2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Aerin]

One of the reasons for the mandate was because insurance companies biggest fear was that people were not going to buy health insurance until they needed it, which they can do if you continue to disallow pre-existing conditions. So if someone signs up suddenly because of an accident or a sudden cancer diagnosis, those bills are in the thousands if not tens of thousands each month. Possibly even more. Imagine how the insurance companies will try and compensate for that.

[tyven]

Except without a mandate pre-existing conditions won't lower the cost.

trust me fam i know. please don't interpret lit to mean anything other than fucking lit. And this man's presidency is going to be fucking lit. Every day will be a new adventure

[archibaldcrane]

Wait, but if they can only get rid of stuff through reconciliation that deals with the budget, how can they kill the individual mandate?

[Aerin]

I think the argument is they simply wouldn't enforce it, I'll have to double check

[tyven]

More details:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...ons-26-2016-11

This would royally fuck over insurance companies in the private market too, I don't know how any would be profitable and so I don't know why they wouldn't pull out of the the private market altogether.

There's no way the Republicans in Congress are going to go for this right? They'll have to see the train wreck coming...

they will not repeal the ACA until the mandate issue is taken care of. This is why every time Congress voted to repeal it during the Obama administration it was an empty threat. Legislators and the industry know what is at stake.

[Aerin]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/news...ump-obamacare/

Last year, Congress passed a reconciliation bill that would have repealed the mandates that individuals have coverage and that companies with 50 or more employees provide workers with affordable insurance. Also, it would have done away with the federal subsidies by 2018, eliminated funding for Medicaid expansion and canceled a multitude of Obamacare-related taxes. And it would have given Congress two years to come up with a replacement.

I think it all goes back to the Supreme Court decision that the mandates were constitutional because it equated to a tax.

[archibaldcrane]

Oh yeah, all they have to do is remove the penalty for not buying insurance, which is clearly budgetary, to kill the mandate.

[archibaldcrane]

trust me fam i know. please don't interpret lit to mean anything other than fucking lit. And this man's presidency is going to be fucking lit. Every day will be a new adventure

This is the truest statement made about the election.

[zoobernut]

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/10/501597...m_content=2037

Here is Trumps first 100 days plan along with commentary on it's feasibility. An interesting read definitely.

[tyven]

just got off phone with someone who has been doing this for 30 years. She said transition team has no idea what they are talking about they are still in lala land from the win. Executive order cannot kill ACA regs but could retroactively change effective dates and not enforce. Completely unrealistic.

Expects pre-existing condition ban to survive as a form of continuous coverage which I believe Maru touched on a few days ago.

I think the bottom line is that it is way too early to even accurately speculate what is coming our way.

[kisada]

I speculate Shit sandwiches

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, as continuous coverage, exactly what it was before the ACA.

[thetruepandagod]

Exact same.
https://twitter.com/CUNTMAFIA/status/796492113357705216

[Marootsoobutsu]

A lot of responses here, but...:

Trump literally said that a federal judge couldn't do his job because he's Mexican-American.

I don't know what your bar for hate speech is but that has to clear it right?

Ignorant and disrespectful, but not hate.

I think most of the begrudging Hillary voters agreed with at least most of her platform, they just didn't like/trust/whatever her personally. That's what I'm asking I guess - do his supporters on this board like most of his policies, or just his personality/style, or what?

I, for one, disagreed with almost all of her platfrom. Ironically, even though I detest her personally, it was because of her personality and statesmanship that I supported her. This country needs healing, especially at the top, and I think she's much more capable of providing that than Trump is (whether she would have or not, I don't know, but she's capable of it).

It's not incumbent on the people who voted against Trump to show him good will or the benefit of the doubt. He must earn that through his words and actions.

You are wrong here. Part of a functioning democracy is to do *EXACTLY* that. And it's part of why I detest so mcuh of the modern Repbulican party-- they did not in any way do that for President Obama. Don't be like them; be better, if you believe that you are, indeed, better.

It's funny though. All the people that are generally ok with the whole Trump thing are white males.

White male, not okay with "the whole Trump thing". I just think that by hyperbolizing things, it becomes to easy for those who genuinely support him to dismiss the very, very real concerns of those who do not.



And I don't deny that he's fear-mongering. And I do think that that can lead to hate, and I'm not defending Trump as a good guy. Trump is, I think, an evil, selfish man who will lead the country to ruin. But I'm willing to (and hope to be) proven wrong, and I'm willing to see how much was rhetoric to get in office.

Biggotry is not necessarily hatred. And this is a vital point to keep in mind when tryign to reach out and persuade Trumpkins: by making a problem (and biggotry *is* a problem, whether it is hateful or not), bigger than it actually is, you lose the capacity to persuade. I am, I recognize, biggoted against trans-people. I try very hard not to be; it is an instictive "ew" that jumps out at me. I don't like it, because it interferes with my ability to demonstrate love, to help them in ways that they need help, and to respect them as people. I'm working on it. But I absolutely do not *hate* them. The difference here is that I recognize my biggotry, while many people don't in cases like immigration or other xenophobic areas, but at the same time, they very rightly say they do not hate. They don't see hate speech, because it's not *HATE*. By mislabeling their motivations, you lose the capacity to demonstrate to them why what they are doing and saying is wrong anyway.

And that's part of how (to keep this on the election), Trump won. People are being told "HE'S FULL OF HATE!" People looked at what he said, didn't see any hate, and so dismissed it. By hyperbolizing, you can be dismissed. I know that it was an effective way of controling the discussion and of bringing genuine solutions at times to genuine problems, but its lost its power to a lot of people.

I know-- academic definitions. But let's be real: 70% don't have that level of education, and don't give the slightest damn about technicalities. Discrimination is bad, but when you make it sound worse than it is-- and when you make the people who engage in it look at the words you are using, and dismiss the problem because they don't *hate*, you've lost the conversation.

Why are cultures more important to you than individual people? I don't get it. Why shouldn't everyone's vote matter the same amount no matter where they are from.

This is an important question. And one that does deserve an in-depth answer, because it's not entirely simple. But culture is composed of people, and while I don't believe that every culture is created equal, I do believe that it should take far more persuasion than force to drown one out. To that end, I am willing to defend the minority vs. the majority.

first of all, the nation is built upon the people. it's one nation. the nation is comprised of states that house the people. states are just a construct in order to do so, but instead we have this wacky system where states also represent the people (a system, mind you, made for convenience) and we are in an era where that representation is not proportional.

all it takes is looking at the power of each group's electoral vote power to understand why. i might fucking kill myself trying to find it because it's been lost in a sea of data but basically a white man's vote on the index is worth 1. someone like me who's asian is worth fucking .5 in this shitty system you're so intent on defending as fair.

No, states aren't just a construct for that purpose. States exist as unique governing and cultural entities, they exist in order to deal with problems at smaller, more manageable levels (most federal issues *shouldn't* be federal issues because they function so inefficiently at that level). States represent, in very real ways, different ideals, different cultural values in very real, specific ways. Out country is so damned *HUGE* that we can't try to function like Sweden, or really even Germany. We *NEED* to break things down, in order for those diverse interests to be meaningful.

To that end, the President is the leader of the country, but does not-- and *SHOULD* not represent individuals. He (or eventually she) must represent the whole country, and must account for not only the largest populations, but the smaller. States are a very meaningful, simple way to attempt to address that-- yes, it means some votes count less than others, and yes, I know we already have that with the Senate and, to a lesser degree, the House. The fact that it's uniform across the board is not an accident. The majority *MUST* have it incumbent upon them to not rule, but to persuade-- not just individuals but *cultures*. Simple majority rule is *BAD*, in almost every way. If the majority wants to rule, they must persuade-- not just individuals, but whole cultures. It must shift more than some people while dominating elsewhere; it must shift enough to persuade broadly.

I *DO* agree that there are problems with the EC as it exists now, but popular vote would be so, so much worse. I think we do have states that are simply too massive, and they fail in the idea of what a "state" is supposed to be (I've cited several before). I think we need to revisit some of our state boundaries, to re-incorporate the ideas of what states must be to function in a meaningful way, and that that will do more to assuage the EC ills than abandoning it. I also wouldn't be opposed to all states going the Nebraska/Maine path.

The place where popular vote *should* matter most is at lower levels, where those invididuals are composing those sub-cultures. Where the individuals interact with other individuals. Yes, to some degree this conversation is different cultures interacting with each other, but not really. The way that Wyoming interacts with California in non-political matters has Wyoming already on an off-foot. It lacks any serious power in every arena *EXCEPT* the political. Part of the problem of popular-vote-only is that it ignores that reality: culturally and economically, the majority *already* weilds enormous power. There's more out there than politics, and especially when it comes to the Power to Persuade, California and New York dominate this country, simply because of their populations.

[tyven]

Yeah, as continuous coverage, exactly what it was before the ACA.

\

now now now, she said "a form of" so there's still a chance that its worse than before.

[Quicklet]

You are wrong here. Part of a functioning democracy is to do *EXACTLY* that. And it's part of why I detest so mcuh of the modern Repbulican party-- they did not in any way do that for President Obama. Don't be like them; be better, if you believe that you are, indeed, better.

And when people like Bannon and Lewandowski who are thugs who show contempt for democracy get top posts in Trump's administration?

Trump can start by denouncing all the hate speech that has come pouring from his supporters at minorities since the election. I would take that as a sign of good will. I'm waiting.

[Day]

Exact same.
https://twitter.com/CUNTMAFIA/status/796492113357705216

these are truly end times

[Andalusian girls]

sorry Maroot i agree with you more than most here but the state power argument is tripe when it effectively disenfranchises tens of millions of voters. as a California conservative i am one of those disenfranchised voters and some notion that lower population states deserve disproportionate power to elect the president, when they already have massively disproportionate representation in congress (we presently get 1 senator for every 19,000,000 people, Vermont gets one for every 300,000) does not hold water in a more democratic age. i am well aware of founder intent but as we now allow women and blacks and non-property owners to vote, now that we actually vote for senators and in party primaries, perhaps we can all of us come to the realization every specific of their intended construction is not inviolable, coming as it did from a far more aristocratic age. a straight popular may not be 'perfection' but it disenfrachises no voters, the citizens of smaller states will be equal to the citizens of any other, and the fundamental unit of sovereignty in any free society is the individual, not a state.

and for what it's worth the father of the constitution in James Madison favored a popular vote for the presidency, but his proposal was defeated largely as a result of southern states who would receive outsized electoral influence under an electoral college system where their slave populations would be partially counted when determining elector numbers, whereas those populations would be ignored in a popular vote as suffrage was not extended to them. that is to say the electoral college is a remnant of self-interested slave owners and was opposed by the greatest constitutional mind in American history.

[Marootsoobutsu]

sorry Maroot i agree with you more than most here but the state power argument is tripe when it effectively disenfranchises tens of millions of voters. as a California conservative i am one of those disenfranchised voters and some notion that lower population states deserve disproportionate power to elect the president, when they already have massively disproportionate representation in congress (we presently get 1 senator for every 19,000,000 people, Vermont gets one for every 300,000) does not hold water in a more democratic age. i am well aware of founder intent but as we now allow women and blacks and non-property owners to vote, now that we actually vote for senators and in party primaries, perhaps we can all of us come to the realization every specific of their intended construction is not inviolable, coming as it did from a far more aristocratic age. a straight popular may not be 'perfection' but it disenfrachises no voters, the citizens of smaller states will be equal to the citizens of any other.

and for what it's worth the father of the constitution in James Madison favored a popular vote for the presidency, but his proposal was defeated largely as a result of southern states who would receive outsized electoral influence under an electoral college system where their slave populations would be partially counted when determining elector numbers, whereas those populations would be ignored in a popular vote as suffrage was not extended to them. that is to say the electoral college is a remnant of self-interested slave owners and was opposed by the greatest constitutional mind in American history.

I certainly don't think that the founders were infallible, nor that their will is inviolable. The only part of the Constitution that I believe should never be changed, is the ability to change the Constitution. Everything else-- EVERYTHING, no matter how sacred I or we find it-- should be subject to review as time goes on. To the end of the extreme disenfranchisement the EC currently has, either smaller states *or* more Congresspersons *or* Nebraska/Maine style EC changes would help... all three wouldn't be bad, either. Make it so Wyoming (or whatever the smallest state is) gets 2 House people, and every other state is based off that, to make sure that each House Rep is relatively equal, and that would, in turn, make the Presidency *closer* to equal (the 2 state votes would similarly count for *less* if we have more districts). I understand the desire to limit the number of Representatives, but I kind of disagree with it; it leaves the House too susceptible to the weaknesses of the Senate, and makes money-in-politics soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more influential in what is supposed to be the People's Chamber. I would much rather focus on fixing the House (which would alleviate *some* of the issues with the Presidency), than ignore Congress and focus on the Presidency.

[Thunder]

I have no problem with keeping my morale up, and I'm a white male.

Everyone should engage in introspection about their own biases and acknowledge and work on them.

I was going to stay away from the thread but some of you mentioned something I've been thinking about

introspection about their own biases.... I keep seeing all this "yeah no shit you're not worried, YOU'RE A WHITE MALE" when a white male who's against trump says not to worry, things will likely be ok, and general reassurance. Which is kind of bullshit I think because everyone has reason to worry a lot about many things with a trump presidency and it's kind of annoying me that the focus is on his racist(some of them only racist-ish) remarks which could mean some bad policy/etc gets worked on instead of actual policy that he wants to implement for sure

I deleted my big explanation of my issues with his policies since it was a wall'o'txt not worth reading and distracted from the point I wanted to get opinions on

Anyway, I'm at the point where it's kind of like... yeah, no shit you feel unsafe because you're black/brown/woman/whatever else you identify as and have, personally (because I'm thinking about specific people I've seen on my FB/twitter and RL), been on this crusade against white america, the patriarchy, etc on social media alone.
..And because of that have this terrible bias that will distort your own world view to be able to play the victim no matter what.

Am I the literal white devil, or what? Anyone else feel like it's bullshit white males basically can't have opinions on the probabilities of increased hostilities towards minorities under a trump presidency because they're not minorities? Is this like I can't give advice to a PLD because I haven't leveled PLD?