blaggle42

joined 4 months ago
[–] blaggle42 12 points 5 hours ago

Somehow this made it worse. “goddamn Alpha energy” - who are these people. All I want is for the dems to not be rich people faking concern for the poor.

[–] blaggle42 0 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe that could be a plus. Make a large death tax. People die off in your state, and fund the next set of people coming and and more?

[–] blaggle42 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah! Something like this. But with other states involved to reduce risk, normalize costs.

[–] blaggle42 6 points 3 weeks ago

Obama won in a landslide. The democrats owned both houses.

People at the time really thought Obama would be on the the side of the people- not the rich. I mean, come on, he was our first black president; you would have thought he would at least be on the side of the blacks.

If he had been, then Bernie wouldn't have been such a sensation. If he had been, and Hillary was like, "Obama and the DNC has anointed me his successor, and I will continue to do all the great things he has done," Bernie wouldn't have existed. Bernie was the message that Obama had actually failed. Flint was real.

Anyway. If Trump has one Lieberman senator stopping him from getting some signature item, you can bet that their meeting isn't going to end with that signature item being scuttled, it's going to be that Lieberman would be afraid he'll lose everything.

Trump is extreme, but Obama could have made the final push. Same with our black torture rendition site.

For me, seeing Obama is cringe. I wonder if that viewpoint is radical. I mean, Obama is a saint when compared to Trump, but...

Perhaps I am unjustified.

[–] blaggle42 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Yeah.

I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned (banks, through predatory loans) the houses.

I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to "Bank A" and "Bank B." But no, no consequences for the rich under Obama just like everyone else.

Crazy huh.

[–] blaggle42 2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

As far as the first part of your response: Hmm, that's interesting.

As far as the, "Bruh, do you not remember.."

Yes, I remember how Obamacare was passed.

Do you you remember how it seemed like a public option should pass- it had a ton of support- people were rallying behind it.

And then DroopyDog Senator Lieberman had that touted "meeting with Obama" and the public option was scuttled.

From the moment that happened, I thought, "Lieberman's the fall guy. The democrats don't want the public option, and Obama isn't any different from everyone else before him." (think Flint, think Guantanamo, think Bank bailouts, think Bank Bailouts again). If Obama had wanted it, he could have done it. I mean, look at Trump. He didn't.

At the time I was furious with Lieberman and Obama- now, just Obama.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-15-la-naw-health-senate16-2009dec16-story.html

[–] blaggle42 8 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

But Democrats have majorities in California and NYC and other blue states. The republicans aren't necessary for this to happen. I think?

[–] blaggle42 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ok, I went to that page, and took the "are you eligible test" putting in a few different sets of numbers. This is definitely not a public option.

edit -> Thanks for the link!

[–] blaggle42 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Are they closer to a public option than NY? NY really isn't a public option.

[–] blaggle42 21 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

It's "basically that." But it's not "actually that."

A public option would provide necessary health care at zero cost. Without regard to your income. Without regard to your job.

This creates a situation, where if you earn a little bit more, you get "taxed" a lot. And quite frankly, sometimes it's better to earn less and get healthcare than to earn more and lose it.

Also, I'm under the impression, and could be wrong about this, but I believe NYC gets the funding for the NYC state of health from the federal government. So it can be held as ransom, by bullies like Adams or Trump.

I'm suggesting that NYC should do an actual public option not using federal money. Instead binding together with other states to increase leverage and lower costs.

[–] blaggle42 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I'm looking for a public-option health care in Hawaii. Haven't found yet. Do you have a link? If I find I'll post a link

 

I want to know why I'm wrong- because this question has been eating at me for years- and I secretly blame the Democrats for all of the health insurance problems.

Why can't California and New York bind together in an interstate compact, and create medicare for all of their citizens?

California and New York have GDP's above most other countries in the world. In general, democrats hold majorities. Tell me why I shouldn't blame the democrats for:

  1. Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.

  2. Not just doing it themselves. For instance even NYC by itself has a GDP above Denmark, and NYC is filled to the brim with the super rich.

[–] blaggle42 85 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I want to respond with something. But everything I write is so fucking dark and violent. Here goes, I'll try again:

If I were in Nazi Germany, and I saw this go down- a Jew or disabled or protester getting disappeared- and these Nazi brown shirts were shot and killed, or beaten to a pulp with metal bars, fucking stomped to death, I think it would be just.

1
Tax the Rich Part (self.politicaldiscussion)
 

If a “Tax the Rich” party was created:

What do you think it’s platform should be?

Would it need a social agenda?

What conditions would be necessary for you to vote for it?


I originally posted to politics@... but was removed (I guess because not a link)

https://lemmy.today/post/25296202

 

Hey there,

I understand if you don't want to say, but, what lora do you use for Cute 3D Icon?

Thanks

49
Ethics of Luigi (self.progressivepolitics)
 

I'm wondering about the Luigi line.

Post Trump, it seems as if there is no justice for the rich besides vigilante justice.

Would any of the below qualify for a Luigi? Where is the line? I find the cognitive ethical dissonance of Luigi disconcerting.

The following list is very dark, and super cynical - I apologize in advance.


A pharma company has found a cure for cancer, but suppresses it to make money on treatment. Causing innumerable deaths.

A pharma company has found a cure for Alzheimer's - but suppresses it. Causing suffering.

A pharma company knows a drug treatment is ineffective for some major illness, but pushes it anyway, suppressing other research. Causing suffering.

A pharma company pushes a drug known to cause massive dependence, with insignificant benefit. Causing suffering.

A car company knows an airbag is defective, and does not fix it. Causing thousands of deaths.

An airplane manufacturer creates an airplane with faulty construction, knowingly, and thousands die.

A manufacturing company pollutes a town's water, causing birth defects, general sickness.


This list could go on forever of course. But where is the line post Luigi, post Trump non-trial. What makes one CEO at risk, and another not?

view more: next ›