Decreased unemployment only meant less people counted as unemployed. In 2015 our labor participation rate was at a 38 year low. Many of those people want to work, but can't find work, and are not counted as unemployed because they are not collecting unemployment compensation. As far as more people being insured, that is true, but it's coming on the backs of people that do work. My employer provider insurance has gone up dramatically because the company cannot afford the tax that would be mandated on them if they did not comply with Obamacare mandates. I have friends who work construction, who are laid off in the winter. During that month or two lay-off they are uninsured. You know what happens to them at tax time? A $700 fine for being laid off and unable to afford insurance. As far as LGBT rights...I haven't heard of a single right or protection Trump is suggesting taking away from them.
The thing I can't understand is why we tie healthcare to employment. Especially now, in a fast-paced economy....if I get sick or hurt, I am almost guaranteed to get fired. I see a lot of people like personal trainers or massage therapists that can't work if they're sick and if they don't work can't afford healthcare. The fewer people that work, the more people working folk's insurance has to subsidize. My company spends more on healthcare than on salaries, and they are trying to move more development work to India because they don't have to pay for healthcare in fucking India. Why, oh why, can we not offer universal healthcare as part of a flat tax? Why in the fuck do we bother with a lop-sided, unfair, inefficient system that is fraught with bureaucracy?
He wasn't putting together his appointments and most of his policies until after he was elected. I think a lot of people bought into his "drain the swamp" stuff, and it wasn't until later on, after he was elected, that we really saw just how much he was, for lack of a better term, "fucking things up". Sure, a lot of people say, "how can you not see that coming?", but at the time, it wasn't a forgone conclusion... there was still hope that he'd do the right thing by a lot of people. And really, other than a few appointments, he hasn't really done anything yet to measure his administration against... other than the "alternative facts" bullshit. Sure, it's not looking good so far, but people are still being a bit premature on the "the world is over as we know it" talk.
Because there is too much profit in your current system to get rid of it. Same goes for your political system... now that the money is there, it's going to be damn near impossible to get rid of it or change it because the people in power are reaping the benefits and they really don't give a fuck about the common man, they just want to get what's coming to them.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with health care after the Republicans repeal the ACA. People blame it for the rise in health care costs, but a significant portion of those rises would have happened without the ACA as well. People on both sides of the aisle seem to agree that not denying people for pre-existing conditions is a good thing, but that's also major factor in the rise in premiums. The republicans are going to be in a bind because the ACA is essentially a conservative, free market approach to try and fix the system, and it didn't work that well. To me single payer makes the most sense logistically and financially, but I think there is going to be a lot of missteps until the American public gets to the point were the groundswell needed to make the jump to single payer is there. That's really how things work in America, there has to be enough force from the public behind something to change. Otherwise it's business as usual.
I think the ACA is going to be repealed, Trump and Co. are going to fuck it up badly, and then "real" Republicans will say, "he didn't know what he was doing and he's not really one of us so don't blame us and if we HAD done it it would have been done properly so you should vote for me and we'll fix it once and for all."
At a certain point, there's a level of stupidity that's just unforgivable. It's not like he was hiding who he was or what he wanted in any way whatsoever. To act shocked that you elected an incompetent buffoon and are now led by an incompetent buffoon is insulting to those you expect to empathize with your shock.
But if you can't see that a huge number of voters were pissed with the same-old-same-old so were willing to take a chance on something new, even if it was a long shot, and you'd rather they just accept more of the same bullshit... well, that is a different kind of stupidity.
The first good thing from Trump (that I've seen, anyway) seems to be happening today... he's scrapping the TPP. Two thumbs up from me on that one. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/donald-trump-trade-nafta-1.3947989
A zero shot is not a long shot. It's not like I thought Hillary Clinton was the best thing ever, and people should have voted for her over anyone who ran against her. If the voters had elevated a legitimate change candidate with good ideas and strong leadership ability, that would have been great. They didn't, they elected Donald Trump, both in the primaries and in the general, and for that I do not forgive, and I do not excuse with some bullshit "oh they wanted change" nonsense. They didn't want change; they reelected their Congresscritters across the board. What they really wanted was the human manifestation of the grotesque id of the Republican party, and that's what they got.
This really feels like the right move for the wrong reasons. I would have much preferred a stance where we said that there were critical flaws in the TPP, and we would be working with our trading partners across East Asia and the Americas to forge a better deal for the American people and the world. Rather than what we seem to have, which is rejecting the TPP because of the administration's strong protectionist stance.
One of the major issues with this "deal" is that it helped protect big corporations when using foreign labour, fucking over local labour forces, and ensuring minimal import taxes on foreign-produced goods. There were many things that were wrong with the TPP, this was only one of them. I don't care what reason was given for squashing it, they're all good reasons.
Well he's not signing because he says it's a bad deal for the American economy, which is true and it also naturally translates to protectionism. I don't really care if he's killing it because he has a profound understanding of the impact or if the voices in his head tell him to, it's a good thing to kill regardless. There's no point scoring for contextualization.
And your reaction (Aetius) is one of the very real problems with American politics... your failure to give the other side their due when it's deserved. Bi-partisan until the end. Even when he does the right thing, it's still wrong. You're not going to be happy or cooperative or willing to compromise unless it's your people doing things the way you want them done. This very easily leads to a, "fuck you then, we'll just do it our way and we won't give a shit what you think or include you in it" attitude, because neither side is ever happy with the other. It's like an ugly divorce, and you're too wrapped up in it to see the damage it's doing. You keep railing against Bernie due to his lack of experience, etc., but he has one thing that just about nobody else in politics seems to have... character, and the ability to compromise and interact civilly with other people while treating them with respect. That, more than anything, is what is needed in your politics these days.
And here in a nutshell is why Dems lost. Failing to realize and listen to the opposition why they are not voting Dem. Time and time again they keep postulating why the other side voted against them in direct contrast to what the other side actually said is the reason. Instead you want to tell me how I felt and why I voted the way I did instead of actually listening to what I said. That does not work.
I haven't been railing against Bernie, I made one fairly mild post where I said I don't think he's the savior people think he is. I agree he has character, and that's the thing I like best about him. I still don't think he'd play in a general election, or in an executive role, as well as people think he would.
In an election where Trump got elected, you're going to claim to be able to predict viability of candidates?
I'm not going to bet my life savings on it, but to just throw up our hands and pretend we can't make any kinds of predictions about what the electorate is likely to do seems silly.