the country they were fine with what they had pre-ACA. And it's also true that post-ACA many people lost what they liked in their plans.

 

End of the day, it's not accurate to say every vote for Trump was a vote to repeal ACA and every vote for Clinton was in support of it. People vote for different reasons and for the majority the ACA is not one of them.

[StrangeSox]

But it's still a true statement that for the majority of people in the country they were fine with what they had pre-ACA. And it's also true that post-ACA many people lost what they liked in their plans.

 

End of the day, it's not accurate to say every vote for Trump was a vote to repeal ACA and every vote for Clinton was in support of it. People vote for different reasons and for the majority the ACA is not one of them.

 

The second paragraph is certainly true. Narrowing down an election outcome to a single issue is too simplistic.

 

Rising healthcare premiums were/are still a big issue in many employer-provided plans, though, and part of the ACA attempts to address that.

[Soxbadger]

1) I think both parties do this as it is impossible to be absolute on just about any given policy. Liberals are the anti-war/anti-violation of rights party (ha ha, guns) and yet Obama loves his drone program and would (or did? I can't remember) take out an American citizen without due process. He's still holding detainees in Gitmo who are awaiting trial.

 

2) I think you can still have those beliefs but recognize they aren't always manageable or practical in a given situation. I'm all about smaller government but understood the need for an increase in national security post-9/11. I'm all about free market but understand it shouldn't come at the cost of the American people (Trump's America-First policy is one of the very few of his that I agree with in principle).

 

As to healthcare, it's a quagmire for sure. I don't believe it's a right, not do I believe it's the governments duty to force people to buy or pay for something they don't want.

 

 

1) Come on Jenks, you cant seriously believe what you posted. Liberals arent pro-war or pro-peace, that is not a tenant of liberalism. Plenty of "liberal" Presidents (Lincoln, FDR) were involved in major wars. Again violation of rights? This is the exact opposite, liberals are generally staunch supporters of the 1st amendment, etc. The 2nd amendment is really a question of whether "gun" use is a fundamental right. But when it comes to things like marijuana etc, its usually the Republicans who want to restrict rights.

 

2) With 9/11 I think that is an extreme example and I think that most reasonable people understand that national defense is an outlier because it would be impossible for states to be responsible for their own national security. As for free market, you are either for it, or you are against it. There is no "Im for it but", that isnt free market. The entire point of free market is that the govt does not intervene because that creates inefficiency. I have no problem with people who are anti-free market, but call it what it is. Eroding free market will eventually hurt the US, when you move from a capitalist economy to a protective socialist economy which is what Trump is suggesting. But if you want a capitalist economy, then you need free market.

 

You are a smart guy, I know that you understand that "free market" isnt coming at the cost of the American people. Free market ensures that the American people get the best products for the cheapest prices. As soon as you allow Trump to institute his protective socialist economy, you will see worse products at higher prices much like the Soviet Union or Russia.

 

Maybe idolizing Russia is the new Republican core belief. I dont know. But I just cant believe that Republicans are actually backing this s***.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

1) Come on Jenks, you cant seriously believe what you posted. Liberals arent pro-war or pro-peace, that is not a tenant of liberalism. Plenty of "liberal" Presidents (Lincoln, FDR) were involved in major wars. Again violation of rights? This is the exact opposite, liberals are generally staunch supporters of the 1st amendment, etc. The 2nd amendment is really a question of whether "gun" use is a fundamental right. But when it comes to things like marijuana etc, its usually the Republicans who want to restrict rights.

 

2) With 9/11 I think that is an extreme example and I think that most reasonable people understand that national defense is an outlier because it would be impossible for states to be responsible for their own national security. As for free market, you are either for it, or you are against it. There is no "Im for it but", that isnt free market. The entire point of free market is that the govt does not intervene because that creates inefficiency. I have no problem with people who are anti-free market, but call it what it is. Eroding free market will eventually hurt the US, when you move from a capitalist economy to a protective socialist economy which is what Trump is suggesting. But if you want a capitalist economy, then you need free market.

 

You are a smart guy, I know that you understand that "free market" isnt coming at the cost of the American people. Free market ensures that the American people get the best products for the cheapest prices. As soon as you allow Trump to institute his protective socialist economy, you will see worse products at higher prices much like the Soviet Union or Russia.

 

Maybe idolizing Russia is the new Republican core belief. I dont know. But I just cant believe that Republicans are actually backing this s***.

 

No fiscal conservative ever touts true free market principles, if that even exists. They're still ok with some regulation, limiting the players involved, etc. when it benefits them/us. I object to your premise that all fiscal conservative policy is being abandoned here and that you can only be for or against the free market. I think it's more of a scale where fiscal conservatives would rather be closer to a true free market than not, but still within certain constraints. Just like we're not a truly capitalistic society. I don't know of many conservatives who want to abandon all social services for a purely capitalist society. Some for sure, but not all.

Edited January 17, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[Soxbadger]

No fiscal conservative ever touts true free market principles, if that even exists. They're still ok with some regulation, limiting the players involved, etc. when it benefits them/us. I object to your premise that all fiscal conservative policy is being abandoned here and that you can only be for or against the free market. I think it's more of a scale where fiscal conservatives would rather be closer to a true free market than not, but still within certain constraints. Just like we're not a truly capitalistic society. I don't know of many conservatives who want to abandon all social services for a purely capitalist society. Some for sure, but not all.

 

 

There is an ocean of difference between "regulating" and "protectionism". Threatening BMW for where they choose to build a plant is not "regulating" its protectionism, and it completely disrupts a free market economy.

 

And while you object to my premise, Trump is almost the antithesis of fiscal conservative. The only box he checks is "lower taxes". Trump has espoused for significant increases is govt spending and govt debt, which are ultimately the backbone of "fiscal conservative" ideas. Trump and the Republican party are now arguing for a socialist protectionist economy.

 

Maybe that is what Republican's are now. Because Trumps plan of spending a huge amount of money on infrastructure, govt guaranteed healthcare and anti-free market, has no resemblance to anything that Republican's/fiscal conservatives ever stood for.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

But it's still a true statement that for the majority of people in the country they were fine with what they had pre-ACA. And it's also true that post-ACA many people lost what they liked in their plans.

 

End of the day, it's not accurate to say every vote for Trump was a vote to repeal ACA and every vote for Clinton was in support of it. People vote for different reasons and for the majority the ACA is not one of them.

It's also worth highlighting again that people are usually fine with their insurer until they hit one of the walls. For example, prior to the ACA, something like 50% of employer-provided plans had lifetime limits. How many people knew about that part of the fine print? Less than 1% of people in those plans would ever hit them, but when you're the one hit with cancer, suddenly you care about it an awful lot.

 

Second point, while you're correct that it isn't accurate to say that every vote for Trump was a vote to repeal the ACA, it is accurate to say that repealing the ACA was not a dealbreaker for anyone who voted for Trump (in some cases because they did not know what it was I'll note). Much as with the blatant and overt racism and the admitted sexual assault, anyone who was willing to vote for Donald Trump looked at that and thought it was ok enough.

[caulfield12]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trumps-tweet...=3Gw92UR1PtATA1

 

Trump's tweets, good politics but poor economics

Written by Harvard Business School prof

 

 

No real Republican can counter this argument logically...because it's impossible.

 

There are countless ways to force (maybe push is a better word, or influence) China to comply with fair trade practices without imposing tariffs that wouldn't seriously impact both American consumers and workers so negatively.

Edited January 17, 2017 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

No, I think it's an ignorant thing to say that just because a person is white it's easy for them to "sit back and enjoy life", which is what he's saying VERBATIM.

 

Being white doesn't mean you're successful, or rich...or without struggle.

 

There are more white people on welfare than any other race...I'd love to see Reddy tell them how "easy" their lives are...I mean, they're white...so s*** must be easy!

 

The problem with his entire statement is the same bulls*** ignorance used against Black Lives Matter. Just because they're saying Black Lives Matter doesn't mean they're saying other lives don't...I'm not saying others don't struggle...or have it hard. What I am saying is that just because I'm white doesn't mean s*** just came easy to me. It's simplistic bulls*** is what it is.

 

you're literally, 100% ignoring my words.

 

Being white puts you ahead of the pack inherently. What you do with that advantage is up to you, but that doesn't mean you don't have the advantage.

[caulfield12]

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-17/chin...e-globalization

Kind of amusing that Xi Jinping is more likely to be quoting Abraham Lincoln these days than our own president

 

 

"Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. Wind and rain may be kept outside, but so is light and air," Xi said in a speech that took in references to Chinese folklore, Charles Dickens and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

 

It is simply "not possible" to reverse the flow of global capital, technology, goods and people, Xi said in the heart of a continent where Britain is plotting its exit from the European Union and far-right parties are on the rise.

 

He insisted China was committed to "opening up" and stood by globalization's gains for emerging economies — as well as defending the Paris accord on climate change, which is also in Trump's sights.

 

And he said there is "no point in blaming economic globalization for the world's problems," highlighting China's view that catastrophically weak regulation rather than free trade lay behind the West's 2008 financial crisis.

 

His message was met with acclaim from many in a hall packed with government leaders, captains of industry, stars of entertainment and agenda-setting thinkers.

 

Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt noted that a century ago, Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin was plotting world revolution in Zurich, a couple of hours' train ride from Davos.

 

"And now, 100 years later we have the leader of the largest communist party in the world coming to the leading meeting of global capitalists to preach the virtues of globalization," he told AFP. "Lenin is dead."

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/17/its-pretty-...a-ceo-says.html

 

"Xi spoke earlier this morning, and he's quoting Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address about development being 'for the people, by the people'," Moynihan said on "Squawk Box" from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

 

"You start to say this is a pretty interesting world where you have the president of China quoting the great American president," he added.

 

In his speech, Xi said: "It is true that economic globalization created new problems, but this is no justification to write off economic globalization altogether." He also warned that populist approaches could lead to war and poverty.

 

Moynihan, who had lunch with Xi, reported the Chinese president is "very much concerned that there will be a retraction from trade, and the ability of trade to help the world grow, and the ability rebalance the imbalances in economies."

 

As one of the five co-chairs of the World Economic Forum, Moynihan said: "That's the fear out there."

Edited January 18, 2017 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

you're literally, 100% ignoring my words.

 

Being white puts you ahead of the pack inherently. What you do with that advantage is up to you, but that doesn't mean you don't have the advantage.

The problem is he's following your words and there is a disconnect. The specific phrase he's going after is "sit back and enjoy life". You're not even defending that yourself in the 2nd part of this. What you just said is fundamentally different from "sit back and enjoy life".