(12-16-2019 02:54 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So you think dissenting opinions = toxicity?

I think a volleyball game with everybody on one side of the net is useless.

But if that is what you are seeking, I would suggest a party precinct meeting. Or CNN.

But please don’t try to stifle discussion by insisting we must all go down the same path to the same destination.

No. No one is saying this.

What does this mean, then?

"You seem actually interested in building consensus and understanding and that's not what this forum is about."

Do you have a different definition of "consensus" than I do?

(12-16-2019 01:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The number of people seriously talking about that as some kind of national policy is probably about the same as the number who think the earth is flat. I guess there are a few of them, but not many and not enough to shape any reasonable discussion on the topic.

edit - I edited my earlier post before reading any responses

Just a couple of points:

1) Biden absolutely supports a present 'assault weapon' ban;

2) Kamala Harris absolutely supported that restriction, perhaps even more, using nothing more than the power of EO;

3) The current administration in Virginia is not just pushing for an 'assault weapon' ban, but the Governor has actually publicly speculated about using the National Guard to enforce such ban given the level of county sheriff opposition and 'talk of sanctuary counties.


Just some food for thought on your statement equating such views of public officials to being as rare as flat earthers....

(12-16-2019 04:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess there are different perspectives on Lincoln, as there are on all public figures. At least Trump has not led us into war...yet. I am sure you are coming from the perspective of "Lincoln freed the slaves, so that's all that matters". Can you name any other thing Lincoln did? Trade agreements, economic measures? I can think of the draft and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Of course, Lincoln did not run for office on the platform of freeing slaves, nor was it an objective of his. When he did free slaves, it was only in the 11 CSA states - the ones in the Union states were not freed, and only because the CSA states din not meet his ultimatum. If any had, they could have retained their slaves. Maybe you need to read up on Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

No need to mansplain Lincoln to me (as I am a fellow man). Or is this an appropriate time to use "OK boomer"? I think I'm too old to use that and I don't think its quite appropriate for this situation anyway. Regardless, I knew all of this and no need to speak (write) down to me.

As in most things, I try to listen to the experts. So when I repeatedly see rankings of all presidents and Lincoln is on the top of almost every one of those lists (and certainly always in the top 5), then I find it hard to believe Trump (or Obama or Bush or Clinton) is better. Assuming quality of presidents falls along a bell curve and that Lincoln is a few standard deviations above normal, then he is going to be hard to beat.

I also think it is literally impossible to rank Trump on such a list when he is still the President and we are 3 years into his presidency. Same for Obama, it is just too soon to understand their historical impact.

Well, first, FWIW, I am not a boomer. War baby here. Both parents in the military. Personally, I do not understand the prejudice against age and experience, although I once, a half century ago, shared it.

Lincoln is at the top of those lists based on freeing the slaves and saving the union. Literally nothing else is considered. Is he our greatest? Maybe so. Top5? Very likely. All subjective. But you referred to the 53% of respondents of some survey who thought Trump was greater than Lincoln as his base. Whether Trump is 1st or 45th is, as you say, a question for history. But I think his base is much more than just those who think he is great. As I said, I think his base is working men and small business people. Some of those people do not like his manners. They do not have to think he is the greatest ever to support him. I support lower taxes, less regulation, and a stronger foreign policy, not Trump per se. I supported those things decades ago. I supported them back when Trump was still a Democrat buddy of Bill Clinton. I support the issues. Glad to see a President who does too. Sorry he is so rude.

One more thing. Just because somebody compiles a list does not make them an expert. I bet a list of great posters here that I compile would be very different from some other lists. (Hint: I am not even in the top three of my own list, and one of you leftists is.)

(12-16-2019 02:19 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Government run Medicare offers more choice than employer based insurance.

Let's say you get your insurance through your employer as about half of Americans do. What are your choices really? A few different deductible and premium combinations and your choice of doctors is limited to those that the insurance provider declares in-network. Plus, your employer can change your plan options or even insurers from one year to the next.

Meanwhile on Medicare, you actually have many, many more choices of doctors who are "in-network," and your healthcare is untethered from the whims of your employer.

You neglect to mention that prior to the big extinction event in health insurance, the offerings of insurance via medicare were an absolute mere pittance as opposed to that which was available in the private sector.

So yes, you comment above is true. But only true because 90+% of the range of health offerings were rendered illegal by the passage of Obamacare.

Did you have access to such health care choices prior to Obamacare? Your comparison of solely present day private offerings to present day public offerings indicates that you probably never actually shopped the health insurance market at that time.

(12-16-2019 06:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As I said, I think his base is working men and small business people. Some of those people do not like his manners. They do not have to think he is the greatest ever to support him. I support lower taxes, less regulation, and a stronger foreign policy, not Trump per se. I supported those things decades ago. I supported them back when Trump was still a Democrat buddy of Bill Clinton. I support the issues. Glad to see a President who does too. Sorry he is so rude.

I support those same issues. You may have supported them longer than I have, because you are a year or two older, but that would be the only reason. I also support a balanced budget (which can only happen with lower taxes if we reduce and limit the size of government), having the strongest military in the world but never having to use it (because nobody dares pick on us and we don't go picking on them), and a welfare system that provides a safety net but encourages (rather than discourages) upward mobility to escape poverty.

And I am hugely opposed to single-payer or single-provider health care (which I view as a death sentence for me), significant infringement on the 2nd Amendment right that "shall not be infringed," late-term or live-birth abortions on demand, and wealth taxes or any other attempts to redistribute massive amounts of income and wealth. That means that every democrat presidential candidate has 3 or 4 drop-dead show-stopper issue positions for me.

I am not a fan of Trump. I think he is rude and crude and boorish. That's what you usually get with a populist, and he is definitely one. But if I have to choose between someone whose issue positions I can live with, and someone that I can't, I'm going to choose the one I can live with.

tanq - my flat earther comparison was for politicians taking all guns, not just “assault weapons”. I agree that many more politicians support some form of “assault weapon” ban.

OO - I am not talking about random rankings of Presidents compiled by John Smith and Jane Jones. I am talking about rankings created through a consensus of multiple historians. That doesn’t mean they are correct, but they are more knowledgeable than most and I trust their rankings better than my own or most people’s, unless there is a strong countervailing argument made. More specific to your point, the individuals weighing in on such rankings most certainly consider more than “freeing the slaves” and “saving the union” because they know a lot more about Lincoln (and all other Presidents) than such a 30,000-foot view.

(12-16-2019 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanq - my flat earther comparison was for politicians taking all guns, not just “assault weapons”. I agree that many more politicians support some form of “assault weapon” ban.

Here's my slippery slope problem. An "assault weapons" ban cannot possibly have a material impact, because "assault weapons'" (whatever they are) account for a truly microscopic number of gun deaths each year (something like 100 or less out of over 30,000). So we enact an "assault weapons" ban, and it has no measurable impact, then what do we do?

1) live with those results and do nothing more,
2) decide that the problem is that we didn't ban enough guns and start banning more and more until we have effectively removed all guns, or
3) decide that maybe the ban wasn't a good idea and look for other ways to cut gun violence.

I would hope for 3), but I'm afraid the smart money bets 2). And that is exactly how the slippery slope comes into being.

(12-16-2019 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanq - my flat earther comparison was for politicians taking all guns, not just “assault weapons”. I agree that many more politicians support some form of “assault weapon” ban.

Understood But such bans are literally bans on plain jane semiautomatic long rifles --- couched in terms of 'it looks nasty'.

They aren't as limited in scope as your more minimalist representation makes it sound.

When my Mini ranch 14 is considered an assault weapon because it has a thumbhole in the stock. ---- I dont think you can fairly minimize the action undertaken as you just did.

(12-16-2019 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanq - my flat earther comparison was for politicians taking all guns, not just “assault weapons”. I agree that many more politicians support some form of “assault weapon” ban.

OO - I am not talking about random rankings of Presidents compiled by John Smith and Jane Jones. I am talking about rankings created through a consensus of multiple historians. That doesn’t mean they are correct, but they are more knowledgeable than most and I trust their rankings better than my own or most people’s, unless there is a strong countervailing argument made. More specific to your point, the individuals weighing in on such rankings most certainly consider more than “freeing the slaves” and “saving the union” because they know a lot more about Lincoln (and all other Presidents) than such a 30,000-foot view.

So, what do they consider beyond those two items that qualify him as great? Truly curious.

All rankings I have seen are composed by people with with biases - the biases are reflected in the rankings. I have heard historians say that but for Watergate, Nixon would be considered one of our best. But few ranking would reflect that view, because after he was a crook, and one who got caught. Who cares about china, who cares he got us out of Viet Nam, he is remembered for other things. LBJ is remembered for the Civil Rights Act, not for getting us into Viet Nam.

Might as well rank the greatest NFL coaches, or the greatest singers or the greatest...whatever. A subjective ranking by people who may weight this or that more than that or this.

But back to Trump. Call me in 20 years and we can start to decide how great he was. In any event, we need to see how his second term goes.

I do not think he is greater than anybody yet. Too soon to decide.

Thank you. I have enjoyed the discussion.

(12-17-2019 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanq - my flat earther comparison was for politicians taking all guns, not just “assault weapons”. I agree that many more politicians support some form of “assault weapon” ban.

OO - I am not talking about random rankings of Presidents compiled by John Smith and Jane Jones. I am talking about rankings created through a consensus of multiple historians. That doesn’t mean they are correct, but they are more knowledgeable than most and I trust their rankings better than my own or most people’s, unless there is a strong countervailing argument made. More specific to your point, the individuals weighing in on such rankings most certainly consider more than “freeing the slaves” and “saving the union” because they know a lot more about Lincoln (and all other Presidents) than such a 30,000-foot view.

So, what do they consider beyond those two items that qualify him as great? Truly curious.

To reiterate, I believe the historians involved in those rankings considered more than just those 2 items for Lincoln, but I honestly don't know. I just remember seeing multiple rankings by historians with Lincoln on top (and a quick search earlier today confirmed my memory) and that 53% of Republicans in a recent poll said Trump was better. I'm not a Lincoln expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But if someone thinks Trump is better than Lincoln, I think they qualify as his base. If one essentially thinks Trump is one of the best presidents in the history of the USA, then that person is certainly part of the base.

(12-17-2019 02:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 07:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanq - my flat earther comparison was for politicians taking all guns, not just “assault weapons”. I agree that many more politicians support some form of “assault weapon” ban.

OO - I am not talking about random rankings of Presidents compiled by John Smith and Jane Jones. I am talking about rankings created through a consensus of multiple historians. That doesn’t mean they are correct, but they are more knowledgeable than most and I trust their rankings better than my own or most people’s, unless there is a strong countervailing argument made. More specific to your point, the individuals weighing in on such rankings most certainly consider more than “freeing the slaves” and “saving the union” because they know a lot more about Lincoln (and all other Presidents) than such a 30,000-foot view.

So, what do they consider beyond those two items that qualify him as great? Truly curious.

To reiterate, I believe the historians involved in those rankings considered more than just those 2 items for Lincoln, but I honestly don't know. I just remember seeing multiple rankings by historians with Lincoln on top (and a quick search earlier today confirmed my memory) and that 53% of Republicans in a recent poll said Trump was better. I'm not a Lincoln expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But if someone thinks Trump is better than Lincoln, I think they qualify as his base. If one essentially thinks Trump is one of the best presidents in the history of the USA, then that person is certainly part of the base.

PART of the base, yes. Just as some people I know recently said that Hillary was the most qualified nominee in history and I would assume they were part of her base. But while I agree the 53% you mention are almost certainly PART of Trump's base, I do not think the are THE base, and that is what I thought you were suggesting in your original post on this matter. We seem to worked ourselves into -what did Fountains call it - a consensus.

I guess the word "expert" can be a problem in these discussion. Like a criminal trial can put competing and disagreeing experts on the stand, and climate science experts can disagree on causes, just being an expert means little. I would consider Big and Tanq and Numbers to be experts on the law, relative to me, but not relative to Dershowitz.

(12-17-2019 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would consider Big and Tanq and Numbers to be experts on the law, relative to me, but not relative to Dershowitz.

Definitely agree with the Dershowitz part.

(12-17-2019 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 02:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  To reiterate, I believe the historians involved in those rankings considered more than just those 2 items for Lincoln, but I honestly don't know. I just remember seeing multiple rankings by historians with Lincoln on top (and a quick search earlier today confirmed my memory) and that 53% of Republicans in a recent poll said Trump was better. I'm not a Lincoln expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But if someone thinks Trump is better than Lincoln, I think they qualify as his base. If one essentially thinks Trump is one of the best presidents in the history of the USA, then that person is certainly part of the base.

PART of the base, yes. Just as some people I know recently said that Hillary was the most qualified nominee in history and I would assume they were part of her base. But while I agree the 53% you mention are almost certainly PART of Trump's base, I do not think the are THE base, and that is what I thought you were suggesting in your original post on this matter. We seem to worked ourselves into -what did Fountains call it - a consensus.

Hillary probably was one of the most qualified nominees in history. That doesn't mean Democrats, Independents, or Republicans liked her or thought she would be a good President. "Qualifications" is basically looking at someone's resume. Also, "some people I know" isn't the same as a group of experts.

Survey of 200 political scientists rank Lincoln 1st
Survey of 100 historians and biographers rank Lincoln 1st
Federalist Society and WSJ survey of 85 scholars rank Lincoln 2nd
Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars rank Lincoln 3rd

(12-17-2019 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would consider Big and Tanq and Numbers to be experts on the law, relative to me, but not relative to Dershowitz.

Definitely agree with the Dershowitz part.

Dershowitz is pretty controversial these days, so probably not the best choice. How about any federal circuit court judge who has been on the bench for at least 5 years and any Supreme Court Justice as alternatives?

(12-17-2019 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 02:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  To reiterate, I believe the historians involved in those rankings considered more than just those 2 items for Lincoln, but I honestly don't know. I just remember seeing multiple rankings by historians with Lincoln on top (and a quick search earlier today confirmed my memory) and that 53% of Republicans in a recent poll said Trump was better. I'm not a Lincoln expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But if someone thinks Trump is better than Lincoln, I think they qualify as his base. If one essentially thinks Trump is one of the best presidents in the history of the USA, then that person is certainly part of the base.

PART of the base, yes. Just as some people I know recently said that Hillary was the most qualified nominee in history and I would assume they were part of her base. But while I agree the 53% you mention are almost certainly PART of Trump's base, I do not think the are THE base, and that is what I thought you were suggesting in your original post on this matter. We seem to worked ourselves into -what did Fountains call it - a consensus.

Hillary probably was one of the most qualified nominees in history. That doesn't mean Democrats, Independents, or Republicans liked her or thought she would be a good President. "Qualifications" is basically looking at someone's resume. Also, "some people I know" isn't the same as a group of experts.

Survey of 200 political scientists rank Lincoln 1st
Survey of 100 historians and biographers rank Lincoln 1st
Federalist Society and WSJ survey of 85 scholars rank Lincoln 2nd
Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars rank Lincoln 3rd

1st, 2nd, 3rd? The experts cannot agree. I guess consensus top 5, but after that, the experts differ. Point is, experts can differ, and often do. I still think Lincoln is at or near the top for freeing the slaves, something he did not set out to do nor did he run on doing it.

But I cannot believe you think Hillary was one of the most qualified in history. I think she was one of the least qualified. She held a couple of offices, but did nothing of note in them. Every candidate has held a couple of offices. How does she outshine say, Hubert Humphrey or Harry Truman? Adlai Stevenson? Or even Kamala Harris? Better than Biden? Probably on a par with Mayor Pete, but without his charisma.

We were lucky to dodge that bullet.

(12-17-2019 12:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 02:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  To reiterate, I believe the historians involved in those rankings considered more than just those 2 items for Lincoln, but I honestly don't know. I just remember seeing multiple rankings by historians with Lincoln on top (and a quick search earlier today confirmed my memory) and that 53% of Republicans in a recent poll said Trump was better. I'm not a Lincoln expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But if someone thinks Trump is better than Lincoln, I think they qualify as his base. If one essentially thinks Trump is one of the best presidents in the history of the USA, then that person is certainly part of the base.

PART of the base, yes. Just as some people I know recently said that Hillary was the most qualified nominee in history and I would assume they were part of her base. But while I agree the 53% you mention are almost certainly PART of Trump's base, I do not think the are THE base, and that is what I thought you were suggesting in your original post on this matter. We seem to worked ourselves into -what did Fountains call it - a consensus.

Hillary probably was one of the most qualified nominees in history. That doesn't mean Democrats, Independents, or Republicans liked her or thought she would be a good President. "Qualifications" is basically looking at someone's resume. Also, "some people I know" isn't the same as a group of experts.

Survey of 200 political scientists rank Lincoln 1st
Survey of 100 historians and biographers rank Lincoln 1st
Federalist Society and WSJ survey of 85 scholars rank Lincoln 2nd
Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars rank Lincoln 3rd

1st, 2nd, 3rd? The experts cannot agree. I guess consensus top 5, but after that, the experts differ. Point is, experts can differ, and often do. I still think Lincoln is at or near the top for freeing the slaves, something he did not set out to do nor did he run on doing it.

But I cannot believe you think Hillary was one of the most qualified in history. I think she was one of the least qualified. She held a couple of offices, but did nothing of note in them. Every candidate has held a couple of offices. How does she outshine say, Hubert Humphrey or Harry Truman? Adlai Stevenson? Or even Kamala Harris? Better than Biden? Probably on a par with Mayor Pete, but without his charisma.

We were lucky to dodge that bullet.

"Every candidate has held a couple of offices."

Supports Trump, who has not held any office.

Clinton was very qualified by being a Senator AND Secretary of State. Either one of those would give any candidate a serious qualification. I think the only other qualification that is better is being a governor, because that is a similar position in government - acting as an executive within a bureaucracy.

(12-17-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 12:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 02:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  To reiterate, I believe the historians involved in those rankings considered more than just those 2 items for Lincoln, but I honestly don't know. I just remember seeing multiple rankings by historians with Lincoln on top (and a quick search earlier today confirmed my memory) and that 53% of Republicans in a recent poll said Trump was better. I'm not a Lincoln expert and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But if someone thinks Trump is better than Lincoln, I think they qualify as his base. If one essentially thinks Trump is one of the best presidents in the history of the USA, then that person is certainly part of the base.

PART of the base, yes. Just as some people I know recently said that Hillary was the most qualified nominee in history and I would assume they were part of her base. But while I agree the 53% you mention are almost certainly PART of Trump's base, I do not think the are THE base, and that is what I thought you were suggesting in your original post on this matter. We seem to worked ourselves into -what did Fountains call it - a consensus.

Hillary probably was one of the most qualified nominees in history. That doesn't mean Democrats, Independents, or Republicans liked her or thought she would be a good President. "Qualifications" is basically looking at someone's resume. Also, "some people I know" isn't the same as a group of experts.

Survey of 200 political scientists rank Lincoln 1st
Survey of 100 historians and biographers rank Lincoln 1st
Federalist Society and WSJ survey of 85 scholars rank Lincoln 2nd
Siena poll of 157 presidential scholars rank Lincoln 3rd

1st, 2nd, 3rd? The experts cannot agree. I guess consensus top 5, but after that, the experts differ. Point is, experts can differ, and often do. I still think Lincoln is at or near the top for freeing the slaves, something he did not set out to do nor did he run on doing it.

But I cannot believe you think Hillary was one of the most qualified in history. I think she was one of the least qualified. She held a couple of offices, but did nothing of note in them. Every candidate has held a couple of offices. How does she outshine say, Hubert Humphrey or Harry Truman? Adlai Stevenson? Or even Kamala Harris? Better than Biden? Probably on a par with Mayor Pete, but without his charisma.

We were lucky to dodge that bullet.

"Every candidate has held a couple of offices."

Supports Trump, who has not held any office.

Clinton was very qualified by being a Senator AND Secretary of State. Either one of those would give any candidate a serious qualification. I think the only other qualification that is better is being a governor, because that is a similar position in government - acting as an executive within a bureaucracy.

Trump HAS held an office - he has been President for three years. But if you are referring to 2016, I will just remind you - again - I did not vote for him in 2016.

Hillary was gifted the Senate position, and served in a very undistinguished manner. She was also gifted the SoS, and again has no accomplishments in that office to speak of. She was handed the can't miss nomination in 2016, and fumbled it away. Not what I would call a shining resume.

Lots of people have been Senators - don't yall have a half dozen or so of those running? Biden was even a VP after he was a Senator - so he is more qualified than Hillary, apparently.

I agree with you that governors are probably the best candidates. Hillary has not ever been an executive, like, say, Palin, or Reagan, or GWBush.

(12-17-2019 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hillary was gifted the Senate position, and served in a very undistinguished manner. She was also gifted the SoS, and again has no accomplishments in that office to speak of. She was handed the can't miss nomination in 2016, and fumbled it away. Not what I would call a shining resume.

It think it's funny that people argue that Hillary Clinton's political career was hindered by her being female. Every single one of the steps you mentioned -- the Senate seat, the SoS, and the Democratic nomination -- happened not despite but BECAUSE she is female, and specifically because she is the wife of Bill Clinton (a condition for which, for all his proclivities, being female seems to be a prerequisite).

(12-16-2019 04:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 03:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's not so much that Blue Cross is great, but that one of the things that keeps Blue Cross from being horrible is the existence of the option of Humana... AND the oversight of the government.

I'd also say because if Blue Cross or Humana do something that injures you, there is someone to sue and the government to protect you

You can sue the federal government. I'm one of the attorneys that defends the federal government in civil lawsuits. I defend the VA, FQHC's, and some military clinics when they are sued, as well as CMS and HHS.

Of course, but I believe the bar is a lot higher.... said differently, I know lots of lawyers who are more than happy to sue an insurance company over a few hundred bucks. I don't know many that would sue the government if it weren't millions.

Even if it isn't, which I am prepared to be wrong about... when you sue Humana, the government is on your side if Humana did wrong. If the government did wrong, the government is not on your side.

Government is about what gets you elected or appeals to the most people.

What if your needs aren't popular?

The Federal government is not going to be as interested in representing the people of S. Dakota as the government of S. Dakota is, or a company trying to sell insurance policies there.

It is very, very true that that there is no experience that fully prepares one to be President, other than the OTJ training of being President. Even Governors, who come closest to having relevant experience, have little to no experience in negotiating trade deals with foreign governments or commanding an army.

However, nominating a Senator on the basis of his Senate experience seems a bit like promoting the head of the legal department to CEO of a multinational.

I usually look at the person, not his/her title. But in general, I prefer governors, military commanders, and top businessmen to legislators, in that order.