…is NASA having it’s budget for climate change research cut by deniers, you might just be a Warmist
Read: If All You See… »
…is NASA having it’s budget for climate change research cut by deniers, you might just be a Warmist
Read: If All You See… »
Could this be a real thing?
Those battleground state polls that paint such a grim picture of Donald Trump’s prospects against Hillary Clinton? Most Republican insiders don’t believe they’re accurately capturing Trump’s true level of support.
That’s according to the POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 key battleground states. More than seven-in-10 GOP insiders, 71 percent, say the polls understate Trump’s support because voters don’t want to admit to pollsters that they are backing the controversial Republican nominee.
“I’m not sure how big a factor it is, but there is definitely a ‘Bradley effect’ going on out there,” said a Virginia Republican, referring to the African-American mayor of Los Angeles who led in polls but lost unexpectedly in the 1982 California gubernatorial race. “I personally know many Republicans that won’t admit that they are voting for Trump. I don’t like admitting it myself. It won’t matter if Hillary is up more than 5 points, but we might be in for a surprise if Hillary’s lead is less than 5 points on Election Day.”
A Michigan Republican — who, like all insiders, completed the survey anonymously —added that Trump voters are reticent to admit it publicly: “Anecdotally, that’s clearly the case in barber-shop conversations.”
Every time I hear this kind of schtick on the radio or TV, or in articles, I roll my eyes. It sounds rather wishful and divorced from reality, does it not? But, what if it is real? What if there are tons of people who refuse to admit that they are voting for Trump, including to pollsters? We’ve seen some massive flipping of polls over the past few months, and especially in the past few weeks. I’m not quite sure why someone would refuse to tell a pollster who they’re voting for, but, could you see it happen, with people not wanting to admit they’re voting for Trump?
Where the big difference could be made is within the #NeverTrump and GOP fence sitter #NeverHillary community. What if all these millions of Republicans decide to vote for Trump at the last minute? Usually, I would have hit the early voting booth yesterday, having the day off, but, I’m holding out till next week, to see if Trump can give me a reason to vote for him, at least as a vote against Hillary. Or, do I simply not vote president, and just vote down ballot? That’s the conundrum. Many, many more might be facing the same prospect.
Even 26% of Democrats think the polls underestimate Trump’s support, while 71% of Republicans think the polls understate.
It’s a long, long article, worth the read. And it does beg the question: could this mean more actual votes for Trump (with a goodly chunk being protest votes against Hillary) than thought of ?
Another day, another call from a liberal for a public option to try and save the utterly failing Obamacare. Elsewhere in the NY Times, Excitable Paul Krugman, who certainly does not purchase his own health insurance via the Obamacare exchanges, says that the recently releases premium hikes and insurers bolting the exchanges is just a “pothole,”, so, no big deal. Then we have Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale professor who wrote “American Amnesia: How the war on government led us to forget what made America prosper.” Without even looking at the book, I’m guessing he thinks government made America great. Looking at Amazon, yup, Government great.
Now we get
The Affordable Care Act has faced a rocky six months. First, major national insurers scaled back their participation, leaving about one in five people buying coverage through health exchanges with only one plan to choose from. Then this week, the Obama administration announced that exchange plans would post an average premium increase of more than 20 percent (though most enrollees would be insulated from the full increase by subsidies for their coverage).
As someone involved in the debate over the Affordable Care Act from the start, I don’t find these unhappy events all that surprising. From the outset, I’ve argued that without a public option — a Medicare-like plan that would be available to all Americans buying health insurance — insurance competition would dwindle and premiums would skyrocket. Now that they have, it’s time to do now what we should have done then: take the simplest route to a more stable and affordable health care system.
Because Government does a wonderful job with so many of its other ventures.
Critics of the public option are convinced it’s a one-way ticket to single payer (the government alone provides coverage). History suggests the opposite: The public option isn’t a threat to a system of broad coverage through competing private plans. Instead, it’s absolutely critical to making such a system work.
Got that? The health system, which worked for hundreds of years, needs the Helpful Hand of Government to work correctly.
We’re already heading toward single payer in sections of the nation — only it’s a private plan doing the paying. Next year, five states will have only one insurer in their exchanges, the online marketplaces set up to allow uninsured Americans to buy subsidized coverage. Nine more states will have just two insurers.
Of course, out on the private insurance market, there are plenty that offer health insurance. They just don’t want to participate in Obamacare anymore.
These problems are what motivated proposals for a public option in the first place. Major parts of the country lacked enough insurer competition to keep costs in line, especially with rapidly consolidating providers. And the proposed alternatives to a public option, like the insurance “co-ops” eventually included in the 2010 law, did not have the bargaining power and reach that a Medicare-like plan would have (and most of them have since gone out of business).
Except, it was Government that was restricting competition, and we weren’t seeing the types of premium rise that we see with Ocare, nor were deductibles set so high that for many they might as well not have insurance. And medical facilities participated, rather than opting out.
The argument by public-option supporters wasn’t that it would or should replace private insurance. It was that having a public plan as a benchmark and backup was essential to make competition among private plans work.
A public option would certainly offer such low prices, all on the backs of taxpayers, that even more insurers would abandon the system. That’s not competition, that’s China dumping insanely low priced materials into the economy, shutting out US manufacturers.
Having a public plan alongside private plans won’t merely ensure that everyone has a choice. It will also pull more people into the system, creating a broader pool for all the plans.
The private plans would whither away, and make more people dependent on Government.
The biggest advantage of the public plan, however, is its greater ability to restrain prices. As rapidly as the insurance market is concentrating, medical providers are consolidating faster, driving up prices and creating huge differentials even within regions. Medicare hospital reimbursements vary much less — and they’re typically much lower.
In other words, Government could drive private insurance out of business. Fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals and medical providers take new Medicare patients, because they aren’t in business to lose money. And, don’t forget about all the companies that offer supplements to Medicare, due to coverage gaps. You see their TV commercials all the time.
Hacker also pimps the notion that a public option would reduce the deficit by tens of millions of dollars a year. We’ve heard that promise before, in everything from Ocare to other government programs. Never happens.
If things keep going as they are, Americans are certain to demand greater regulation of private plans to make them operate more like public plans. Instead, we should make them compete with a public option.
And, as said public option causes even more problems, they’ll call for single payer. That’s what they do.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Did anyone ever conceive of Sean Hannity going as fruit loops as Excitable Andrew Sullivan, Markos Molitos (Daily Kos), and Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs)?
(Mediaite) The conservative host first stated that we had only 13 days left until we made the decision to “keep screwing the country up” or “try and fix it.”
Letting his audience know that he was angry, he noted that there was going to be a reckoning with the Never Trump crowd the day after the election.
“All this garbage from you Never Trumper jerks out there,” Hannity shouted. “I’ve had it. By the way, that’s more unfinished business. November 9th, I have a lot to say about all of you.”
He’s had it! Nice threat at the last, though, eh? Of course, since he’s lost quite a bit of audience due to this barking moonbat behavior, we won’t actually hear it.
At one point, Hannity apparently had the dump button hit on him after he said Donald Trump isn’t “freaking perfect.” Following up the delay, he yelled, “I’m pissed!”
The problem with people like Hannity, besides utterly abandoning their principles to pimp Trump in the same way Lefties pimped Obama (I don’t remember Hannity being this passionate (loopy) over McCain nor Romney), is that they have decided that they’ll get more done with vinegar then honey. Instead of trying to convince people that Trump isn’t as bad as #NeverTrump thinks they’ve simply decided that insults and abuse are the way forward. This same abuse tends to negatively effect those who are on the fence of deciding whether they will put a gasmask on and check the box for Trump as a protest vote against Hillary or simply just not vote for president.
As for those Republicans voting for Hillary, well, you’ve gone beyond abandoning everything you hold dear. I have zero respect for those who would endorse her, instead of saying “I can’t vote for either.”
Anyhow, what’s the difference between Hillary insulting over 6 million Americans as “deplorables” and Hannity calling the millions who refuse to vote Trump names?
Read: Hannity Loses It Yet Again »
…is the uniform of the notion of an endless climate war, you might just be a Warmist
Read: If All You See… »
Because why not? A cool newish technology that is growing in usage, where you can get a viewer that works really well for $20-30, so, hey, let’s throw Hotcoldwetdry in the mix!
How Virtual Reality Can Help Us Feel the Pain of Climate Change
It’s hard to comprehend the concept of oceans getting more acidic. Unless you become the coral.
It’s not easy to get people exercised about ocean acidification. Yes, it’s a nasty consequence of climate change, a potential death sentence for oysters, clams, sea urchins and, most of all, coral. But it’s slow-motion extermination, out of sight of most humans, and that makes it difficult for us to feel much of a connection—let alone any responsibility—for the calamitous process.
Researchers at Stanford, however, believe a good way to help people become more aware of their impact on nature may lie in a particularly unnatural experience—virtual reality (VR) immersion. (snip)
The key was to have people become the coral.
Of course, there are all sorts of teachable moments. Not mentioned is the one about people taking fossil fueled trips to zoos and museums and aquariums and film festivals in fossil fueled vehicles to be whined at about ‘climate change’.
This is one of the lead opinion pieces in the NY Times today, and is proof that those highlighting that girls and women are being negatively affected by the transgender push, especially in schools. Writer Alexandra Brodsky seems a bit upset
Last month, a Minnesota federal court received a complaint about rampant gender discrimination in one of the state’s school districts. The lawsuit claimed that girls were subject to harassment, barred from participating in athletics, and forced to transfer schools rather than tolerate a hostile environment.
It seems like the sort of case that feminist warriors, like my colleagues at the National Women’s Law Center, might bring. But the plaintiffs’ lawyers come from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative nonprofit organization that is elsewhere suing the federal government to stop it from protecting transgender students’ rights. The discrimination noted in the lawsuit stemmed from the presence of a transgender girl in the girls’ locker room.
See, the problem here (one of them) for Social Justice Warrior Alexandra is who is protecting these female children, not that they were exposed to a deviant, nor that they were having their privacy violated on multiple occasions. One would think that female groups would rush to the aid of these girls. Unfortunately, the Progressives have decided that the so-called rights of the gender confused are More Important than those of females, much as they’d deemed that radical Islam must be protected over the rights of women.
In the Minnesota lawsuit, Privacy Matters v. U.S. Department of Education, the A.D.F. attempts to tell a tale of gender-bending terror. Instead, the complaint reads, heartbreakingly, as the story of a transgender girl acting like any other girl — dancing in the locker room, expressing insecurities about her body — in the face of rejection by her peers.
And Ms. Brodsky will lie to make her case. It was a whole lot different than she describes, and her peers? Yeah, they were real girls, who didn’t appreciate all that this boy pretending to be a girl was doing.
The lawsuit celebrates the “fundamental right of bodily privacy,” which, the complaint argues, “is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and has long been recognized in the United States Constitution.”
Can you not read the sneering in that, especially in light of the preceding paragraphs? Suddenly, privacy rights for all people, especially women, must be dismissed in favor of letting the gender confused, and those pretending, do whatever they want
The focus on privacy marks a shift in anti-trans strategy. Earlier efforts, like North Carolina’s House Bill 2, which limited bathroom access, relied on a dangerous myth that prohibiting discrimination against transgender people would allow predatory men to enter women’s restrooms. That approach is giving way to a new focus on privacy — narrowly defined to include only non-transgender women and girls.
See? Privacy for real females is silly! And, damnitall, how dare those big meanies on the Right mention privacy! Only liberals are allowed to do this, and only when it comes to abortion on demand!
The claim depends on the belief that transgender girls are actually boys.
They are boys. It’s great how liberals tell us that they are the party of Science, yet fail basic biology.
The organization bringing the suit sees no problem in the girls’ locker room if there are no transgender girls present. But the fake-feminist privacy argument is apparently more tolerable to liberal minds — and perhaps more dangerous for that reason.
Privacy rights are now fake? How about that.
When schools fail to value female athletes, or punish girls for “unladylike” outfits, they reinforce narrow visions of what makes a good woman. The same thing happens when they tell a girl she has to change in a different locker room solely because she is transgender.
Not a girl. Boy. And real girls? Meet the liberals big bus.
This is the question that is starting to grow. I’m seeing people say that if Hillary wins, there should be a revolt. One thing you cannot say about Trump supporters is that they are not insanely passionate about electing Trump. And most Republicans are very disturbed that Hillary might win (well, will probably win, a problem that could have been avoided if A) a good candidate had been selected during the GOP primaries, or B) Trump was a good campaigner that stuck to the issues and did the things necessary to win). And we get this
(Think Progress) Joe Walsh, who was a United States congressman from 2011 until 2013, declared on Wednesday afternoon that he will take up arms if Donald Trump is not elected to the presidency.
He tweeted this
On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump.
On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket.
— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) October 26, 2016
Soopermexican is less than impressed. The thing is, this is showing up more and more on Twitter and in comments at websites from blogs to major news outlets. And then we have this from the Daily Caller, an interesting introspection
A professor who specializes in the Civil War appeared on a special edition of “The Jim Bakker Show” last week to warn America that the 2016 presidential election could lead to another secessionist melee.
“I’m a civil war historian,” the Montreat College professor, William Forstchen, explained by way of introduction.
The U.S. election of 1860 “is the closest I can parallel this to,” Forstchen said.
“And we all know what the price was,” the professor then said. “When we went to a civil war, they killed 660,000 young men because we became so divided.”
He went on to say how important it was to vote regardless, as the House and Senate are important. Then
Forstchen failed to explain how the results of the 2016 election will hasten — or prevent — a civil war. He also did not specifically mention or endorse any candidates for office.
And he was followed by Baptist pastor Carl Gallups, who seems to be rather a nutjob, as he believes the creation of Israel made the prophecy clock start ticking, thinks the Sandy Hook shooting never happened, and that neither Cruz nor Rubio would be eligible to be president due to the circumstances of their birth.
The Daily Caller places this under the tag of “nutty professors.” They are. But, this sentiment of armed rebellion, secession, and even civil war has been growing. Usually, those who are going crazy and are super passionate during general elections are the Democrat voters. In this case, the Trump supporters. Should we be concerned if Trump loses? That’s the question. Usually, the answer would be “this is just some nutters yammering and being blowhards”, so, no worries, but, as much as I’ve seen it, I’m not so sure about the answer.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
I wonder how enthused the NY Times Editorial Board members would be if the states they reside in initiated a carbon tax, which would hit them personally as well as their employer?
Anybody hoping for a robust national discussion about climate change this election year has been sorely disappointed. But one state, Washington, has been having just such a debate, thanks to an ambitious ballot proposal that would impose a tax on carbon emissions.
The proposal, Initiative 732, started as a long-shot campaign by an economist and standup comedian, Yoram Bauman, but it has gained public support and become a viable effort. It would impose a tax on greenhouse gas emissions generated by fossil fuels like petroleum, gas and coal. The tax would start at $15 per metric ton next year, increase to $25 a ton in 2018 and then rise gradually over a few decades until it hits $100 a ton in 2016 dollars. (A typical passenger car emits about five metric tons of carbon dioxide in a year.) The money raised by the tax would go to lowering the state sales tax, effectively eliminating a business tax on manufacturers and giving up to $1,500 in tax credits to low-income residents.
They won’t admit it, but the reason Progressives love this type of carbon tax is because citizens will see their cost of living skyrocket, then see the helpful hand of government give them some money to offset the rise. Not enough to fully offset, mind you. Enough to make them more dependent on government, with government spinning a yarn that it wasn’t the fault of the carbon tax, but, those evil fossil fuels companies and such.
Of course, Warmist forces will say “eh, it’s not a lot of money. $125 in 2018 to Save The Planet? No biggie.” Of course, this ignores that every business seeing a rise will pass the costs on to the consumer.
Climate scientists and economists have long said that one of the best ways to fight climate change is to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and raise that price over time, which would encourage the switch to cleaner energy sources, like solar and wind. The initiative’s approach is based on a carbon tax that British Columbia put in place in 2008. Ireland and Sweden also have such taxes.
Of course, greenhouse gases have increased in B.C. since 2010, as the great recession started to end. The B.C. gross domestic product has lagged behind the rest of Canada. The cost of living has gone up. Sweden? Do they even have an economy anymore? Ireland does well, though, because of their super-low corporate taxes.
Interestingly, the Washington State Democratic Party came out against Initiative 732, as did many Democratic voting organizations, mostly because it dares lower sales, personal, and corporate taxes. Apparently, they just want to hose citizens.
The last poll taken, back in July, has it as 52% for, 39% against, and 8% not sure. Hey, if the citizens of Washington want this, that’s on them. And there’s no whining when they get results they didn’t think would happen. Like higher costs of living, lower GDP, higher fuel and food costs, decreased employment, companies leaving the state, and so forth.
…is the need to live like Native Americans from 1,000 years ago, you might just be a Warmist
Read: If All You See… »
Bad Behavior has blocked 8476 access attempts in the last 7 days.