2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

I'm no lover of politicians but this strikes me as a little unfair.

 

I believe that most go in for noble reasons and a desire to serve, and many serve relatively anonymously and keep some aspect of that service. But they are mugged by the reality of the system they serve and the need to raise money and make compromises to keep their jobs.

 

I generally think our country gets exactly the types of leaders that it deserves.

 

While I can't say for certain Bernie Sanders would be perfect for Democrats or Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson  would be tell you perfect for Republicans, I can tell you that supporting Hillary or Jeb Bush is a bad idea.  

 

Funny thing is the vast majority of this country will support both by finding every excuse not to attend their caucuses or primaries

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

While I can't say for certain Bernie Sanders would be perfect for Democrats or Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson  would be tell you perfect for Republicans, I can tell you that supporting Hillary or Jeb Bush is a bad idea. 

America's best hope for improvement rides on our support of familial dynasties!

 

17th century England was AWESOME. Let's do it again, America!

[USMCTwin]

 

Yeah that is my problem with the whole thing, it seems like a large number of those people who are "pro life" are also against any sort of welfare whatsoever, which most of the time helps poor families, single mother families, families with disabilities etc

People have no problem fighting for the rights of people, but the minute any money gets involved people say "hey, its not my problem! You shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford them!"

 

As someone who is pro-life and a Christian, I think the answer is simple. The church is failing. I believe it not to be the responsibility of the government to take care of these people, but the church and people inside the church, more specifically. Pro-life is my passion. I don't really mean the walks for life or trying to get out awareness, but the actual organizations that reach out to single mothers and care for the orphans. If the church did a better job in taking care of the widows, the single mothers, and the orphans the need for government assistance would be substantially less. 

 

My favorite charity in Kansas City (where I live) is The Lighthouse. It takes in mothers who otherwise may have felt it necessary to have an abortion and gives them a place to live for a while with a nursery for their baby when it comes. They provide a store with donated, deeply discounted goods that they can earn credits used to purchase things by attending classes that are career, counseling, and spiritual related. These type of charities pump me up and get me re-energized, but I fear we, as a church, do not fund them properly be it through donations of time or money. It's easy in any facet of life to take a stance or rather say you stand for something, but when push comes to shove, we oftentimes fail to act to solve the problem and unfortunately the church/people in the church are not immune to this.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

While I agree that we must always consider individual liberty, this transcends the rights of the individual and the repercussions must be considered. By refusing to vaccinate their kid, a parent is risking the health of another child who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. That is a real thing. It exists. It's not uncommon.

 

While I'm not a fan of forcing vaccination, I think schools refusing to admit non-vaccinated kids is a reasonable solution. The school should make a decision in the interest of all its students, especially when the unvaccinated kid's parents made a reckless and selfish decision based on misinformation.

 

I'm sorry, it doesn't.  The problem you have is that there are plenty of vaccinations being required that aren't.  Chicken pox is a real good example.  I've had it.  You've probably had it.  It's not dangerous, except in adults which is really just shingles and not typically deadly either, just very unpleasant.  As an adult, go ahead and get the vaccine by choice, but force on a child that doesn't need it?  Not to mention that there are side effects here, ones which the pharmaceutical industry also profits off of.  This policy opens a door, and one where a lot of non-necessary vaccines with very real side effects get forced on people with the real purpose of making a buck... all in the name of the greater good. In the mean time you have entire groups of people who have chosen not to do any vaccines such as the Amish. I suppose they just need to be wiped off the face of the earth as Dave has suggested, yet at the same time, their children aren't being ravished by these diseases. 

 

To be clear, I'm not anti-vaccine.  I am, however, rather pragmatic about assuming unnecessary risk.  I've vaccinated my children against polio, mmr, etc.  But at the end of the day, I shouldn't have to fight society over something like chickenpox or other non-essential vaccines.  It's a choice that me and my doctor need to make.  No one else. 

[DaveW]

150 people die each year from chicken pox with another 13,000 who are hospitalized. Seems like a vaccine isn't a terrible idea. (And this doesn't even get into scaring etc)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

To be clear, I'm not anti-vaccine.  I am, however, rather pragmatic about assuming unnecessary risk.  I've vaccinated my children against polio, mmr, etc.  But at the end of the day, I shouldn't have to fight society over something like chickenpox or other non-essential vaccines.  It's a choice that me and my doctor need to make.  No one else. 

While I don't agree with your opinion here, it's a reasonable counterpoint. Non-essential vaccines aren't at the core of my argument, though. I'm far more concerned with the return of previously eradicated diseases that can cause serious damage to us as a society.

 

If anti-vaxxers were protesting the chicken pox vaccine, they'd catch far less flak for it... But that isn't reality. There's a loud segment of parents that are refusing to vaccinate their children against anything and the overwhelming reasons for their decision are based in bad science that has been debunked a multitude of times. That's reckless, misguided, and when you get right down to it, stupid. They're not only putting their own children at risk, they're putting other children at risk in the process.

 

Again, I'm not advocating compulsory vaccination. I merely wish people were less idiotic about their decisions.

[Squirrel]

 

I'm sorry, it doesn't.  The problem you have is that there are plenty of vaccinations being required that aren't.  Chicken pox is a real good example.  I've had it.  You've probably had it.  It's not dangerous, except in adults which is really just shingles and not typically deadly either, just very unpleasant.  As an adult, go ahead and get the vaccine by choice, but force on a child that doesn't need it?  Not to mention that there are side effects here, ones which the pharmaceutical industry also profits off of.  This policy opens a door, and one where a lot of non-necessary vaccines with very real side effects get forced on people with the real purpose of making a buck... all in the name of the greater good. In the mean time you have entire groups of people who have chosen not to do any vaccines such as the Amish. I suppose they just need to be wiped off the face of the earth as Dave has suggested, yet at the same time, their children aren't being ravished by these diseases. 

 

To be clear, I'm not anti-vaccine.  I am, however, rather pragmatic about assuming unnecessary risk.  I've vaccinated my children against polio, mmr, etc.  But at the end of the day, I shouldn't have to fight society over something like chickenpox or other non-essential vaccines.  It's a choice that me and my doctor need to make.  No one else. 

Actually, you are way off about shingles. It's PAINFUL for many people, and worse if you are older, even deadly. And it can stay with you for months after the rash has healed. Months. I still feel it in my back from time to time. And shingles can reoccur, and there is no real rhyme or reason why or when. If you've never had chicken pox, you won't get shingles. But once you've had chicken pox, that virus stays with you and settles into your spinal chord and lies dormant, until it flares as shingles. And the vaccine for shingles is VERY expensive which is why insurance companies don't 'recommend' it until 60 and over, even though the vaccine is approved for 50 and older.

 

And a person with shingles is very contagious to anyone who has not had chicken pox nor the vaccine for it.

[jimmer]

 

Actually, you are way off about shingles. It's PAINFUL for many people, and worse if you are older, even deadly. And it can stay with you for months after the rash has healed. Months. I still feel it in my back from time to time. And shingles can reoccur, and there is no real rhyme or reason why or when. If you've never had chicken pox, you won't get shingles. But once you've had chicken pox, that virus stays with you and settles into your spinal chord and lies dormant, until it flares as shingles. And the vaccine for shingles is VERY expensive which is why insurance companies don't 'recommend' it until 60 and over, even though the vaccine is approved for 50 and older.

 

And a person with shingles is very contagious to anyone who has not had chicken pox nor the vaccine for it.

This.  My Mom just went through this at 74 years old.

[Willihammer]

Yeah my grandma has shingles and it ****ing sucks.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if we could just eradicate shingles?

[formerly33]

 

150 people die each year from chicken pox with another 13,000 who are hospitalized. Seems like a vaccine isn't a terrible idea. (And this doesn't even get into scaring etc)

I'll be impressed when you say how many of those 150/13,000 people were vaccinated.

 

But that is irrelevant to what my views are. I am very, very supportive of vaccinations. You're right, people who are against them are not smart (though I wouldn't say they're the stupidest people on the planet because that would give people every reason to wonder exactly how smart I am).

 

While I do think that compulsory flu vaccines would be unreasonable (I don't get them because all they do is give you a small enough dose of the flu to immunize you while not getting sick IF you don't get exposed to it elsewhere), I agree pretty much 100% with what Brock said in #246. Vaccinations are a necessity of life. Either that or disease. And in my opinion, it isn't for the small percentage of wackos in this nation to decide whether the people as a whole choose disease over vaccinations.

 

I have been vaccinated against chicken pox, and I never had it either. I am about the only person I know who hasn't had it, yet I am by no means the only person I know who has had the vaccination. Obviously vaccinations don't always work (this is what anti-vaxxers love to say), yet by and large, they are a good thing.

 

Especially when you think of all the diseases that have been near exterminated because of them.

 

And by the way, don't get mad at me for not getting the flu vax. I rarely get sick for one thing, and when I do, it's as often as not from people who had the vaccination but got sick anyway. Those people, however, rudely thought they had to keep going ... or, if their kids stayed home from school, brought them to the store, etc. Big help that does. But I believe it is my duty, vaccinated or not, to be considerate and stay home when I'm sick. It's everyone else's duty, too, but from what I've observed, hardly anybody cares.

[TheLeviathan]

I wish I could take time off when I'm sick. Sometimes that is easier said than done.

[Squirrel]

Yeah my grandma has shingles and it ****ing sucks.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if we could just eradicate shingles?

Getting the chicken pox vaccine does lower your risk of getting shingles, but doesn't eliminate getting it

[biggentleben]

 

I wish I could take time off when I'm sick. Sometimes that is easier said than done.

 

Seriously, I think my wife works harder on a day when she's staying home sick than on the days when she just goes into the school. She will call for a sub at 6am, go to the school and put together the entire day for the sub before the kids show up at 8ish, and then she often gets a call or two (usually waking her up from needed recovery/healing sleep) from her sub for the day asking for clarification on her instructions.  Not exactly how you rest and recover from whatever is ailing you.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Seriously, I think my wife works harder on a day when she's staying home sick than on the days when she just goes into the school. She will call for a sub at 6am, go to the school and put together the entire day for the sub before the kids show up at 8ish, and then she often gets a call or two (usually waking her up from needed recovery/healing sleep) from her sub for the day asking for clarification on her instructions.  Not exactly how you rest and recover from whatever is ailing you.

 

I literally have to write down everything I do during a school day for a sub.  To do it right takes about 2-3 hours - which is super fun to do when you're sick.  (Even better at 4am or whenever it is you realize you can't make it)

 

It's FAR easier for me to DayQuil myself into functionality than sub plan.

[Willihammer]

 

I literally have to write down everything I do during a school day for a sub.  To do it right takes about 2-3 hours - which is super fun to do when you're sick.  (Even better at 4am or whenever it is you realize you can't make it)

 

It's FAR easier for me to DayQuil myself into functionality than sub plan.

Really? Wow. Its hard for me to imagine a worse place to go when sick than a freaking school. Maybe the Subway, or an airport.

 

Doesn't it bother you to think that, if you infect even one person, and they in turn infect more, exponentially, that somewhere down the line there could be a serious, potentially deadly consequence? Or am I just a hypochondriac?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Really? Wow. Its hard for me to imagine a worse place to go when sick than a freaking school. Maybe the Subway, or an airport.

 

Doesn't it bother you to think that, if you infect even one person, and they in turn infect more, exponentially, that somewhere down the line there could be a serious, potentially deadly consequence? Or am I just a hypochondriac?

 

I worry about it (not as much as you...) but reality starts to set in too.  I would love to stay home and sleep and keep my sickness to myself, but 3 hours of sub planning often makes the choice really easy.

 

I'm sure being a primary teacher makes this harder, since I know high school and middle school teachers have it way easier on this front.

[biggentleben]

 

I worry about it (not as much as you...) but reality starts to set in too.  I would love to stay home and sleep and keep my sickness to myself, but 3 hours of sub planning often makes the choice really easy.

 

I'm sure being a primary teacher makes this harder, since I know high school and middle school teachers have it way easier on this front.

 

Depends on where you are. My wife is a middle school teacher...

[TheLeviathan]

Depends on where you are. My wife is a middle school teacher...

Well there you go, we all have it crappy for taking time off!

[stringer bell]

I'm not a moderator, but IMHO this thread has veered quite a ways from the origin. It looks to me like the consensus here is more libertarian than anything. I find very little to like in the Republican platform and hearing guys like Ted Cruz speak make me fear for the future of the country. The hard-right base is far overrepresented in Congress and in Republican primaries and until they can break that grip, the party will be too out of touch with the voting public to win national elections.

[TheLeviathan]

Here in the sports bar, just like in real life, topics and conversation can veer wherever they want.

 

I sincerely hope no moderator ever touches a thread like this for being "off topic".  We need more places on this forum just to let a conversation go whichever way it goes.

[mikecgrimes]

3 pages of abortion talk is a bit much, unless the thread is about abortion.  It would be like having 3 pages of David Ortiz debate in the middle of a Sano thread.

[Craig Arko]

3 pages of abortion talk is a bit much, unless the thread is about abortion.  It would be like having 3 pages of David Ortiz debate in the middle of a Sano thread.

The thread is about elections. On a good day, elections are about issues, rather than rhetoric. There's room for good days as well as bad days.

[biggentleben]

 

The thread is about elections. On a good day, elections are about issues, rather than rhetoric. There's room for good days as well as bad days.

 

...and whether it should be or not, abortion has become a significant piece in the election decisions of many Americans. More than that, it's become a key point on any national (and nearly all state-level) candidate platforms, so I think discussion and debate on a key issue for elections is more than appropriate in an election thread.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If a conversation changes organically, we do not interfere. Conversations can veer in any direction they like, provided that change is conversation-driven, not troll-driven.

[TheLeviathan]

Organic was exactly the word I thought of ten minutes after my first response.  Great word.

 

Politics and things of this nature should have an organic nature, it's the best, most informative, and most enjoyable kind of dialogue.

[diehardtwinsfan]

yeah, pretty hard not to talk about political issues in a Presidential thread. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

As if on cue, the first measles death in over a decade was just reported.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/02/measles-death-washington-state/29624385/

[Brock Beauchamp]

Organic was exactly the word I thought of ten minutes after my first response. Great word.

 

Politics and things of this nature should have an organic nature, it's the best, most informative, and most enjoyable kind of dialogue.

Absolutely. This has been a great thread and the disagreement over nuance is what made it great.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As if on cue, the first measles death in over a decade was just reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/02/measles-death-washington-state/29624385/

 

Yeah, but Jim Carrey disagrees.

 

So there.

[mikecgrimes]

 

The thread is about elections. On a good day, elections are about issues, rather than rhetoric. There's room for good days as well as bad days.

 

Clearly issues play a role in developing peoples politics and voting patters.  I just think elections come down to politics over stances on issues.  Just look at Hillary on marriage, she has been very clear on the issue holding the "republican" stance every step of the way until 3 or 4 years ago, and only becoming vocal about her "support" in the last few months.  On the other hand every republican candidate has at least at times told me exactly what I want to hear on taxes and spending.  In practice they all are closer to Democrats then to delivering anything resembling a change in the direction I'd like.  Look at an issue like minimum wage Democrats argue a higher minimum wage would be good and yet despite talking a good game they refuse to raise it beyond inflation.  They will boldly take credit for raising it to $12 an hour, but they won't tell you that won't go into effect for 3 or 4 years, or that there are a lot of exceptions.  Unless the voters make radical changes in voting habits the issues have been decided.

 

I get the abortion debate, I have a strong stance, but if anything issues like that block any meaningful change from being discussed, exactly as the establishment politicians want it.