Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL there is no reuniting the country. The republicans are racist. They always have been but with Trump they have dropped the veil. Why in the world would any one want to work with a Republican?

Yeah, yeah we know. We don't agree with you so we're racist. We were racist when McCain and Romney were running for president. We were racist when Bush was president. We're racist.

(Racist doesn't mean what you think it does.)

I think it means telling someone whose skin is a different color to "go back where you came from" just because she finds something wrong with America.

Even more so if I recently voted for a candidate whose presidential campaign was based entirely on the idea that America is no longer great.

What do you think it means?

[Anonymous]

His statement is no different from the ol’ “If you don’t like it, leave.” Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

Given the Democrats’ resounding triumphs in 2018 and the mainstreaming of progressive socialism, I’d say this country on the whole is many steps left of center now.

I think you're completely misreading 2018.

By one assessment, progressives won ZERO out of 8 "litmus test" races. Link: https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/1060083550270173184

As for the "mainstreaming of progressive socialism", socialism's popularity is identical to Trump's approval rating. Right around 42%.

Does that mean it's been "mainstreamed"? Maybe, but it isn't very popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

Given the Democrats’ resounding triumphs in 2018 and the mainstreaming of progressive socialism, I’d say this country on the whole is many steps left of center now.

I think you're completely misreading 2018.

By one assessment, progressives won ZERO out of 8 "litmus test" races. Link: https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/1060083550270173184

As for the "mainstreaming of progressive socialism", socialism's popularity is identical to Trump's approval rating. Right around 42%.

Does that mean it's been "mainstreamed"? Maybe, but it isn't very popular.

Not PP. Exactly, neither Trump nor socialists are gonna win in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.
[/b]
Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

+1 yep

I’m pretty sure that any Dem will win in MI, PA, and WI. The promise of universal health care, free college, and high taxes on the rich is populist and reasonable stuff.

There are not enough rich people currently in our country for universal health care, free college, and all the other "freebies" the Dems are pushing.
And, if you think the uber rich are going to stick around to fund all this stuff, you are delusional.
And, Dems are now introducing a new bill that would provide legal representation to asylum seekers. You have got to be kidding me.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kadiagoba/asylum-seekers-legal-representation-democrats-bill-trump

If Europe,Japan,Canada etc have enough rich people to support some form of universal healthcare and college tuition help why can't the USA? Do you know Japan is a wealthy country with such great and well known companies but with fewer billionaires than tiny Switzerland? Where are their billionaires? In Japan the execs share their profit with employees. We don't need that but atleast the wealthy can pay their fair share of taxes so we don't have dilapidated infrastructure and terrible schools and poor healthcare. They don't even pay much taxes as the conman has shown.

Our healthcare rank is way below on the lines of costarica.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Billionaires by country: India is way higher because they are the perfect capitalists where the rich rule and poor suffer due to corruption of the rich. I would rather live in Japan than India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

Given the Democrats’ resounding triumphs in 2018 and the mainstreaming of progressive socialism, I’d say this country on the whole is many steps left of center now.

I think you're completely misreading 2018.

By one assessment, progressives won ZERO out of 8 "litmus test" races. Link: https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/1060083550270173184

As for the "mainstreaming of progressive socialism", socialism's popularity is identical to Trump's approval rating. Right around 42%.

Does that mean it's been "mainstreamed"? Maybe, but it isn't very popular.

Yup progressives don't understand the reason that D's got control of the house is that they flipped seats with moderates. If those candidates would have run on the progressive platform they would have lost. This is why Pelosi is trying to get the squad to shutup. As Pelosi has said a glass of water could win in these ultra blue districts. The country is not ultra blue. Running a presidential candidate with an ultra blue platform will make the presidential race competitive and might even give Trump a second term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If Europe,Japan,Canada etc have enough rich people to support some form of universal healthcare and college tuition help why can't the USA? Do you know Japan is a wealthy country with such great and well known companies but with fewer billionaires than tiny Switzerland? Where are their billionaires? In Japan the execs share their profit with employees. We don't need that but atleast the wealthy can pay their fair share of taxes so we don't have dilapidated infrastructure and terrible schools and poor healthcare. They don't even pay much taxes as the conman has shown.

Our healthcare rank is way below on the lines of costarica.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Billionaires by country: India is way higher because they are the perfect capitalists where the rich rule and poor suffer due to corruption of the rich. I would rather live in Japan than India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

Every time someone talks about the "universal health care" systems provided by Europe, Japan, Canada, etc, they think it's 100% government provided healthcare that is as good or better than the quality of the private healthcare here in the US. This is simply not true. In Japan for example, there is a dual system of government provided insurance and private employer-provided insurance. A person can choose to obtain either one, or choose to go without health insurance. For the government provided insurance, patients may be responsible for up to 30% of care costs, determined based on income. Due to imbalance of supply and demand, access to healthcare services is a contentious issue, with some patients being rejected and refused service after multiple attempts to seek care. I'm not saying that on the whole Japan's medical care is worse, just that it is not the rosy vision of perfection that you seem to think it is. Every country's healthcare system has its own set of problems, the grass isn't necessary greener on the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Europe,Japan,Canada etc have enough rich people to support some form of universal healthcare and college tuition help why can't the USA? Do you know Japan is a wealthy country with such great and well known companies but with fewer billionaires than tiny Switzerland? Where are their billionaires? In Japan the execs share their profit with employees. We don't need that but atleast the wealthy can pay their fair share of taxes so we don't have dilapidated infrastructure and terrible schools and poor healthcare. They don't even pay much taxes as the conman has shown.

Our healthcare rank is way below on the lines of costarica.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Billionaires by country: India is way higher because they are the perfect capitalists where the rich rule and poor suffer due to corruption of the rich. I would rather live in Japan than India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

Every time someone talks about the "universal health care" systems provided by Europe, Japan, Canada, etc, they think it's 100% government provided healthcare that is as good or better than the quality of the private healthcare here in the US. This is simply not true. In Japan for example, there is a dual system of government provided insurance and private employer-provided insurance. A person can choose to obtain either one, or choose to go without health insurance. For the government provided insurance, patients may be responsible for up to 30% of care costs, determined based on income. Due to imbalance of supply and demand, access to healthcare services is a contentious issue, with some patients being rejected and refused service after multiple attempts to seek care. I'm not saying that on the whole Japan's medical care is worse, just that it is not the rosy vision of perfection that you seem to think it is. Every country's healthcare system has its own set of problems, the grass isn't necessary greener on the other side.

This is very true on the care side.

Now, the funding part is where first PP is completely deluded.

It is not the wealthy who pay for universal healthcare -- it is EVERYONE though federal income tax (which basically everyone pays, not like here, where 40% households pay ZERO) and through a 25% VAT tax on every good and service you purchase. Imagine paying 25% sales tax next time you eat at a restaurant, watch a movie, buy groceries, buy a new car or house, hire a dog walker or lawyer or accountant...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

Given the Democrats’ resounding triumphs in 2018 and the mainstreaming of progressive socialism, I’d say this country on the whole is many steps left of center now.

I think you're completely misreading 2018.

By one assessment, progressives won ZERO out of 8 "litmus test" races. Link: https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/1060083550270173184

As for the "mainstreaming of progressive socialism", socialism's popularity is identical to Trump's approval rating. Right around 42%.

Does that mean it's been "mainstreamed"? Maybe, but it isn't very popular.

Yup progressives don't understand the reason that D's got control of the house is that they flipped seats with moderates. If those candidates would have run on the progressive platform they would have lost. This is why Pelosi is trying to get the squad to shutup. As Pelosi has said a glass of water could win in these ultra blue districts. The country is not ultra blue. Running a presidential candidate with an ultra blue platform will make the presidential race competitive and might even give Trump a second term.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

+1 very true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

+1 very true

i think more americans want healthcare for all than out in the open white nationalism, but i could be wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Europe,Japan,Canada etc have enough rich people to support some form of universal healthcare and college tuition help why can't the USA? Do you know Japan is a wealthy country with such great and well known companies but with fewer billionaires than tiny Switzerland? Where are their billionaires? In Japan the execs share their profit with employees. We don't need that but atleast the wealthy can pay their fair share of taxes so we don't have dilapidated infrastructure and terrible schools and poor healthcare. They don't even pay much taxes as the conman has shown.

Our healthcare rank is way below on the lines of costarica.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Billionaires by country: India is way higher because they are the perfect capitalists where the rich rule and poor suffer due to corruption of the rich. I would rather live in Japan than India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

Every time someone talks about the "universal health care" systems provided by Europe, Japan, Canada, etc, they think it's 100% government provided healthcare that is as good or better than the quality of the private healthcare here in the US. This is simply not true. In Japan for example, there is a dual system of government provided insurance and private employer-provided insurance. A person can choose to obtain either one, or choose to go without health insurance. For the government provided insurance, patients may be responsible for up to 30% of care costs, determined based on income. Due to imbalance of supply and demand, access to healthcare services is a contentious issue, with some patients being rejected and refused service after multiple attempts to seek care. I'm not saying that on the whole Japan's medical care is worse, just that it is not the rosy vision of perfection that you seem to think it is. Every country's healthcare system has its own set of problems, the grass isn't necessary greener on the other side.

Every time someone says "Universal Healthcare" the GOP cons raise the fear mongering about "SOCIALISM". Universal healthcare simply means everyone is covered, one way or another, be it employer provided, private insurance provided, government provided, union provided etc. THATS ALL.

Do not try to sell your snake oil to the enlightened dems. You have your conned cult 45 idiots who will buy your lies like they buy all the conman's never ending lies.

No system is perfect BUT EVERYONE but USA among developed and some not so developed ones like costarica are PRODUCING BETTER RESULTS. The proof is in the pudding. If people are living longer and healthier, those countries are doing healthcare better. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the columnist is basically wishing for a new and improved version of Hillary to reappear? Why? The country has moved left. It’s not 1993 anymore, Tom. Dude is stuck in the 90s Heck, even the suburban white womens of Ashburn and places like that are forever blue voters now. And not surprising: they know that a form of progressive socialism will be good news for their sons.

That you actually believe this idiocy just shows how well and truly out of touch you are. Good luck.

Out if touch how? The party has moved left. Sorry.

+1.

Does the PP really think that the WI, MI, and PA blue collar voters share AOC's values? Or those of "suburban white womens" of Ashburn?

Those people WILL vote D. They HAVE voted D. But they won't do it for a far left candidate. They'll stay home instead.

Dem's are being so astonishingly foolish.

I’m the PP who said how out of touch those of you who think the country has moved left are. I never said the Democrats haven’t moved left - they absolutely have. My point was that while the Dems are moving further and further left (courtesy of AOC and co.), the rest of the country is rejecting their ultra-liberal agenda. Of course mainstream voters don’t share the ultra-left’s zealotry - and they won’t vote for them, either. That was my point.

+1 very true

Both of you are wrong. A big majority of America wants Universal healthcare and also support government funded healthcare. The country is where the dems are. It is the fraud party run by the conman that is on the wrong side of every single issues in America today.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Europe,Japan,Canada etc have enough rich people to support some form of universal healthcare and college tuition help why can't the USA? Do you know Japan is a wealthy country with such great and well known companies but with fewer billionaires than tiny Switzerland? Where are their billionaires? In Japan the execs share their profit with employees. We don't need that but atleast the wealthy can pay their fair share of taxes so we don't have dilapidated infrastructure and terrible schools and poor healthcare. They don't even pay much taxes as the conman has shown.

Our healthcare rank is way below on the lines of costarica.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Billionaires by country: India is way higher because they are the perfect capitalists where the rich rule and poor suffer due to corruption of the rich. I would rather live in Japan than India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

Every time someone talks about the "universal health care" systems provided by Europe, Japan, Canada, etc, they think it's 100% government provided healthcare that is as good or better than the quality of the private healthcare here in the US. This is simply not true. In Japan for example, there is a dual system of government provided insurance and private employer-provided insurance. A person can choose to obtain either one, or choose to go without health insurance. For the government provided insurance, patients may be responsible for up to 30% of care costs, determined based on income. Due to imbalance of supply and demand, access to healthcare services is a contentious issue, with some patients being rejected and refused service after multiple attempts to seek care. I'm not saying that on the whole Japan's medical care is worse, just that it is not the rosy vision of perfection that you seem to think it is. Every country's healthcare system has its own set of problems, the grass isn't necessary greener on the other side.

This is very true on the care side.

Now, the funding part is where first PP is completely deluded.

It is not the wealthy who pay for universal healthcare -- it is EVERYONE though federal income tax (which basically everyone pays, not like here, where 40% households pay ZERO) and through a 25% VAT tax on every good and service you purchase. Imagine paying 25% sales tax next time you eat at a restaurant, watch a movie, buy groceries, buy a new car or house, hire a dog walker or lawyer or accountant...

BS. The tax rate on the wealthy is the lowest in America compared to any other advanced nations. Why did you miss the PP's point about japan being a wealthy country has very few billionaires than India, which provides no service to the poor or middle class. If you have no money in India you are just an accident or a mosquito away from death BUT India is the ultimate pure capitalism because the rich get the best of care and get whatever they want.

[Anonymous]

On issues such as affirmative action, health care, choice, the environment, prison reform, and a more balanced approach toward Israel, this country is left of center. There is no way Trump can be re-elected.