Author Topic: USA Politics (redux)  (Read 135692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3080 on: October 26, 2021, 07:08:49 AM »
No, I haven't.

The US as a third World country is a special case and people tend to mistake it as a First World country for this reason, even I did up until recently after having seen how "hopeless" country we are talking about. The US is TOTALLY different third World country than say Ethiopia. The latter is a very poor country while the US is the richest country in the World, but intellectually bankrupt as a society. What happened on January 6th doesn't happen in first World countries. In Alabama many don't have proper sewage systems and due to that have worms (luckily there is ivermectin for that  ;D ). People don't have worms in first World countries. In first World countries the quality of tap water is strictly regulated. This is not the case in many places in the US, but to be fair, Mexico has even worse tap water quality as far as I know. Last winter Texas suffered massive power shortages, because of the lack of regulation. That's not maybe as bad as electrity in Ethiopia, but is certainly isn't first World level either. The US is a third World country because it operates under corporate rule. There is two kinds of poverty: Absolute poverty and relative poverty. The US has a huge relative poverty problem.

Having the agitprop in boldface is helpful.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline Herman

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2814
  • there's something wrong with my brain
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3081 on: October 26, 2021, 07:52:20 AM »
Why is Florida ironic?

For being the utter bottom of the barrel.

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3082 on: October 26, 2021, 08:43:26 AM »
Opinion: Here’s a little-noticed reason the Virginia race is such a big deal

Greg Sargent

Columnist Yesterday at 4:49 p.m. EDT

It’s widely known that the Virginia gubernatorial race will offer clues on what the 2022 midterm elections might look like. If Democrats win, they might campaign aggressively on vaccine and mask requirements. If Republicans win, they’ll see that demagoguing on critical race theory and feeding former president Donald Trump’s lies about 2020 energize the base with no serious cost among swing voters.

But there’s a less obvious way the Virginia outcome could help shape future campaigns. A Democratic victory might show that another issue has unexpected political potential: Paid leave.

To an underappreciated degree, Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s candidacy has put paid leave in the foreground. McAuliffe, who served as governor from 2014 to 2018, has pledged to institute statewide paid sick, family and medical leave if elected, vowing to make Virginia the “first Southern state” to do so.

Numerous ads from the McAuliffe campaign have placed paid leave front and center. One ad casts passing a new paid-leave measure as pivotal to ensuring that “everyone is treated with dignity and respect.”

Another ad says this is central to making sure that “quality, affordable health care” is a “basic human right.” These ads place paid leave on a par with other longtime Democratic priorities that have been go-to issues in campaigns — such as curbing prescription drug prices and expanding access to baseline health care.

Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist in Virginia who also consults for a paid-leave advocacy group, points out that Democrats have not previously highlighted the issue to this degree during gubernatorial campaigns.

“Paid leave was not a central part of the campaign message in the Virginia gubernatorial elections in 2017 or 2013,” Leopold told me, adding that McAuliffe is “blazing a new path” on the issue.

“If McAuliffe succeeds, you’ll see other Democratic candidates for governor run on a paid leave agenda in the midterms in 2022,” Leopold said.

This matters for many reasons. First, as Democrats in Washington negotiate the Build Back Better reconciliation bill, it looks as though the plan’s paid sick, family and medical leave provisions may be downsized dramatically — from 12 weeks to four weeks — to meet centrists’ demands for lower spending.

This means that future action on the state and federal level will be even more necessary. After all, as Jordan Weissmann points out, if the proposal shrinks, it will be badly insufficient: We’ll still be an outlier relative to other wealthy developed nations, and it would not meet the needs of Americans, judging by the unpaid leave they tend to take.

Underscoring the point, right now only nine states have some form of paid family or medical leave, according to Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If the proposal is chopped down, and Republicans take one or both chambers of Congress in the 2022 midterms, states might be the only near-term option for improving the situation.

“If they cut it down, then there will be more need in the states to fill in the gaps,” Romig told me.

With major 2022 gubernatorial contests looming in swing states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, a McAuliffe victory might embolden Democrats to press the issue forward in those states as well. It might also give Democrats a good issue in the congressional elections, and (if they manage to hold Congress) more impetus to expand the program on the federal level in coming years.

Beyond all this, if paid leave is seen as a potent issue, it may demonstrate that the deep injustices in our economy exposed by the covid-19 pandemic have created new political possibilities. Another McAuliffe ad speaks to exactly this point: It casts paid leave as essential to whether Virginia can “build a post-covid economy,” an idea that obviously could not be given voice in previous elections.

And so, even if the compromises needed to pass the Build Back Better package leave us as an outlier relative to other developed nations on this issue, a McAuliffe victory might underscore that the political will is taking shape to change this. Needless to say, a Democratic loss will likely make progress even harder.

All of which is yet another reminder: Virginia Democrats need to take this race seriously.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3083 on: October 26, 2021, 01:43:24 PM »
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline 71 dB

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9549
  • I'm not insensitive. I'm an INTJ/P.
    • Soundcloud
  • Location: Helsinki, Finland
  • Currently Listening to:
    I am revisiting my CD collection.
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3084 on: October 26, 2021, 02:14:46 PM »
Having the agitprop in boldface is helpful.

The boldface part is stating the fact. I made it boldface to highlight it is the sentence that contains the essense of my post.

For being the utter bottom of the barrel.

Bottom of the barrel or not, I had awesome time in Florida back in 1982.  8)
Whatever problems they had over there in 1982, I was well insulated and ignorant of it all.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW track "Jazzz"

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3085 on: October 26, 2021, 02:17:08 PM »
The boldface part is stating the fact.

You still do not understand the difference between fact and assertion. Doesn't reflect well on your education.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3086 on: October 26, 2021, 02:24:58 PM »
Opinion: Pity the billionaire, so sensitive and oppressed

By Paul Waldman
Columnist
Today at 1:10 p.m. EDT

In a search for revenue to fund their social infrastructure bill, Democrats are considering a special tax on billionaires. And Republicans, for whom no principle is more sacred than the idea that the wealthy should pay as little in taxes as possible, are aghast.

This particular tax may not be the best of all approaches; it may be included mainly because Democrats could get centrist senators to agree to it. But the reaction from Republicans requires us to remind ourselves of how much of our debate on taxes revolves around absurd myths that have been disproved again and again.

It’s as though every time an automobile manufacturer debuts a new model we have to spend weeks debating whether the human body will burst into flames if accelerated past 50 miles per hour.

The new proposal would apply only to billionaires or those who earn more than $100 million in income three years in a row, a tiny sliver of the wealthiest Americans. It would require them to pay taxes on the increased value of assets such as stocks, regardless of whether they sold the asset that year. As the system works now, people pay taxes on those assets only when they sell them.

Because this proposal is on the table, we are now required to ruminate on the delicate psychology of the afflicted billionaire, who in Republicans’ telling is always moments away from liquidating his assets and decamping to a mountaintop ashram in despair. We must tiptoe around his sensitive emotions with the utmost care, lest he deprive us of his miraculous job-creating powers.

For instance, here’s Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on Fox News:

It’s not a good idea to tell billionaires, “Don’t come to America. Don’t start your business here.” To tell the Steve Jobs and the Bill Gates and people like that, “This isn’t the place to begin your business. Go somewhere else.” That’s a bad idea. But number two, you’re going to tax people not when they sell something, but just when they own it and the value goes up. And what that means is that people who are multibillionaires are going to look and say, “I don’t want to invest in the stock market, because as that goes up I’m going to get taxed. So maybe I will instead invest in a ranch, or in paintings, or things that don’t build jobs and create a stronger economy.”

Though Romney knows many more billionaires than you or I do, his description of their thinking strains logic, to say the least. Jobs and Gates weren’t billionaires who decided to come to America to found Apple and Microsoft because of our low taxes on the rich. They were Americans who became billionaires from the companies they founded here in America.

And the idea that billionaires would suddenly decide to forget about the stock market and turn exclusively to acquiring ranches and paintings because their stock gains will be taxed is ludicrous. We’re supposed to believe that Elon Musk, whose net worth now approaches $300 billion from his stock in Tesla, will tell his board of directors, “If I have to pay more in taxes, then I’m done with stocks. From now on, I want you to pay me in ranches.”

We hear these arguments from Republicans every time a tax increase on the wealthy is proposed: There will be a billionaires’ strike, and the entire economy will collapse. We heard it when Bill Clinton signed a tax hike on them, and when Barack Obama did. Yet there was no mass exodus of the wealthy either time. Why, for instance, has Romney himself not taken his millions and moved to Paraguay, where taxes are quite low? Because he likes it here, and paying a bit more doesn’t affect his lifestyle one iota.

It’s like a 5-year-old threatening to hold his breath until he dies. It’s just not a threat you need to take seriously.

The idea underlying these preposterous assertions is that the wealthy are spectacularly sensitive to even the smallest changes in their tax bills, and will radically alter everything about their lives — the country where they make their home, the way their businesses are constructed — to avoid paying even a penny more.

But there is precisely zero evidence to suggest that’s true. Like almost everything Republicans say about taxes, it’s essentially a religious belief, one that’s immune to refutation by the facts.

What do the superwealthy actually do when faced with a tax increase? They use armies of accountants and tax lawyers to pay as little of that increase as possible (according to the White House, billionaires pay an average of just 8.2 percent in federal income taxes). They don’t leave the country or shut down their businesses.

And of course, there’s a flip side to the Republican argument about the sensitivity of billionaires to tax changes: If we cut their taxes, the billionaire class will erupt like a volcano of prosperity, showering so much new wealth upon us that it will usher in an age of human flourishing unknown in the annals of history.

That doesn’t happen, either. It didn’t happen when Donald Trump signed a big tax cut, or when George W. Bush did. Yet the next time Republicans control Washington, they’ll say it again as they pass yet another cut for the wealthy.

Experience has told us that the Republican arguments about how the superwealthy react to tax changes are just a fantasy. So how about we ask better questions about proposals such as this one: How much revenue would this raise? Will it be difficult to administer? How can it be designed to make cheating harder? Would it make our system more fair? How does it compare with alternatives?

If we consider those questions, we may decide there are better ways to accomplish our goals than this billionaires’ tax. But it shouldn’t be because we’re worried that billionaires, whiny though they might be, will actually do what they always threaten.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline 71 dB

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9549
  • I'm not insensitive. I'm an INTJ/P.
    • Soundcloud
  • Location: Helsinki, Finland
  • Currently Listening to:
    I am revisiting my CD collection.
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3087 on: October 26, 2021, 03:20:46 PM »
You still do not understand the difference between fact and assertion. Doesn't reflect well on your education.

Are you suggesting that it is only possible to make assertions about under what kind of rule a country is?

North Korea being ruled under dictatorship is only an assertion, not a fact?
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW track "Jazzz"

Offline Fëanor

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1302
  • Shostie fan
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3088 on: October 26, 2021, 03:53:16 PM »
Opinion: Pity the billionaire, so sensitive and oppressed

By Paul Waldman
Columnist
Today at 1:10 p.m. EDT

In a search for revenue to fund their social infrastructure bill, Democrats are considering a special tax on billionaires. And Republicans, for whom no principle is more sacred than the idea that the wealthy should pay as little in taxes as possible, are aghast.

This particular tax may not be the best of all approaches; it may be included mainly because Democrats could get centrist senators to agree to it. But the reaction from Republicans requires us to remind ourselves of how much of our debate on taxes revolves around absurd myths that have been disproved again and again.

It’s as though every time an automobile manufacturer debuts a new model we have to spend weeks debating whether the human body will burst into flames if accelerated past 50 miles per hour.

The new proposal would apply only to billionaires or those who earn more than $100 million in income three years in a row, a tiny sliver of the wealthiest Americans. It would require them to pay taxes on the increased value of assets such as stocks, regardless of whether they sold the asset that year. As the system works now, people pay taxes on those assets only when they sell them.

Because this proposal is on the table, we are now required to ruminate on the delicate psychology of the afflicted billionaire, who in Republicans’ telling is always moments away from liquidating his assets and decamping to a mountaintop ashram in despair. We must tiptoe around his sensitive emotions with the utmost care, lest he deprive us of his miraculous job-creating powers.

For instance, here’s Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on Fox News:

It’s not a good idea to tell billionaires, “Don’t come to America. Don’t start your business here.” To tell the Steve Jobs and the Bill Gates and people like that, “This isn’t the place to begin your business. Go somewhere else.” That’s a bad idea. But number two, you’re going to tax people not when they sell something, but just when they own it and the value goes up. And what that means is that people who are multibillionaires are going to look and say, “I don’t want to invest in the stock market, because as that goes up I’m going to get taxed. So maybe I will instead invest in a ranch, or in paintings, or things that don’t build jobs and create a stronger economy.”

Though Romney knows many more billionaires than you or I do, his description of their thinking strains logic, to say the least. Jobs and Gates weren’t billionaires who decided to come to America to found Apple and Microsoft because of our low taxes on the rich. They were Americans who became billionaires from the companies they founded here in America.

And the idea that billionaires would suddenly decide to forget about the stock market and turn exclusively to acquiring ranches and paintings because their stock gains will be taxed is ludicrous. We’re supposed to believe that Elon Musk, whose net worth now approaches $300 billion from his stock in Tesla, will tell his board of directors, “If I have to pay more in taxes, then I’m done with stocks. From now on, I want you to pay me in ranches.”

We hear these arguments from Republicans every time a tax increase on the wealthy is proposed: There will be a billionaires’ strike, and the entire economy will collapse. We heard it when Bill Clinton signed a tax hike on them, and when Barack Obama did. Yet there was no mass exodus of the wealthy either time. Why, for instance, has Romney himself not taken his millions and moved to Paraguay, where taxes are quite low? Because he likes it here, and paying a bit more doesn’t affect his lifestyle one iota.

It’s like a 5-year-old threatening to hold his breath until he dies. It’s just not a threat you need to take seriously.

The idea underlying these preposterous assertions is that the wealthy are spectacularly sensitive to even the smallest changes in their tax bills, and will radically alter everything about their lives — the country where they make their home, the way their businesses are constructed — to avoid paying even a penny more.

But there is precisely zero evidence to suggest that’s true. Like almost everything Republicans say about taxes, it’s essentially a religious belief, one that’s immune to refutation by the facts.

What do the superwealthy actually do when faced with a tax increase? They use armies of accountants and tax lawyers to pay as little of that increase as possible (according to the White House, billionaires pay an average of just 8.2 percent in federal income taxes). They don’t leave the country or shut down their businesses.

And of course, there’s a flip side to the Republican argument about the sensitivity of billionaires to tax changes: If we cut their taxes, the billionaire class will erupt like a volcano of prosperity, showering so much new wealth upon us that it will usher in an age of human flourishing unknown in the annals of history.

That doesn’t happen, either. It didn’t happen when Donald Trump signed a big tax cut, or when George W. Bush did. Yet the next time Republicans control Washington, they’ll say it again as they pass yet another cut for the wealthy.

Experience has told us that the Republican arguments about how the superwealthy react to tax changes are just a fantasy. So how about we ask better questions about proposals such as this one: How much revenue would this raise? Will it be difficult to administer? How can it be designed to make cheating harder? Would it make our system more fair? How does it compare with alternatives?

If we consider those questions, we may decide there are better ways to accomplish our goals than this billionaires’ tax. But it shouldn’t be because we’re worried that billionaires, whiny though they might be, will actually do what they always threaten.

Supply-side, "Bribe the Rich" policies haven't worked for the last 40 years, they aren't going to work now.

Offline greg

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1629
  • Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3089 on: October 26, 2021, 09:18:17 PM »
For being the utter bottom of the barrel.
Lol taking the Florida man stereotypes seriously?
Seems if it were so bad, so many people wouldn't be going there every winter and/or retiring. There's far more states that could be a better contender for bottom of the barrel. It's just a chill, old people retirement state.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Offline 71 dB

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9549
  • I'm not insensitive. I'm an INTJ/P.
    • Soundcloud
  • Location: Helsinki, Finland
  • Currently Listening to:
    I am revisiting my CD collection.
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3090 on: October 27, 2021, 02:36:39 AM »
Lol taking the Florida man stereotypes seriously?
Seems if it were so bad, so many people wouldn't be going there every winter and/or retiring. There's far more states that could be a better contender for bottom of the barrel. It's just a chill, old people retirement state.

Alabama is probably the worst State of all. Florida's problem is the proximity of Cuba, which means a lot of Cubans live there and vote for Republicans because they fear Dems are communists, ignorant as they are (fact, not racism. Whites are also ignorant. When it come to Cuba, I defend that place more than most, for example bringing up often their effective healthcare system and lunch cancer drugs. Cuba has the highest Covid vaccination rate in all of America and one of the highest in the World so Cuba does heathcare miraculously well for a poor communist country.). So Floridans have morons like Ronald Dion DeSantis running their State.  :P
« Last Edit: October 27, 2021, 02:38:26 AM by 71 dB »
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW track "Jazzz"

Offline ritter

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 7418
  • Raoul Dufy, "Tragédie, Comédie"
  • Location: La Villa y Corte
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3091 on: October 27, 2021, 02:56:57 AM »
For heaven's sake!

Are you not embarrassed to pontifícate from your high Finnish tower, and call everyone left, right and centre ignorant? Your trip to Florida when you were eleven does not make you an expert on the place, and you clearly don't have the foggiest idea what life conditions in Cuba are.
ritter
-------------------------------------------------------------
« Je me suis rarement perdu de vue ; je me suis détesté, je me suis adoré ; puis, nous avons vieilli ensemble. »

Offline 71 dB

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9549
  • I'm not insensitive. I'm an INTJ/P.
    • Soundcloud
  • Location: Helsinki, Finland
  • Currently Listening to:
    I am revisiting my CD collection.
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3092 on: October 27, 2021, 03:04:52 AM »
For heaven's sake!

Are you not embarrassed to pontifícate from your high Finnish tower, and call everyone left, right and centre ignorant? Your trip to Florida when you were eleven does not make you an expert on the place, and you clearly don't have the foggiest idea what life conditions in Cuba are.

What kind of expertise have I claimed? I have said nothing about the living conditions in Cuba. I said they have effective healthcare system (Google it if you don't believe) and Cuba is known for their lunch cancer treatment (Google if needed). Their Covid vaccination rate is very high (Google if you need). I have not claimed to have expertise because I visited Florida in 1982. I have said I was young and ignorant of politics at that age. If I understand and know anything about the US politics is BECAUSE I have followed it intensively for the last 5 years. I had great time in Florida in 1982. I did. That's not claiming any expertise of the place. If anything it is claiming expertise of my own experiencies and that's something I think I can claim, can't I?
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW track "Jazzz"

Online SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3093 on: October 27, 2021, 06:30:14 AM »
For any Michael Moore devotees we may have here:

Healthy in Cuba, Sick in America?
Moore defends his film "Sicko" and the virtues of socialized medicine.


[...]""This isn't just me saying this, you know. All the world health organizations or whatever have confirmed that if there's one thing they do right in Cuba, it's health care," Moore said. "And there's very little debate about that."

In fact, there is plenty of debate. Miami-based Cuban Human Rights activist Jose Carro says Moore's movie paints an inaccurate picture.

"These films that try to portray the health care system as superior to that of the U.S. are lacking in truth," Carro said. He asserts that most hospitals for Cuban citizens are dilapidated, that conditions are filthy and that patients are so neglected that some are starving.

George Utset, who runs the anti-Castro Web site called therealcuba.com, says Moore's group didn't "go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to the hospital for the elite and it's [a] very different condition."

Darsi Ferrer, a human rights advocate in Cuba, issued an SOS via telephone, wanting the world to know that ordinary Cubans are "crazy with desperation" over the horrendous state of their health care.

Moore says that because Cubans get such good health care, they live longer and it is true that a U.N. report claims that they live nearly two months longer. But the United Nations didn't gather any data, said Carro.

"The United Nations simply reports whatever the government in Cuba reports, so that we have no objective way to know what the real statistics are," he said.

Although Cuba claims to have low infant mortality rates, doctors have said the data is misleading because when there might be indications of problems with the fetus, there is a widespread practice of forced abortions.

Julio Alfonso said, "We personally used to do 70 to 80 abortions a day." Yanet Sanchez, a Cuban exile, said she was simply told to submit to an abortion. "They told me I should end the pregnancy," said Sanchez. "It was my very first pregnancy. I wanted to have the child."

Other doctors have said that if a child dies a few hours after birth, they don't count it as ever having lived, which ultimately makes infant mortality in Cuba look better than that of the United States.

"It changes the number, even though the same number of children may be dying or more," said Carro.

Moore disagrees. "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said.

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.

Why believe anything the Cuban government says about Cuba? Moore said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain and this stuff because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the, the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things, and I'll give you my answer."

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3094 on: October 27, 2021, 07:26:32 AM »
For heaven's sake!

Are you not embarrassed to pontifícate from your high Finnish tower, and call everyone left, right and centre ignorant? Your trip to Florida when you were eleven does not make you an expert on the place, and you clearly don't have the foggiest idea what life conditions in Cuba are.


Gosh, it didn't take long for "if you disagree with me, you're ignorant or you're an idiot" to come back. No, I don't expect he has learnt to be embarrassed at all, by doing so.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline Spotted Horses

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 442
  • Formerly Baron Scarpia
  • Location: Texas, USA
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3095 on: October 27, 2021, 07:36:22 AM »
Alabama is probably the worst State of all. Florida's problem is the proximity of Cuba, which means a lot of Cubans live there and vote for Republicans because they fear Dems are communists, ignorant as they are (fact, not racism. Whites are also ignorant. When it come to Cuba, I defend that place more than most, for example bringing up often their effective healthcare system and lunch cancer drugs. Cuba has the highest Covid vaccination rate in all of America and one of the highest in the World so Cuba does heathcare miraculously well for a poor communist country.). So Floridans have morons like Ronald Dion DeSantis running their State.  :P

Your condescension towards Cubans is disturbing. They are "Florida's problem" because they are "ignorant" and vote Republican. Maybe you can accept that they are people who's political inclinations are colored by their past experience, under a brutal "socialist" dictatorship they they had to take desperate measures to escape. That Democrats have failed to attract Cubans is a failure of the Democratic Party.

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3096 on: October 27, 2021, 08:23:49 AM »
...ignorant as they are (fact, not racism.

Rhetorical q.: Why is it worth pointing out again that you have no grasp of the distinction between assertion and fact? Because it is an indicator that you are incapable of reliably processing your YouTube intake.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Offline Fëanor

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1302
  • Shostie fan
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3097 on: October 27, 2021, 08:26:13 AM »
For any Michael Moore devotees we may have here:

Healthy in Cuba, Sick in America?
Moore defends his film "Sicko" and the virtues of socialized medicine.

...

Why believe anything the Cuban government says about Cuba? Moore said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain and this stuff because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the, the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things, and I'll give you my answer."

Indeed, it you're going to criticize Moore's film, find the find the errors or hyperbole regarding Canada or Britain.  There there is no serious question of Canadian or British authorities deliberately lying to Moore or anyone.

OTOH, from my communications with American conservatives, I glean that they are subject to a great deal of disingenuous nonsense  the Canadian system in particular coming from the usual sort of unreliable sources.

Offline greg

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1629
  • Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3098 on: October 27, 2021, 09:47:09 AM »
Alabama is probably the worst State of all.
That's exactly the main state I was thinking of. A few other southern states as well. But also some of the northeastern states and California could be miserable places to live in if you are poor/working at a minimum wage job. Seems like you'd have to work 60+ hours a week just to survive in a shared apartment.  :-X

(disclaimer: never been to Alabama lol)

I'm finding Texas to be pretty good, home prices are low enough to where I should be able to move into a house next year- many other states in the US, it would be not affordable at all (despite having an income higher than average and no kids or debt). (and have been living in a two-bedroom apartment for over 2 years alone- rent is affordable here!). That seems to be why people are moving here a lot, too.


Florida's problem is the proximity of Cuba, which means a lot of Cubans live there and vote for Republicans because they fear Dems are communists
Seems to be natural human behavior, wanting to get as far away as possible from what caused them psychological distress. A similar thing with that one lady who escaped from North Korea and got big on youtube recently- she kinda goes hardcore on the freedom message.
This type of irrational fear plays into the psychology of the woke crowd as well- won't go further into that, but sure you know what I mean.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 61513
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, D. Scarlattii, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Martinů, Haydn, Henning
Re: USA Politics (redux)
« Reply #3099 on: October 27, 2021, 10:12:29 AM »
A good point at which to interject this:

Political Speech for Human Dingleberries Has Never Been More Robust

Never in the history of the world have more human dingleberries had larger platforms to spew deranged nonsense about politics than they do right now, at this moment. We are in a golden age for fools with political views outside the mainstream.

If you bookmark this page and come back to it in a week, or a month, or a year, the dingleberry maxim will be as true then as it is today. There seems to be a Moore’s Law for the dispersion of idiotic content and no matter what the cEnSorS do to slow it down, the takes transistors still find a way to double capacity every year.

The breadth and depth of this speech is so vast that someone who hasn’t engrossed themselves in internet political culture might have no idea of its reach. If you are over the age of 35, there are people on YouTube and Twitch and TikTok that you have never heard of who have significantly larger audiences for their radical political ravings than the most preeminent policy journals had during your formative years.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot