Why I think it is challenging for the government to ration our care.

[kandrathe]

I commute about an hour on either side of my work day, which in Minnesota can vary depending on the weather. I tend to listen to MPR, which while liberal biased, is done pretty well, is not shock jocks making sophomoric jokes, or partisans yelling their particular brand of hate. There was some interview on this AM, of our local county attorney. They were talking about many things, one of them Philando Castile, and the school, to prison, or grave pipeline in our society. But, it got me thinking about... costs.

What do we spend to educate a child? Is it enough? Is there a point where you'd say, "that's to much to spend to educate that child"?

Then it flashed though my mind all the things we've delegated to government to do for us. Its health care, prisons, safety, security, defense, end of life care, access to medicine, housing, school lunch. Many, many things where each of us probably has our own idea on what spending is minimally enough, and then how much is too much. These are probably all the wrong questions to ask politicians to make, which is why we are failing sooo badly to make them. The answer they tell you is what they think you want to hear, and they will promise all the bells, all the whistles, you can keep your doctors, we will close Gitmo, and keep you safe from terrorists, ketchup is not a vegetable, lower costs, build more infrastructures, create jobs, get you all the stuff, and lower taxes, but maybe tax the rich 1% (just to stick it to da man -- let em know we are the majority 99%).

However, the solution we get is one that spends by what I call "the method of least common decibels" or in other words, the lowest amount of yelling and complaining, oh, and the borrowing. But, of course, the alternative is to make it private, and allow each person to decide what its worth to them. But, then again, that may be unfair too. The burden would be on the poor, and middle. Those with the most needs are often the least able to afford even minimal costs.

So you'd need some kind of voucher or minimal subsidy, yada yada yada... Free stuff sounds better. Somebody, someday will get the 19 trillion dollar bill.

I think we are living through an extraordinary time. I just don't know yet if it is extraordinarily good, or extraordinarily bad, or extraordinarily worse. But, because we cannot overcome extreme partisanship, we see this yo-yo in our policies where one group does stuff, then 4-8 years later the other group undoes it and does somethings else. Except, it seems, for war in the Middle East, everyone does that.

This is madness! What I want to do for each issue is lock Congress in a room, a dreary room, until they form a consensus, and emerge with 100% agreement on our course (OK, make it 90%, or 80%). But, this 50/50 teeter totter positioning must end! And, we need to have meaningful reasoned dialog about it. Not ignore each other to yell over each other, or call each other names, or stomp our feet, hold our breath, and toss all the toys out of the crib.

[Jester]

This is madness! What I want to do for each issue is lock Congress in a room, a dreary room, until they form a consensus, and emerge with 100% agreement on our course (OK, make it 90%, or 80%). But, this 50/50 teeter totter positioning must end! And, we need to have meaningful reasoned dialog about it. Not ignore each other to yell over each other, or call each other names, or stomp our feet, hold our breath, and toss all the toys out of the crib.

What if the disagreements are real, reflecting real interests, values, and ideas, rather than just being a matter of childish nonsense? Do we just wait until pro-choice people give up on women's bodily autonomy, or pro-life people start thinking child murder isn't so bad after all? Do we just wait until we find some middle ground between increasing the nuclear arsenal, and eliminating it entirely?

We might be waiting a long time. Reason leads us *from* our values, but it cannot (pace Hume) lead us *to* them.

-Jester

[Ashock]

This is madness! What I want to do for each issue is lock Congress in a room, a dreary room, until they form a consensus, and emerge with 100% agreement on our course (OK, make it 90%, or 80%). But, this 50/50 teeter totter positioning must end! And, we need to have meaningful reasoned dialog about it. Not ignore each other to yell over each other, or call each other names, or stomp our feet, hold our breath, and toss all the toys out of the crib.

This would only be possible if both sides had similar inherent values and goals, just with some differences. As it is, it is not a real possibility.

[kandrathe]

What if the disagreements are real, reflecting real interests, values, and ideas, rather than just being a matter of childish nonsense?

They certainly do represent *real* disagreements, which are not the nonsense and childishness I was thinking about.

Whatever real interests, values and ideas are debated, I feel it should be done by *reason* over appeals to authority, or dogma. For example, the Constitutional Challenge to Abortion or, relying on debate on climate change rather than the bullying of skeptics with the petard of “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: 'climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.' ” Again, it is an argument to forego reason, and instead appeal to authority. Again, it is not that I am promoting either case, just the use of reason, and embracing the evidence directly.

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory." --Leonardo da Vinci


First, we all need to recognize and accept that we are diverse, each of us contributing to a diversity of views. We all need to keep our sacred cows tethered in our own yard. That is, we need to agree that while one person's views may differ, others may fully embrace the alternative, or opposite view. Then, too often we trespass into others pastures to slay their cows on our principles. For example, the Blue Law remnant of prohibition that still exists (in my state) where liquor sales are prohibited on Sunday (the Christian Sabbath). I quit reckless living when I decided to have my children, but I fully support my neighbors ability to go for a beer run before the football game. I make my choices, and others should be free to act so long as it does not impinge on our common concerns (e.g. drunk driving, or disorderly conduct). Finally, the objective is NOT to win the vote to your side, but to find a compromise that is acceptable to a broad majority. We need to return to frameworks that promote reasoned inclusion of compromises, and exceptions where necessary, to create acceptable laws. Again, using the ACA as an example, it was passed by Democrats unilaterally with no compromise. It is now undone by Republicans in the same manner. Both are wrong. Then, in implementation, Catholic (and other) non-profit organizations had to go to court to protect their freedom of religious expression within their own organizations to prevent mandates written in the ACA.

Conservatives and liberals seem to have mirror image approach to paternalism. Liberals champion intrusive laws for the competent while conservatives prefer to rely on individuals to makes their own choices. Conservatives champion intrusive laws for those deemed incompetent for whom liberals prefer to treat as a protected class. For example, in public health paternalism liberals promote anti-smoking, taxes on unhealthy products, a strict risk-averse EPA, and tight controls on FDA oversight of product safety. It just happens that novel new drugs, or the use of cannabis might help some people. The occasional consumption of a bunch of salty french fries with a super sized soda is *bad* while the free distribution of clean needles for safe heroin use is *good*.

On the other side, conservatives hinder logical reasoned things, like stem cell research, or limit access to medical marijuana, and as I stated above promote laws restricting liberty based on religious doctrine where no harms are done to others, or to the commons.

My reflection on the nonsense are more in the form of the drama, for drama sake. For example protesters are organizing events outside Ivanka Trump's private home. It is ridiculous that a private citizen merely related to a public official is targeted for harassment. This ( in my view) is protected by the first amendment, but it is almost as reprehensible as that addressed in Snyder v Phelps. We might support their rights to speech, but I feel it is a really sleazy thing to do. It is drama that creates adversity, does not engage in debate, is against things that have not happened, and results in no action. Or, The list of democrats holding their breath on the inauguration. Drama. I understand that some people do not like him vehemently, and wouldn't want to be there. I wouldn't want to be there. But, as a leader you can choose to lead into a position of compromise and unity, or division and opposition. What do they expect to happen? Coup d'Etat, martial law, call for a new election? Are we really descending to the level of third world politics?

We have the right to protest the government for the redress of grievances. What would the protest be about? It is about their fears of future actions of her father. What about reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of peaceable protest?

This would only be possible if both sides had similar inherent values and goals, just with some differences. As it is, it is not a real possibility.

I disagree. While the early "United States" had a continent in common, their viewpoints were worlds apart. These differences only once resulted in a civil war, but we might be moving that way again.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/p...an-public/

http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/p...y-in-2016/

I don't even know what that looks like; Heartland versus the coasts? Urbans versus rurals?

[Archon_Wing]

Well, if they hate each other so much, maybe being locked in the same room without food will cause them to eat and kill each other... leaving the rest of us alone.

[Jester]

Finally, the objective is NOT to win the vote to your side, but to find a compromise that is acceptable to a broad majority. We need to return to frameworks that promote reasoned inclusion of compromises, and exceptions where necessary, to create acceptable laws. Again, using the ACA as an example, it was passed by Democrats unilaterally with no compromise. It is now undone by Republicans in the same manner. Both are wrong.

If you want to encourage compromise, you first have to be able to recognize when someone is trying to. The ACA was, from the very beginning, an attempt to craft a health care program acceptable to Republicans. Bill Clinton's earlier, much more left-leaning plan, had been blown to pieces by Republican opposition; the ACA was already supposed to mollify those criticisms and garner bipartisan support. It follows a model dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation, and is closely based on the plan passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. The *ideas* had broad republican support.

What was its fate? Republicans opposed every aspect of it, *especially* those designed to compromise with their earlier objections, and killed it dead. They weren't trying to pass a health care legislation. Mitch McConnell was trying to hand Obama a political defeat. How then to compromise?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How then to compromise?

I neglected to chastise the opposition. But, I don't believe the path forward is to roll over them. I remember the Dems voted out every amendment, and it was rushed between the unveiling and votes. They said, "We won. Get over it."

Compromise includes removing items from the body, or editing things that are objectionable. The first compromise both need to make is to agree that you will be building Frankenstein together.

[Jester]

Compromise includes removing items from the body, or editing things that are objectionable. The first compromise both need to make is to agree that you will be building Frankenstein together.

There is no universally applicable rule of compromise. Whose interests are compromised upon, and in what proportions (what even *is* a proportion)? How does that map onto the infinite space of possible policy? Bargaining theory is maddeningly complicated, and the policies that are being bargained over are doubly so.

I mean, I object to Brexit. How does that help? Do I get Brexit removed from the foreign policy of the UK, because I object, and therefore it is objectionable? Do I get half-Brexit (or 52% Brexit)? What if a policy isn't really amenable to degrees, there is no "middle" to push a bit one way or another? That both me and my pro-Brexit compatriots agree that we are Frankensteining together a foreign policy for the UK does not really solve any of the outstanding problems...

-Jester

[Ashock]

How do you talk to the opposing side if this is what they write and think about?

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-if-trump-is-...president/

[kandrathe]

Compromise includes removing items from the body, or editing things that are objectionable. The first compromise both need to make is to agree that you will be building Frankenstein together.

There is no universally applicable rule of compromise. Whose interests are compromised upon, and in what proportions (what even *is* a proportion)? How does that map onto the infinite space of possible policy? Bargaining theory is maddeningly complicated, and the policies that are being bargained over are doubly so.

I mean, I object to Brexit. How does that help? Do I get Brexit removed from the foreign policy of the UK, because I object, and therefore it is objectionable? Do I get half-Brexit (or 52% Brexit)? What if a policy isn't really amenable to degrees, there is no "middle" to push a bit one way or another? That both me and my pro-Brexit compatriots agree that we are Frankensteining together a foreign policy for the UK does not really solve any of the outstanding problems...

-Jester

Sure. There are some things that are (best) one way or the other. You maybe are either governed by Brussels, and the EU laws or not. There are many Frankensteinian unholy compromises that might have been to allow for a hybrid where Scotland, who predominantly voted to remain might have remained under both EU and Commonwealth. You might have some EU autonomous zones. Say Lambeth, Hacknet, Foyle, Haringey... Gibraltar... It is certainly complicated to negotiate overlaps in governance.

We seem to be able to allow for Native Americans to have tribal sovereignty over their lands, while being within many counties, in part of the State, and part of the Federal government.

How do you talk to the opposing side if this is what they write and think about?

What % of the D's in Congress do you think would support assassination? How about people in the US?

Reference: This is not a new phenomena.

The "opposing side" is not a monolithic Borg-like intelligence. There are a few reasonable, peaceful, liberals, who may be willing to negotiate.

[Ashock]

Reference: This is not a new phenomena.

There is a world of difference between psycho individuals and those that are a face of major "supposed" news organizatioons. Loner psychos do not encourage sedition that is applauded by a large chunk of the population. Sometimes, there is no gray.

[kandrathe]

... those that are a face of major "supposed" news organizations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxIG4ddu...e=youtu.be

Can we hold that reporter and editor responsible for "sedition", or does it have to be everyone who is against Trump. Because of a few bad apples, and some incendiary press musings, then we throw out the 52% of Americans who didn't vote for him?

We negotiated a nuclear nonproliferation deal with Iran... granted it was a bad deal... but still... they might really want to nuke us.

You don't think Republicans can deal with Democrats?

[FireIceTalon]

Did the resident white supremacist crackpot just actually attempt to use the site of infowars.com as a legitimate source of information?? ROFL.

[Ashock]

Did the resident white supremacist crackpot just actually attempt to use the site of infowars.com as a legitimate source of information?? ROFL.

Link is to CNN, Joseph.

[Ashock]

... those that are a face of major "supposed" news organizations.

Because of a few bad apples, and some incendiary press musings, then we throw out the 52% of Americans who didn't vote for him?

We negotiated a nuclear nonproliferation deal with Iran... granted it was a bad deal... but still... they might really want to nuke us.

Even assuming that the votes in Cali were all legit and did not count illegals:

You won’t see these factual statistics on any of the left wing progressive liberal and biased news medial outlets…….

2016 Presidential Statistics:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 2 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

Keep your 52% to yourself.

As far as the Iran deal, it was done through an executive order by Obama, or did you not know that?

This reminds me of my or my wife's conversation with my father in law about current events. His english is decent, but at almost 80, he is also having problems hearing. So basically, he hears and understands about 50% of what he sees on TV and kind of fills in the blanks. Lately, conversations with you remind me of having conversations with him, except I am reasonably sure you are not an immigrant and I'm completely sure you are not 80.

Oh yeah, almost forgot.....

Have a nice day.

[FireIceTalon]

Who gives a fuck if Trump gets murked anyways? I sure as hell don't. Would be one less racist, classist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, rich, delusional, fascist, windbag demagogue on the planet. If it does happen, I'm throwing a party - drinks are on me. In fact, who cares if ANY bourgeois politician, left or right, gets the hatchet? The majority of them are crooks, and deserve nothing less.

[Ashock]

Who gives a fuck if Trump gets murked anyways? I sure as hell don't. Would be one less racist, classist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, rich, delusional, fascist, windbag demagogue on the planet. If it does happen, I'm throwing a party - drinks are on me. In fact, who cares if ANY bourgeois politician, left or right, gets the hatchet? The majority of them are crooks, and deserve nothing less.

Spoken like a truly great man.

[kandrathe]

Even assuming that the votes in Cali were all legit and did not count illegals:

You won’t see these factual statistics on any of the left wing progressive liberal and biased news medial outlets…….

2016 Presidential Statistics:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 2 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

Keep your 52% to yourself.

Um, sorry. I should have issued a trigger warning. I may at time hurt you with the truth, that while Pres. Trump did win the presidency, he did not win the plurality. Rare, but in our constitutional republic, it does happen. It happens to create federal republican equity.

While your county data, which I haven't verified, is interesting, it doesn't really matter in regards to either the democratic principles of a nation of, by, and for the people, nor the electoral college assurance of fair federal representation.

Simply put, people vote, counties don't. People matter, but the jurisdiction of counties does not, at least in not in state and national politics.

As far as the Iran deal, it was done through an executive order by Obama, or did you not know that?

When I say "we" I frequently mean the USA, which whether you like it or not, does include former Pres. Obama, and the people who negotiated on behalf of US interests. Do I approve of the methods used? No, I would have preferred a debate, compromise, and approval by Congreess of a *real* treaty. My point remains... "we"... can negotiate with Iran, to disarm them, when "they" or at least many in power, seek to destroy the great satan.

Don't you think then, that maybe, just maybe, the democrats (the reasonable ones) can discuss areas of common ground and work to form compromises with the republicans (the reasonable ones)?

This reminds me of my or my wife's conversation with my father in law about current events. His english is decent, but at almost 80, he is also having problems hearing. So basically, he hears and understands about 50% of what he sees on TV and kind of fills in the blanks. Lately, conversations with you remind me of having conversations with him, except I am reasonably sure you are not an immigrant and I'm completely sure you are not 80.

You think I am obtuse?

When you allege the "face of major "supposed" news organizatioons" are calling for the assassination of Trump, or "encourage sedition that is applauded by a large chunk of the population." And that "Sometimes, there is no gray." Meaning, what? It's a civil war already? No compromise, win or die?

I think at best this line of thinking is histrionic, and at worst, lunatic fringe. Come back to the light.

[Jester]

Simply put, people vote, counties don't. People matter, but the jurisdiction of counties does not, at least in not in state and national politics.

You're missing the deeper point, which is that real Americans don't live in New York. Except for Donald Trump. And during 9/11. But other than that, "real" America isn't the 50% that live in cities, it's the salt of the earth from the rural areas. That vote Republican.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Simply put, people vote, counties don't. People matter, but the jurisdiction of counties does not, at least in not in state and national politics.

You're missing the deeper point, which is that real Americans don't live in New York. Except for Donald Trump. And during 9/11. But other than that, "real" America isn't the 50% that live in cities, it's the salt of the earth from the rural areas. That vote Republican.

-Jester

Got it. Pardon me, I am on duty to protect my sons school from grizzly bears.