Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507020)

In this same regard, I can remain a fan of Murray's concept for paring the regulatory state in We the People while concluding he's a deplorable sensationalist elsewhere.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507014)

It's that exact inability to opt out that creates the forced privity. If one can opt out, he has not been forced into anything.

I'm not concerned for the guy who complains that he must buy auto insurance in order to drive. If he doesn't like that, he can download Uber, or take the bus. The guy being told he must buy a certain form of expansive health care plan, simply because he's alive and has the means to do so, has no choice. He's being told he must contract with private entities.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507012)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507033)

72 books recommended by Barack Obama during his presidency. (More, because some are series.). I've read 13 of them.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507012)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507038)

Contracting is an intrinsically voluntary act. The basic underpinning of a contract's enforceability is that parties to it have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to its terms. To compel a person to contract with another removes the voluntariness of the thing. It may as well be a tax. Which is, of course (and I've now explained this 10X), why I'm fine with simply taxing people more and expanding medicare.

Setting the precedent of compelling people to contract with selected parties (here, insurers) in a forced transaction - of which they may not opt out - is one of the few legitimate slippery slopes we should avoid.



Because you are marrying private profit motive (of insurers, no less) with govt compulsion. How are you not seeing the danger there?



Exactly. My position on this finite issue is not libertarian at all.



I honestly don't know how many times I have to explain this, but I'll do it once more. I find it beyond disturbing to set a precedent where the govt says:

1. You must buy this thing (no opt out); and,
2. Here are private parties with whom you must contract for it.

It's a breath away from granting health insurers - some of the most unscrupulous companies in the country - an effective taxing power over citizens. Yes, I grasp that in many instances insurers have actually lost money on the deal. But that doesn't undo the bad precedent. I don't like the govt intervening in health care. But if the choice is the govt intervening and forcing me to pay more taxes, or the govt intervening to force me to pay a private company, it's a no brainer. And I don't care if the private company is cheaper.

This is not about money. This is about keeping the fox out of the henhouse. Corporations already own enough of our govt. The last thing we need to do is allow them what's basically a taxing power. Fuck that.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507039)

It is not that we are being required to contract with a particular party, but rather that we are asked to get a contract with some party. So if you ride a motorcycle, you are required to buy a helmet; where you get it is between you and the market as long as it meets safety requirements. Likewise, if you have a business with a smokestack, you're going to be required to buy various filters and burners for the stack that get the emissions down to an acceptable level. Where you get them is up to you, as long as you meet standards.

To go back to our founders day, in Massachusetts at the time of the revolution every property owning white male was required to have a musket in working order. As part of our militia, they were regularly inspected. John Adam wasn't concerned with whose musket you bought, but he wanted you (but not TM or RT, of course), to have a musket.

I understand the point. But do you think your point is a constitutional one, or just a political preference by you? And is it an absolute or a balancing act (e.g., it's ok to require motorcycle helmets but not health insurance).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507033)

72 books recommended by Barack Obama during his presidency. (More, because some are series.). I've read 13 of them.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507038)

Setting the precedent of compelling people to contract with selected parties (here, insurers) in a forced transaction - of which they may not opt out - is one of the few legitimate slippery slopes we should avoid.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507040)

It's now obvious to me that the slippery slope caused by requiring people to buy muskets led directly to the tyranny of requiring people to buy health insurance.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507036)

Because life is a fucking competition, 24.

And, to spike the ball, I've been lucky enough to meet 5 of the authors, the most entertaining of which, by far, was Norman Mailer.

I think one of the best things about being President would be getting to invite whoever you want over to a white house dinner. I mean, you want to have a dinner where you hear Doris Kearns Goodwin mix it up with David McCullough, while also getting Tom Brady and Colin Kaepernick to talk football and politics? Set up a table at the next state dinner and have at it. We should measure all our presidents by the creativity of their guest lists.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 507045)

One of the best ever (self-reported) quotes came from one of those dinners:

"I've changed music four or five times. What have you done of any importance other than be white?"

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 507045)

One of the best ever (self-reported) quotes came from one of those dinners:

"I've changed music four or five times. What have you done of any importance other than be white?"

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507046)

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507056)

By who?

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 507058)

Miles Davis

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507059)

he changed Jazz. Anything else?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507060)

Yeah, kinda like Faulkner changed American literature. BFD.

Sarah Palin changed politics, too, didn't she?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507062)

There is no opt-out re health insurance.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507073)

Remember when I thought I had found the most disturbing YouTube video ever with the weird guy singing his song about Trump? This one is much, much worse.

Spree: Bill Nye Saves the World. I am pretty sure most of this is not science, except for the part about vaginas not having vocal chords.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507074)

That is about the worst "music" I have ever heard.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507084)

Speaking of music (and in plf's absence), isn't it lovely the tune Spicer and Chaffetz are playing right now? One says they can't possibly produce anything other than the form Flynn lied on because they took office on Jan. 20--like there were different people making decisions on campaign and transition issues like vetting. The other says it's Obama's fault Flynn--national security adviser to fucking Trump--wasn't properly vetted.

These motherfuckers have absolutely no shame about anything.

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507085)

Well, it is going to make it harder for them to argue executive privilege or that they're being sued in an official capacity and should have the government pay their legal bills during the next round of litigation. Courts still listen to reason.

Of course, maybe that's why they raised tens of millions in inaugural funds they aren't accounting for.

These people are crooks. (And the next person who tries to call Hillary a crook gets punched like a Nazi.) Assholes.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507086)

But Hillary gave paid speeches to banks! And now Obama's getting paid to speak to Wall Street! Corruption!

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507087)

They didn't need the money, and they undercut their cause by taking it. It is a very mild form of corruption.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507088)

Oh Bullshit.

If this is corruption, everything anyone does for money before, after or during being President is corruption. What are your rules for what a past president or a presidential hopeful is supposed to do? What would you say would not be "corruption". Here are some specific questions:

1. Should they take speaking fees?
2. Should they take fees for media appearances (e.g., Fox, CNN, MSNBC)?
3. Should they take professional (legal, accounting) fees?
4. Should they take other consulting fees?
5. Should they take royalties?
6. Should they take rent payments?
7. Should they sell real estate?
8. Should they own stock?
9. Should they own media interests?
10. Should they own a peanut farm and sell peanuts?
11. Should they take fees for entertainment (acting, porn, prostitution)?

Is it only democrats who can't do anything but serve in public office? Or can Republicans do all of the above but not democrats because their base doesn't care?

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507089)

And *still* the polling shows that if the election were held today, Trump would win.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507090)

maybe Hillary couldn't/didn't anticipate Bernie's attacks on the paid speeches, but to the extent she could it was very dumb money to have taken.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507091)

I missed this one. Where?

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507093)

http://abc13.com/politics/96-percent...again/1906546/

Vote again?
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they'd stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.

That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn't vote.

In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.

Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.




I think that the Democratic Party Chair crapping all over the 20% or so of Dems who do identify as pro-life was before the poll. So the number of Dems who think the party is out of touch may have increased a bit.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507087)

They didn't need the money, and they undercut their cause by taking it. It is a very mild form of corruption.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507092)

In retrospect, Hillary should not have been as nice as she was to Bernie.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507093)

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507094)

I actually think there is more movement to Dems today in the center than on the left - that Bernie is not representative of where Dems will find more votes.