Quotas reduce access to market based on units admitted into the US. Tarrifs are taxes on units admitted to the country and may reduce imports if they make the prices unacceptable to consumers.
I’m warming up to the idea that Trump is a puppet for the far right and not vice versa. “They” like that he’s not the brightest bulb. He can simply be the vessel through which they can institute an extreme, Christian nationalist, agenda (Project 2024). Trump holds no real ideology, so he’s the perfect agent. He could be the most vile human on Earth (and he comes close), but it doesn’t matter to his followers. He’s the means to an end.
Agreed and because he has no interest in true governance, these interests merely need to place people in key spots to advance the agenda. He won't push back on most issues after the election if his legal word are cleared.
The question is: how to get people who supported Trump or who dislike both candidates to vote for Biden. I don't think that talking about Trump-the-felon is going to get the groups I mentioned to vote for Biden. But I may be wrong.
Bill, of course, hasn't yet come to grips with the fact that Republicans have ALWAYS been out of the mainstream on abortion. It's been what's driven them for decades and their views have never been what the majority of Americans think or want.
If the Electoral College regurgitates again like it did in 2016, and Republicans hold on to their majority in the House, what are the chances Republicans also win a majority in the Senate big enough to stop Democratic filibusters? That would be the absolute worst possible outcome in November, because it would mean Democrats would have no way whatsoever to stop Trump and his enablers from doing what they are saying they're going to do.
Why are you worried about stopping Dem filibusters? It is the GOP who have announced that they want to get rid of the filibuster to force their authoritarian policies onto the rest of us.
If the Republicans sweep everything, INCLUDING getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they won't need to bother getting rid of the filibuster because they will be able to simply pass all their authoritarian policies straight up with the 60+ (i.e. filibuster-proof) majority they will have. If Republicans DON'T get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Democrats will be able to use the filibuster to prevent many if not all of the Republican authoritarian policies from becoming law. Of course, as you point out, Republicans might use a less-than-60 majority to prevent Democrats from doing that by eliminating the filibuster altogether - which will make their plans to establish a nationalist dictatorship even clearer than they already are.
They won't be able to do anything anyway, anymore than three three women on SCOTUS can. ICYMI, MAGA just does what it wants. The hell with law, order, or the Constitution.
Democrats keep insisting they want to get rid of the Senate filibuster which I think would be an insane thing for them to do. It might be the only way they can stop Trump.
Have I missed the Biden ad that says: "20 million Americans have some form of health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, which also prevents insurers from using preexisting health conditions as an excuse for denying health insurance. Donald Trump and the Republican Congress tried to repeal the ACA, and the American hero John McCain (who Trump claimed was not a war hero because he was shot down and a POW in Vietnam) saved the ACA. Imagine what it will be like if Trump and a Republican Congress gets another chance. Vote Biden/Harris!"
All I know is that the ACA increased the # of Americans having some kind of health insurance by roughly 20 million. Given the near impossibility of dealing with health problems in the current US system if you are not under Medicare or Medicaid, and the potential for financial ruin, the ACA was a major step in the right direction and one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last half century.
I agreed with you right up to “right direction.” It was a patch for a system that favors bureaucracy and higher costs. Half our bills under insurance are just processing. We ought to think of linking doctors with patients without that burden.
I can agree the the insurance system is not well suited to health care. The ACA as originally formulated would have reined in health insurance companies. The GOP insisted on amendments that would protect the health insurance business profits and them refused to vote for the bill they helped write while going on all the shows to falsely proclaim they had nothing to do with the bill. From the GOP point of view, they have learned that there is nearly no negative consequence for misleading the public.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. 20 million people who now have health insurance and the rest of us who can change jobs or insurers without worrying about whether a preexisting medical condition will prevent insurability are good. What you are describing is closer to perfect. Given how hard it was to pass the ACA, how it was almost invalidated by SCOTUS, and how Trump and his Republican lackeys almost repealed it with no replacement in sight, I'm fine with good.
Goods and services (other than the military and police) ought to face market forces. Health care has become bureaucratic since 1944 when FDR got the insurance scheme rather than the socialized system he wanted. When government gets involved, like it has with housing or university education, the costs for average people can become problematic.
Medicine and health care is not like other goods and services. I cannot afford a swimming pool so I do not buy one. It won't kill me to not have a swimming pool as much as I might want one. But if I had diabetes, and the medicine is unaffordable, then what? The whole reason ACA was formulated was because market forces made health care unaffordable. ACA was weakened by all the GOP amendments the Dems accepted in the name of compromise, and then the GOP refused to vote for it just like the border bill). Your comment is internally inconsistent given the nod to the implied preferable socialized system. There is no generalization the government involvement is necessarily problematic. It all depends on how the policy is designed.
I wonder if Kim Jong Un gave Putin an anti-aircraft gun as a going away gift. It worked wonders for him in suppressing dissent.
Quotas reduce access to market based on units admitted into the US. Tarrifs are taxes on units admitted to the country and may reduce imports if they make the prices unacceptable to consumers.
Well of course MAGA losers in GoP primaries are going to trot out the election fraud thing. Doh.
Just like if there had been a real GoP Presidential primary where CFT had lost, he would have done that.
Because that is what they do.
Lose? Me? Not possible!
So true!
Welcome, Sam Stein! What a great get for the Bulwark!
Correction: Project 2025
I’m warming up to the idea that Trump is a puppet for the far right and not vice versa. “They” like that he’s not the brightest bulb. He can simply be the vessel through which they can institute an extreme, Christian nationalist, agenda (Project 2024). Trump holds no real ideology, so he’s the perfect agent. He could be the most vile human on Earth (and he comes close), but it doesn’t matter to his followers. He’s the means to an end.
Agreed and because he has no interest in true governance, these interests merely need to place people in key spots to advance the agenda. He won't push back on most issues after the election if his legal word are cleared.
The same can be said about his usefulness to foreign adversaries.
Which is why Putin and company refer to him as Gorbachev.
We don’t need a presidential debate: just a beach volley ball game, no shirts.
This guy and his gang will sink the US and world economy with this tariff crap.
It is safe to assume, at this point, if Trump’s lips are moving he is either
1) Lying
2) Raving in his narcissistic demented way.
Shame on every GOP representative who indulges him and his MAGA cult members.
The whirling sound you hear is the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves.
The question is: how to get people who supported Trump or who dislike both candidates to vote for Biden. I don't think that talking about Trump-the-felon is going to get the groups I mentioned to vote for Biden. But I may be wrong.
Bill, of course, hasn't yet come to grips with the fact that Republicans have ALWAYS been out of the mainstream on abortion. It's been what's driven them for decades and their views have never been what the majority of Americans think or want.
They were pro choice in the 70s.
Sam's announcement announces the Bukwark wants to move center right. If so, will not renew.
Are you kidding? Sam Stein is a big liberal. As a conservative, I'm skeptical he will fit in.
Did you read Sam's statement? He is the one saying it.
Totally right on K.I.S.S. for campaign.
If the Electoral College regurgitates again like it did in 2016, and Republicans hold on to their majority in the House, what are the chances Republicans also win a majority in the Senate big enough to stop Democratic filibusters? That would be the absolute worst possible outcome in November, because it would mean Democrats would have no way whatsoever to stop Trump and his enablers from doing what they are saying they're going to do.
Honestly, the other branches become irrelevant with a Trump victory. We will be Hungary.
Why are you worried about stopping Dem filibusters? It is the GOP who have announced that they want to get rid of the filibuster to force their authoritarian policies onto the rest of us.
If the Republicans sweep everything, INCLUDING getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they won't need to bother getting rid of the filibuster because they will be able to simply pass all their authoritarian policies straight up with the 60+ (i.e. filibuster-proof) majority they will have. If Republicans DON'T get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Democrats will be able to use the filibuster to prevent many if not all of the Republican authoritarian policies from becoming law. Of course, as you point out, Republicans might use a less-than-60 majority to prevent Democrats from doing that by eliminating the filibuster altogether - which will make their plans to establish a nationalist dictatorship even clearer than they already are.
They won't be able to do anything anyway, anymore than three three women on SCOTUS can. ICYMI, MAGA just does what it wants. The hell with law, order, or the Constitution.
In that scenario, you can kiss the filibuster goodbye. Trump will insist, and the congressional lapdogs will lap up anything. Truly terrifying.
Democrats keep insisting they want to get rid of the Senate filibuster which I think would be an insane thing for them to do. It might be the only way they can stop Trump.
Have I missed the Biden ad that says: "20 million Americans have some form of health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, which also prevents insurers from using preexisting health conditions as an excuse for denying health insurance. Donald Trump and the Republican Congress tried to repeal the ACA, and the American hero John McCain (who Trump claimed was not a war hero because he was shot down and a POW in Vietnam) saved the ACA. Imagine what it will be like if Trump and a Republican Congress gets another chance. Vote Biden/Harris!"
I admired John McCain, a man of character I miss. But less government in our health care is needed, not more.
All I know is that the ACA increased the # of Americans having some kind of health insurance by roughly 20 million. Given the near impossibility of dealing with health problems in the current US system if you are not under Medicare or Medicaid, and the potential for financial ruin, the ACA was a major step in the right direction and one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last half century.
I agreed with you right up to “right direction.” It was a patch for a system that favors bureaucracy and higher costs. Half our bills under insurance are just processing. We ought to think of linking doctors with patients without that burden.
I can agree the the insurance system is not well suited to health care. The ACA as originally formulated would have reined in health insurance companies. The GOP insisted on amendments that would protect the health insurance business profits and them refused to vote for the bill they helped write while going on all the shows to falsely proclaim they had nothing to do with the bill. From the GOP point of view, they have learned that there is nearly no negative consequence for misleading the public.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. 20 million people who now have health insurance and the rest of us who can change jobs or insurers without worrying about whether a preexisting medical condition will prevent insurability are good. What you are describing is closer to perfect. Given how hard it was to pass the ACA, how it was almost invalidated by SCOTUS, and how Trump and his Republican lackeys almost repealed it with no replacement in sight, I'm fine with good.
Depends on what the government is doing. It can be well-argued that the free market is wholly unsuited to health care.
Goods and services (other than the military and police) ought to face market forces. Health care has become bureaucratic since 1944 when FDR got the insurance scheme rather than the socialized system he wanted. When government gets involved, like it has with housing or university education, the costs for average people can become problematic.
Medicine and health care is not like other goods and services. I cannot afford a swimming pool so I do not buy one. It won't kill me to not have a swimming pool as much as I might want one. But if I had diabetes, and the medicine is unaffordable, then what? The whole reason ACA was formulated was because market forces made health care unaffordable. ACA was weakened by all the GOP amendments the Dems accepted in the name of compromise, and then the GOP refused to vote for it just like the border bill). Your comment is internally inconsistent given the nod to the implied preferable socialized system. There is no generalization the government involvement is necessarily problematic. It all depends on how the policy is designed.