April 28, 2016

"She is a woman, she is playing the woman card left and right. Frankly, if she didn’t, she would do very poorly."

"If she were a man and she was the way she is, she would get virtually no votes," said Donald Trump about, obviously, Hillary Clinton.

Now, of course, ironically, Trump — whose very name suggests a card game — is playing the woman card. He's playing the woman card on her, even as she, of course, plays the woman card over and over. He's trying to get the power out of the card, by making the playing of the card have the meaning: This is the only card I've got.

The question is whether this is a good move for Trump. I'm seeing some columns playing with Trump's statement — is there, literally, a card? But it might be a good move. He's setting it up so that every time she tries to excite us with the idea that we could have the supposedly great thrill of the first woman President, he'll be positioned to say: There she goes again — it's all she's got. Or he won't even have to say it. We'll think it.

Here's the joke Hillary's people wrote for her in response: "Mr. Trump accused me of playing the 'woman card.' Well, if fighting for women's health care and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the 'woman card,' then deal me in." Interesting key word: deal. That's the key word of Trump's campaign and Trump's life.

I must say that — whatever happens in this crazy Trump v. Clinton phase of the game — I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail. In fact, I will not be surprised to see Trump undercut Hillary in the Women card game.

217 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 217 of 217
walter said...

Allen's asking about how things work. These days, we need to encourage that.

Birkel said...

Fair enough, Walter.

Sorry, AllenS.

Assumed you were trolling and I should, perhaps, have been less suspicious.

eddie willers said...

There is no use decrying Caesar when there is no Cincinnatus at hand.

I like that....a lot.

Bring on Caesar.

grackle said...

What if they don't regain consciousness, and need constant care. What happens to them, and who pays their bill if they don't have insurance?

The emergency room eats the cost, as in the statement below:

As a general rule, emergency problems have to be solved or the patient referred to a doctor on staff who agrees to treat the problem.

Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it.

If the entire article is read it is clear that Trump is proposing a catastrophic illness fund – a policy BTW that some others have also proposed in the past. All Trump wants to do is relieve the emergency rooms and emergency room doctors from footing the bill.

The rest of the paragraph – which the commentor left out – is about Trump’s proposal to repeal Obamacare and substitute a private insurance system but with competition and other reforms to keep insurance prices down:

But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

So … under TrumpCare most people will have their “private plans” which will cost less with some old-fashioned competition as the fuel. But the destitute will be covered for catastrophic illnesses and not allowed “to die in the streets.” Such a plan cannot be called “single payer” or “universal healthcare.”

Why would it cost Trump votes if all he was suggesting was a catastrophic insurance plan?

Perhaps because Trump knew that his catastrophic illness proposal would be met with hyperbole, half-truths, misquoting out of context and outright fabrications. There’s a lot of that going on now and a lot was going on at the time of the interview. Notice, readers, that even the interviewer in the article tried to put words into Trump’s mouth - as they were speaking!

JamesB.BKK said...

Feminism circa 2016-- "I am woman. Threaten others with violence to give me secure economic support!"

JamesB.BKK said...

Yes, progressive women are so smart they ordered up a full-on welfare state, and then stopped having the kids to work their treadmills, and had their politicians convince by any means many others to do the same, to boot. Brilliant! But, no worries, all of the folks needed to keep the churn going can just freely come from misogynistic parts of the world. That should work fine.

grackle said...

A few more thoughts while I’m at it:

Much of what Trump proposes with TrumpCare is what many in the GOP have been proposing ever since the national debate began with the fight over ObamaCare in Congress. For example, to allow health insurance sales across state borders to increase competition and keep prices down. Pedestrian, run-of-the-mill stuff, endorsed by many on the Right. In all there are several steps that Trump proposes as a starting point. Rather than reading a biased article based on a biased interview go to Trump’s website:

http://tinyurl.com/jse8bdg

One other point: My analysis of what has occurred is that the Democrats originally identified a legitimate problem, which was that a small number of American citizens were unable to obtain health insurance. It was a relatively small problem that required a relatively small fix: A catastrophic illness fund.

But the GOP refused to recognize this problem as something that needed fixing. I’m sure at least some of them still feel that way. Big Gov and so forth. And yes, Trump will lose some of their votes. Trump steps slightly but firmly away from standard GOP orthodoxy by recognizing and acknowledging the problem of catastrophic illness among our few citizens with no access to health insurance.

The Democrats took that refusal of the GOP policy-makers to confront that political reality all the way to ObamaCare, with the eGOP out-maneuvered by Pelosi and Reed at every turn. And so we end up with something much worse - the government running the entire healthcare industry.

Judging from the poor past performance by GOP leaders against ObamaCare, with them being punked so thoroughly and easily by Pelosi and Reed, probably the only hope to have ObamaCare actually repealed, instead of the usual lip-service from GOP “leaders,” is to elect Trump so he can force the GOP-majority Congress to do it’s job.

AllenS said...

Birkel said...
Trump has suggested he supports single payer, government health care. That is a monumentally stupid position.

and then --

Hospice relies on private donations and government support.

Make your point, you boring shit.


It took a while, but I finally got you to make my point. What Trump says isn't so far from what is happening now. Ever wonder why you are charged $50 for an aspirin? Someone has to pay the bill. You evidently don't care about the government helping pay for hospice.

AllenS said...

Right now the Government is trying to run the insurance industry.

Birkel said...

grackle:
Your absolute belief is endearing. I have no faith in politicians and that lack of belief has served me well. Perhaps your wait for Superman will prove fruitful.

As a logical matter, you are interpreting everything from Trump in the best light possible. That is an incredibly odd position.

AllenS:
Government created a problem: hospitals must treat indigent, emergent patients. Then they solved the problem by using tax dollars to under-pay the hospitals for their services, causing another problem. What had been covered charity was replaced by government.

The same pattern is obvious in employment-related health insurance. Government caused the problem of inflation (over-consumption by those who do not directly pay causes higher than normal price increases) and then tried to solve the problem with a command-and-control system. This is obvious.

And it is why the only safe course is to reduce the size and scope of the Leviathan State. It is the only thing that could prevent a crash. But I am not hopeful.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Birkel

And it is why the only safe course is to reduce the size and scope of the Leviathan State. It is the only thing that could prevent a crash. But I am not hopeful.

There are simply to many people dependent on big government for it to be reduced voluntarily. Not to mention the opportunities it gives for social engineering (not the kind practiced by black-hat hackers.) I don't even think a crash would be incentive enough. After all, how much was the government cut back in order to get us out of the Depression?

I don't know what could cause the size of government to be reduced. The propaganda fed to the young now, under the guise of education, is that big government and multi-national governing agencies are needed because everything is now interconnected and local governments cannot deal with the issues of the day. That's why the establishment is all in on global warming.

grackle said...

grackle: Your absolute belief is endearing. I have no faith in politicians and that lack of belief has served me well. Perhaps your wait for Superman will prove fruitful. As a logical matter, you are interpreting everything from Trump in the best light possible. That is an incredibly odd position.

Should I stop at buying a Google subscription or should I also look on Amazon for a better decoder ring? What’s the logical, thoughtfully analytic choice?

My expectation is that Trump will get a resounding win in Indiana – an expectation that is being increasingly voiced on the cables. Reality is setting in. My guess is that Manafort is presently in California doing the job he was hired to do. He certainly bought home the bacon in Pennsylvania.

Wonderful footage this AM of a wounded Trump warrior outside the rally in California last night being loaded into an ambulance. A huge bandage on his skull and blood all over his face. And an anti-Trump rioter stomping and jumping up and down on the top and hood of a police car. Simply wonderful optics – immune from MSM/Democrat/#neverTrump spin. Readers, always remember this: They reserve their most ferocious attacks for those they fear the most.

Right now the Government is trying to run the insurance industry.

So true. But there’s more to the story. Big Insurance bought into ObamaCare big-time. The largest insurance companies saw it as an opportunity. With all the politicians bought and paid for they thought they would become the caretakers of ObamaCare – a crony capitalist’s dream. The customers would be forced to buy Big Insurance’s product. No more pesky competing for customers – no more sales force to employ. No PR cost. No advertising cost. Just the big donors calling in their markers.

Possibly too late they may be recognizing the snow job Obama gave them. Single payer was always the real goal – not the fantasy of a joint government/Big Insurance partnership. But that was the bait.

Birkel said...

Ron Winkleheimer:

Doubtless you are correct. That doesn't make my prescription any less true.

I'm a realist. That's partly why I make so few thoughtful, substantive arguments in these comment threads. I understand that my well-reasoned, historically accurate comments would be either repeating what many already know, or significantly over the heads of those who disagree due to confusion or purposeful misreading.

I am working toward an independence (between now and the final independence we are all guaranteed) for me and my family. Hopefully we will be ready in time. The seed corn cannot last forever.

Birkel said...

grackle:

James Buchanan said it first.

Birkel said...

grackle:

Further, the problem with government paying for anything is the lack of information flows that occur naturally in a free market. If costs are too high or benefits too low the price suggested by supply and demand provides all the information necessary for decision making.

In any situation where the consumer of the good and the purchaser of the good are separated, so that price no longer relays information to the parties, poor outcomes are likely. This is true when a 16 year old receives a car without earning the money for it and the odds of a wreck or other mistreatment skyrocket. This phenomenon is every bit as true for the provision of medical services. The problem is revealed by comparing the inflation rates in insurance markets for human health care against those without insurance markets for animal health care.

Without the feedback loop that price affords, we get market failure. That is true in the banking industry when the moral hazard of government guarantees made risk-taking profitable in the short run and devastating in the long run. Failure to properly value risk resulted in price no longer accurately conveying the information necessary to sound decision making.

The idea of market failures, which necessitate government actions, has swallowed the rule that government causes problems by encouraging a misallocation of resources.

Nah, that's just crazy typing.

grackle said...

Without the feedback loop that price affords, we get market failure. That is true in the banking industry when the moral hazard of government guarantees made risk-taking profitable in the short run and devastating in the long run. Failure to properly value risk resulted in price no longer accurately conveying the information necessary to sound decision making.

Exactly. This is why I oppose Cruz’s plans for a VAT(value-added tax) which he hides under the euphemism of a “business flat tax.” With a VAT the consumer cannot calculate and separate the true cost of a product from the tax. It’s a Big Gov wet dream and a Big Biz wet dream all rolled into one big ball of subterfuge. It allows corporations to pass on all or part of their taxes to the consumer without the consumer being aware of it. It also allows governments to levy taxes without the taxpayer’s awareness or consent. It’s a favorite of European politicians.

Here’s part of what National Review has to say about Cruz’s ruse:

The senators[Cruz and Rand Paul] are right to want tax reform … That is why their embrace of the value-added tax (VAT) in their presidential campaigns is so baffling. VATs are the revenue engine of big-government welfare states, not a proper funding source for the small federal government that both senators favor for America.

Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/q4y5b64

Readers, if you are worried about Big Gov you should be worried about Cruz’s VAT plan.

JamesB.BKK said...

@Ron Winkleheimer: Many don't know as well that the minimum wage - or the fixing by the State of the price of labor - was hatched by groups to keep the undesirables from finding employment, and thereby to condemn them to suffer and it was hoped fade from the scene. Or, that secession was universally recognized by legislatures of the States and presses of the large cities as a valid move for one or more of the several United States to take should the Federals act to aggressively.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 217 of 217   Newer› Newest»