Germany, Sweden, France...AZGrizFan wrote:How many other first world countries have millions of unhealthy illegals and their unhealthy children in tow streaming over their borders?houndawg wrote:
Among the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality in the first world.
Don't bother answering...it was rhetorical.
Not even close. And i told you not to answer.houndawg wrote:Germany, Sweden, France...AZGrizFan wrote:
How many other first world countries have millions of unhealthy illegals and their unhealthy children in tow streaming over their borders?
Don't bother answering...it was rhetorical.
20 year low for illegals here.AZGrizFan wrote:Not even close. And i told you not to answer.houndawg wrote:
Germany, Sweden, France...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... immigrantshoundawg wrote:20 year low for illegals here.AZGrizFan wrote:
Not even close. And i told you not to answer.
"millions"
you're starting to sound like blubbering baldy now...
“Our model estimates indicate that the true number is likely to be larger, with an estimated 95 percent probability interval ranging from 16.2 to 29.5 million undocumented immigrants.”
BDKJMU wrote:Hillary: I’m not done yet!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... 020-report
This ^^^^ is why I always ask pie-in-the-sky progs, - where does your faith in government’s ability to do things well come from? What is that shining example that leads you to believe that we would be talking about quality healthcare?BDKJMU wrote:The recent Kaiser poll has it at 56%JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, if any of you think pushing for "Medicare for All" would be a bad position to take politically you probably ought to think again. I've been watching that over time. I just Googled to get the article at https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 ... re-for-all but it is by no means the only report on the phenomenon. When a politician says they want "Medicare for All" they are pushing for something somewhere around 2/3 of Americans want.
I personally don't think it's a good idea but that's irrelevant. As a political position it's a winner.
“...The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent..::
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program....”
https://apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 6#p1227974
Its all how you ask the question. If you polled:
“Do you support 100% government takeover of healthcare even if it meant higher taxes, longer wait times, and health care rationing” support would probably fall into the teens..
Is Mueller going after Pence? That would be news to mehoundawg wrote:The details remain unclear, but everybody Mueller goes after goes to prison.CID1990 wrote:
How exactly will either of them be in prison?
The problem is that I don't think Republicans are going to make progress by trying to get into the weeds and argue about premises. Before one can achieve a reduction in support that a government run system could threaten the current Medicare program, for example, one has to establish that as a premise. All the Democrats have to do is say "Medicare is a popular program that has worked well and we want to provide it to EVERYBODY!"BDKJMU wrote:The recent Kaiser poll has it at 56%JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, if any of you think pushing for "Medicare for All" would be a bad position to take politically you probably ought to think again. I've been watching that over time. I just Googled to get the article at https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 ... re-for-all but it is by no means the only report on the phenomenon. When a politician says they want "Medicare for All" they are pushing for something somewhere around 2/3 of Americans want.
I personally don't think it's a good idea but that's irrelevant. As a political position it's a winner.
“...The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent..::
But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program....”
https://apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 6#p1227974
Its all how you ask the question. If you polled:
“Do you support 100% government takeover of healthcare even if it meant higher taxes, longer wait times, and health care rationing” support would probably fall into the teens..
Every other OECD healthcare system compared to ours. You want more?AZGrizFan wrote:You show me ONE government run/funded/involved operation that has REDUCED cost to the end user...just one....and I'll believe you.kalm wrote:
How about "Do you support Medicare for all if it means cutting healthcare spending per person in half while having the same outcomes but people won't go bankrupt over medical bills and wait times will be mitigated by the fact that the private sector will still be in charge of providing care."?
go ahead, I'll wait.
What is OECD?kalm wrote:Every other OECD healthcare system compared to ours. You want more?AZGrizFan wrote:
You show me ONE government run/funded/involved operation that has REDUCED cost to the end user...just one....and I'll believe you.
go ahead, I'll wait.
JohnStOnge wrote:There are a series of polling histories at Real Clear Politics (RCP) that are consistent with the idea that Trump is a weak candidate. I'm going to post images of polling histories for Trump vs. Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and O'rourke below the text. The histories go back to early to mid of 2017 (except for O'rourke, where there is only one done recently). I counted 55 polls and Trump did not lead any of those Democrat candidates in a single one. If we got to 2020 election eve and the overall polls for Trump vs. Biden or Sanders look like they've looked over those histories it is very unlikely that Trump would win. He was never closer than 9 percentage points to Biden. He was once as close as 4 to Sanders in the 14 poll results on that matchup but was never closer than 9 in the other 13. The latest polls have Biden by 12 and Sanders by 10.
The latest poll results in the histories have Trump down to Harris by 7, Warren by 6, and O'Rourke by 6.
Yes it's a long way to election day and Hillary Clinton lost to Trump even though she won the popular vote. But Hillary only led Trump by 3.3 percentage points in the average of popular vote polls and the Electoral College turned on Trump winning 3 key states by less than a percentage point each. He didn't get a majority of the overall vote in any of them. It was close.
The main point is that he is not starting from a position of strength relative to what one would expect from an incumbent. To me the fact that not a single polling effort among the ones below had Trump winning among respondents against ANY of the five listed Democrats is incredible. This is not a strong candidate. There is no question that the Democrats are starting from the position of having a solid chance at getting the White House back and as long as whoever they nominate is not a complete disaster they're in the game. To tell you the truth the fact that at this point Warren is leading him with all the stumbles she's had is astounding. She even beat him in a flipping Republican-biased Rasmussen poll taken a shortly after the DNA test result release that was a public relations negative for her. It shows just how vulnerable he is.
Sweden is getting a lot of illegals? As for France, they may get them, but a lot of them die trying to cross the Alps from Italy. They wait until the snows melt so they can find the bodies. Vive la liberte for sure.houndawg wrote:Germany, Sweden, France...AZGrizFan wrote:
How many other first world countries have millions of unhealthy illegals and their unhealthy children in tow streaming over their borders?
Don't bother answering...it was rhetorical.
Europe does have issues with illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. Sweden has less than 1/30 (and France and Germany about 1/5 and 1/4 respectively) the population of the US so they don't need millions to have the same proportional impact.GannonFan wrote:Sweden is getting a lot of illegals? As for France, they may get them, but a lot of them die trying to cross the Alps from Italy. They wait until the snows melt so they can find the bodies. Vive la liberte for sure.houndawg wrote:
Germany, Sweden, France...
I think that relates to the belief that the polls of overall public sentiment were unusually off in 2016. I recall people making the same argument about Trump supporters lying to pollsters back then. But when we got the election results it became clear that the polls were not unusualy off. The RCP average of polls on election eve had Clinton up by 3.3 percentage points and she won by 2.1 percentage points. The difference is well within the range of what one would expect from normal sources of error including just random sampling error.css75 wrote:
Do these numbers take into account Trump supporters who will lie to the pollsters so they do not have to take abuse? This does happen.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm with 93 on this one (and that and my belief that education is an important part of our infrastructure is why I'm not a Libertarian with a capital L). I think we should aspire to be better than that. We don't need to provide the destitute with Cadillac healthcare but some preventative care and coverage for catastrophic illness would not be a bad thing.93henfan wrote:I guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question, so I assume you'd just let destitute sick people die.AZGrizFan wrote:
Again, WHAT WERE WE DOING BEFORE OBAMACARE??
I thought this country aspired to be better than that?
So whether you're talking about all Americans or registered voters the poll suggests a majority wouldn't vote for Trump. Considering the margin of error the estimate is from 52.5 to 59.5%. That's consistent with a Public Policy Poll I posted on earlier that showed respondents choosing ANY of 10 Democrats suggested over Trump. I noted that it looks like there's a strong "anybody but Trump" sentiment out there. The ABC News Washington Post poll result reflects the same sentiment in a different way and it's a really bad place for an incumbent to be.56 percent of Americans say they definitely wouldn’t vote to re-elect Trump. That’s twice as many as say they’d definitely vote for him, 28 percent. A smaller share say they’d consider it, 14 percent. Results are identical among registered voters.
UNI88 wrote:I'm with 93 on this one (and that and my belief that education is an important part of our infrastructure is why I'm not a Libertarian with a capital L). I think we should aspire to be better than that. We don't need to provide the destitute with Cadillac healthcare but some preventative care and coverage for catastrophic illness would not be a bad thing.93henfan wrote:
I guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question, so I assume you'd just let destitute sick people die.
I thought this country aspired to be better than that?
What was the polling make up? % Dems to Independent to Republican?JohnStOnge wrote:Ok the poll I have THE most confidence in also suggests that whoever the Democrats nominate could have a solid chance unless they REALLY screw up. It's an ABC News Washington Post poll conducted January 21 - 24. And here is the relevant result:
So whether you're talking about all Americans or registered voters the poll suggests a majority wouldn't vote for Trump. Considering the margin of error the estimate is from 52.5 to 59.5%. That's consistent with a Public Policy Poll I posted on earlier that showed respondents choosing ANY of 10 Democrats suggested over Trump. I noted that it looks like there's a strong "anybody but Trump" sentiment out there. The ABC News Washington Post poll result reflects the same sentiment in a different way and it's a really bad place for an incumbent to be.56 percent of Americans say they definitely wouldn’t vote to re-elect Trump. That’s twice as many as say they’d definitely vote for him, 28 percent. A smaller share say they’d consider it, 14 percent. Results are identical among registered voters.
Things can change of course. But right now Trump is in a very weak position.
The poll is at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf
Nobody knows what he's doing as far as I can tell other than it seems to fall in the general category of draining the swamp. Hell maybe he's bluffing.CID1990 wrote:Is Mueller going after Pence? That would be news to mehoundawg wrote:
The details remain unclear, but everybody Mueller goes after goes to prison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SeattleGriz wrote:What was the polling make up? % Dems to Independent to Republican?JohnStOnge wrote:Ok the poll I have THE most confidence in also suggests that whoever the Democrats nominate could have a solid chance unless they REALLY screw up. It's an ABC News Washington Post poll conducted January 21 - 24. And here is the relevant result:
So whether you're talking about all Americans or registered voters the poll suggests a majority wouldn't vote for Trump. Considering the margin of error the estimate is from 52.5 to 59.5%. That's consistent with a Public Policy Poll I posted on earlier that showed respondents choosing ANY of 10 Democrats suggested over Trump. I noted that it looks like there's a strong "anybody but Trump" sentiment out there. The ABC News Washington Post poll result reflects the same sentiment in a different way and it's a really bad place for an incumbent to be.
Things can change of course. But right now Trump is in a very weak position.
The poll is at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf
Or maybe you’re just BS-inghoundawg wrote:Nobody knows what he's doing as far as I can tell other than it seems to fall in the general category of draining the swamp. Hell maybe he's bluffing.CID1990 wrote:
Is Mueller going after Pence? That would be news to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think so. A lot of democrat heavy weights are telling her to not enter.css75 wrote:BDKJMU wrote:Hillary: I’m not done yet!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... 020-report
I think she will still run again, she has a real lust for power.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Huh? ERs/hopsitals are now denying people healthcare, in mass, and violating HIPPA? Link?93henfan wrote:Wow, that's harsh. No right to health care for the destitute? Just let 'em die.AZGrizFan wrote:
Not provided by the government, no.
I think we should be better than that.
