Beto also wants teachers to have their retirements protected by ensuring that we do away with the Windfall Elimination Provision.

Any teachers opposed to that?

He also believes we must continue to take steps towards moving control to the classroom and empowering teachers to fulfill their calling by having autonomy to teach their students and reduce the emphasis on arbitrary, high-stakes tests.

What do you say, teachers?

cinque said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Basic arithmetic comes to play here:

Cruz received 1.3 million primary votes.

O'Rourke received 650k primary votes.

Total Republican primary turnout: 1.54 million

Total Democrat primary turnout: 1.03 million

These people are the likely voters, so what's the result going to be?

On top of that, Governor Greg Abbott is polling 20 points ahead, how many people are going to vote for Greg Abbott but not Ted Cruz? Beto better not count on that.

---

You better hope against all of Beto's voters voting for Lupe.

---

The only way that would happen is if Lupe was a vote to go to Lupe Tortilla for lunch.

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

And I've since changed my mind. After listening to Beto. receiving his robots calls and texts (even after I sent stop) I am now voting for Cruz.

---

Which of those three involved a change in O'Rourke's position on education?

---

None. I was voting for Beto solely on his stance on education. However, after looking at his views on immigration, health care, abortion, and his anti-police rhetoric, I can no longer support him.

---

In other words, the same standard list of reasons Republicans routinely trot out to justify voting for sh/t-bags like Trump or Cruz. Republicans win because their voters almost always come home due to social issues, no matter what their positions on the actual issues their voters claim are important to them.

---

You are responsible for Trump. You guys nominated the worst candidate in captivity and then blame Republicans because they wouldn't vote for her.

BTW, looks like you're on track to do the same thing again in 2020

---

I voted Evan McMullin for POTUS in '16 (voted for a Democratic POTUS nominee once in my life so far, that will most likely change in 2020), so you can cool it with that "you" talk. It's not my fault the mouthbreathers and fascists of America banded together to elect the American version of Silvio Burlesconi. The only people responsible for Trump are his voters and the traitorous party that threw away all pretense of morals and integrity by nominating him, blaming others for him only signals your own guilt if one of those categories includes you.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

And I've since changed my mind. After listening to Beto. receiving his robots calls and texts (even after I sent stop) I am now voting for Cruz.

---

Which of those three involved a change in O'Rourke's position on education?

---

None. I was voting for Beto solely on his stance on education. However, after looking at his views on immigration, health care, abortion, and his anti-police rhetoric, I can no longer support him.

---

In other words, the same standard list of reasons Republicans routinely trot out to justify voting for sh/t-bags like Trump or Cruz. Republicans win because their voters almost always come home due to social issues, no matter what their positions on the actual issues their voters claim are important to them.

---

You are responsible for Trump. You guys nominated the worst candidate in captivity and then blame Republicans because they wouldn't vote for her.

BTW, looks like you're on track to do the same thing again in 2020

---

Or, you guys had 16 options besides Trump and still nominated him. And then voted for him.

---

Yeah, guilty as charged. Trump was my 17th choice. Hillary was the 18th

It was easy to resist Johnson's charm

---

If you pulled the lever for him, whatever the reason, you own his *****

And your excuse just doesn't play at all if you're in Texas, since Trump was going to comfortably win there anyhow. Pretty much every Texan who says they only voted for Trump because Hillary was worse could have left their ballot blank, and Trump still wins Texas solidly. You had a choice, and you made a choice, but now you don't want to own that choice.

---

If I didn't want to own it, I would not have said it

It is the fault of you and the other Hillary people

Will you be campaigning for Pocahontas is 2020? Smart

HuMcK said:

---

I voted Evan McMullin for POTUS in '16 (voted for a Democratic POTUS nominee once in my life so far, that will most likely change in 2020),

---

Yeah, right. Does your partner believe your BS?

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

If you pulled the lever for him, whatever the reason, you own his *****

And your excuse just doesn't play at all if you're in Texas, since Trump was going to comfortably win there anyhow. Pretty much every Texan who says they only voted for Trump because Hillary was worse could have left their ballot blank, and Trump still wins Texas solidly. You had a choice, and you made a choice, but now you don't want to own that choice.

---

If I didn't want to own it, I would not have said it

It is the fault of you and the other Hillary people

Will you be campaigning for Pocahontas is 2020? Smart

---

I've said it many times before and am proud to say it again: I didn't vote for Hillary. I think you knew that. There's no need to misrepresent the facts. It's not like there's a jury here to lie to.

But you know, if you want to play the blame game, I could just as easily make a case to counter yours. I could argue that Trump isn't just some weird perfect storm that wouldn't have happened except for Hillary. He was the culmination of something that has been happening in your GOP for 30 years. Even though they were in many ways hostile to what the GOP traditionally stood for, you welcomed the Tea Party types and the Big Government Religious Zealots and the Angry White Nationalists into the fold because their votes could help you control Congress and the Supreme Court. Over the years, their influence grew, and they became more frustrated with the Republican traditionalists, until they found a con-man candidate who promised to give them everything that the GOP's more principled candidates like the Bushes, McCain and Romney would not. Now you're the Dr. Frankensteins sitting around the Never Trump Country Club wondering what to do about the monster you created that's running all over town breaking and ****ting on everything it comes across. And instead of reflecting on what you brought to life, you want to blame it all on the people who supported Hillary (that they deserve some of the blame is not in dispute -- just don't ignore your own).

In answer to your question, I don't know who I'll be supporting in 2020. Right now, Trump is the only announced candidate. I know I won't be voting for his lying, unprincipled, petulant, uninformed, un-Christian ass like you did. I might choose to leave that part of the ballot blank again.

bubbadog said:

---

In answer to your question, I don't know who I'll be supporting in 2020. Right now, Trump is the only announced candidate. I know I won't be voting for his lying, unprincipled, petulant, uninformed, un-Christian ass like you did.

---

I agree with your assessment of Trump. Better than Hillary.

I own it. Why won't you own Hillary, professor?

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I voted Evan McMullin for POTUS in '16 (voted for a Democratic POTUS nominee once in my life so far, that will most likely change in 2020),

---

Yeah, right. Does your partner believe your BS?

---

McCain '08, Obama '12, McMullin '16. I'm a voter that traditionally could be had by the GOP, but I care about ethics and integrity and the (R) increasingly seems to stand for Russia these days, so not anymore for the time being.

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

In answer to your question, I don't know who I'll be supporting in 2020. Right now, Trump is the only announced candidate. I know I won't be voting for his lying, unprincipled, petulant, uninformed, un-Christian ass like you did.

---

I agree with your assessment of Trump. Better than Hillary.

I own it. Why won't you own Hillary, professor?

---

Hillary was a bad candidate, but for almost none of the reasons that you think she was

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

In answer to your question, I don't know who I'll be supporting in 2020. Right now, Trump is the only announced candidate. I know I won't be voting for his lying, unprincipled, petulant, uninformed, un-Christian ass like you did.

---

I agree with your assessment of Trump. Better than Hillary.

I own it. Why won't you own Hillary, professor?

---

Pretty simple. I didn't vote for her and am not a supporter of the party that nominated her.

If you vote for it, you own it, even if you think you're voting for the lesser evil.

If you're a supporter of the party that nominated Trump, you own some responsibility for the party reaching the point that the Nativist, Obama-is-a-racist-Muslim, Nutballs for Jesus wing that you welcomed inside the tent took over your organization and found its ideal candidate in a guy you don't like.

Osodecentex why don't you just admit if Trump is the GOP nominee you are voting for him against anyone the Democrats nominate even though you also want to claim with great cognitive dissonance that you are opposed to almost everything he stands for and hence you and the GOP aren't responsible for what this criminal does to the country or tries to advocate in some fit of nutjob rage in the unlikely event he gets another term. Make no mistake though if you vote for it you are responsible for supporting it.

I'll support Trump if he doesn't want to

I'm good with it all

Florda_mike said:

---

I'll support Trump if he doesn't want to

I'm good with it all

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'll support Trump if he doesn't want to

I'm good with it all

---

---

Huh?

Florda_mike said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'll support Trump if he doesn't want to

I'm good with it all

---

---

Huh?

---

He's shocked. It's a reference to The Shocker. Google it....

Well I'm shocked he's shocked too

YoakDaddy said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'll support Trump if he doesn't want to

I'm good with it all

---

---

Huh?

---

He's shocked. It's a reference to The Shocker. Google it....

---

Nah. I''m going with Houston Cougar fan.

RioRata said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'll support Trump if he doesn't want to

I'm good with it all

---

---

Huh?

---

He's shocked. It's a reference to The Shocker. Google it....

---

Nah. I''m going with Houston Cougar fan.

---

Safer than googling.

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

And I've since changed my mind. After listening to Beto. receiving his robots calls and texts (even after I sent stop) I am now voting for Cruz.

---

Which of those three involved a change in O'Rourke's position on education?

---

None. I was voting for Beto solely on his stance on education. However, after looking at his views on immigration, health care, abortion, and his anti-police rhetoric, I can no longer support him.

---

In other words, the same standard list of reasons Republicans routinely trot out to justify voting for sh/t-bags like Trump or Cruz. Republicans win because their voters almost always come home due to social issues, no matter what their positions on the actual issues their voters claim are important to them.

---

You are responsible for Trump. You guys nominated the worst candidate in captivity and then blame Republicans because they wouldn't vote for her.

BTW, looks like you're on track to do the same thing again in 2020

---

I voted Evan McMullin for POTUS in '16 (voted for a Democratic POTUS nominee once in my life so far, that will most likely change in 2020), so you can cool it with that "you" talk. It's not my fault the mouthbreathers and fascists of America banded together to elect the American version of Silvio Burlesconi. The only people responsible for Trump are his voters and the traitorous party that threw away all pretense of morals and integrity by nominating him, blaming others for him only signals your own guilt if one of those categories includes you.

---

People who say things like this look more and more ridiculous every time. This is obviously not true, but yet some people choose to repeat these lies and get mad when they get called out on it. You look foolish and it is clear you are someone that can't hold a logical conversation.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

In answer to your question, I don't know who I'll be supporting in 2020. Right now, Trump is the only announced candidate. I know I won't be voting for his lying, unprincipled, petulant, uninformed, un-Christian ass like you did.

---

I agree with your assessment of Trump. Better than Hillary.

I own it. Why won't you own Hillary, professor?

---

If you're a supporter of the party that nominated Trump, you own some responsibility for the party reaching the point that the Nativist, Obama-is-a-racist-Muslim, Nutballs for Jesus wing that you welcomed inside the tent took over your organization and found its ideal candidate in a guy you don't like.

---

Bizarre logic

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

And I've since changed my mind. After listening to Beto. receiving his robots calls and texts (even after I sent stop) I am now voting for Cruz.

---

Which of those three involved a change in O'Rourke's position on education?

---

None. I was voting for Beto solely on his stance on education. However, after looking at his views on immigration, health care, abortion, and his anti-police rhetoric, I can no longer support him.

---

In other words, the same standard list of reasons Republicans routinely trot out to justify voting for sh/t-bags like Trump or Cruz. Republicans win because their voters almost always come home due to social issues, no matter what their positions on the actual issues their voters claim are important to them.

---

They are all important issues. It's just that I agree more with Cruz that Beto. I only support Beto on public education and the legalization of marijuana...but I agree with Cruz on immigration, health care, and abortion. 3-2, Cruz wins.

fadskier said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

And I've since changed my mind. After listening to Beto. receiving his robots calls and texts (even after I sent stop) I am now voting for Cruz.

---

Which of those three involved a change in O'Rourke's position on education?

---

None. I was voting for Beto solely on his stance on education. However, after looking at his views on immigration, health care, abortion, and his anti-police rhetoric, I can no longer support him.

---

In other words, the same standard list of reasons Republicans routinely trot out to justify voting for sh/t-bags like Trump or Cruz. Republicans win because their voters almost always come home due to social issues, no matter what their positions on the actual issues their voters claim are important to them.

---

They are all important issues. It's just that I agree more with Cruz that Beto. I only support Beto on public education and the legalization of marijuana...but I agree with Cruz on immigration, health care, and abortion. 3-2, Cruz wins.

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

quash said:

---

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

---

I like that idea.

Everyone should not be punished for someone else's pre-existing condition.

quash said:

---

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

---

Sure. But if you run the actuarial numbers the policies would be prohibitively expensive for most people. And they would almost certainly impose lifetime limits so that if, say, your cancer care cost more than $1 million, you'd be on your own once you reached that threshold.

In other words, there is always a market solution, but it's questionable how much the solution solves if it's either out of reach or of limited utility to most people.

I think the real question here lies upstream of a decision about a market response vs. a government-mandated response. The question is whether, as a society, we're OK with letting people die who could otherwise be saved if they could afford healthcare in an open marketplace. Government policies reflect some hedging back and forth over the years on that question.

And this question feeds into another fundamental question over whether healthcare is a right or a commodity. A purely market response would be to say that it's a commodity. A majority of Americans have come to believe it is a right.

We won't really have coherent healthcare policies in this country until we resolve these fundamental questions.

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

---

Sure. But if you run the actuarial numbers the policies would be prohibitively expensive for most people. And they would almost certainly impose lifetime limits so that if, say, your cancer care cost more than $1 million, you'd be on your own once you reached that threshold.

In other words, there is always a market solution, but it's questionable how much the solution solves if it's either out of reach or of limited utility to most people.

I think the real question here lies upstream of a decision about a market response vs. a government-mandated response. The question is whether, as a society, we're OK with letting people die who could otherwise be saved if they could afford healthcare in an open marketplace. Government policies reflect some hedging back and forth over the years on that question. This is where charity picks up...govt could allow larger deductions for medical charities

And this question feeds into another fundamental question over whether healthcare is a right or a commodity. A purely market response would be to say that it's a commodity. A majority of Americans have come to believe it is a right. Of course they do, most believe it is free...without any thought to who will pay for it

We won't really have coherent healthcare policies in this country until we resolve these fundamental questions.Completely agree. Maybe we settle it as a state issue?

---

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

---

Sure. But if you run the actuarial numbers the policies would be prohibitively expensive for most people. And they would almost certainly impose lifetime limits so that if, say, your cancer care cost more than $1 million, you'd be on your own once you reached that threshold.

In other words, there is always a market solution, but it's questionable how much the solution solves if it's either out of reach or of limited utility to most people.

I think the real question here lies upstream of a decision about a market response vs. a government-mandated response. The question is whether, as a society, we're OK with letting people die who could otherwise be saved if they could afford healthcare in an open marketplace. Government policies reflect some hedging back and forth over the years on that question.

And this question feeds into another fundamental question over whether healthcare is a right or a commodity. A purely market response would be to say that it's a commodity. A majority of Americans have come to believe it is a right.

We won't really have coherent healthcare policies in this country until we resolve these fundamental questions.

---

That question want be answered. It's like asking where the pendulum is pointing.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

---

Sure. But if you run the actuarial numbers the policies would be prohibitively expensive for most people. And they would almost certainly impose lifetime limits so that if, say, your cancer care cost more than $1 million, you'd be on your own once you reached that threshold.

In other words, there is always a market solution, but it's questionable how much the solution solves if it's either out of reach or of limited utility to most people.

I think the real question here lies upstream of a decision about a market response vs. a government-mandated response. The question is whether, as a society, we're OK with letting people die who could otherwise be saved if they could afford healthcare in an open marketplace. Government policies reflect some hedging back and forth over the years on that question.

And this question feeds into another fundamental question over whether healthcare is a right or a commodity. A purely market response would be to say that it's a commodity. A majority of Americans have come to believe it is a right.

We won't really have coherent healthcare policies in this country until we resolve these fundamental questions.

---

That question want be answered. It's like asking where the pendulum is pointing.

---

That's true for the present. But it may not always be true.

fadskier said:

---

Everyone should not be punished for someone else's pre-existing condition.

---

..... or that others are not covered, like illegals

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

cinque said:

---

You want a cessation to the coverage of preexisting conditions? Why?

---

A market response would make policies available for pre-existing conditions, but they would be expensive. And they would need to be disconnected from employment, so people wouldn't feel chained to a job for insurance reasons.

---

Sure. But if you run the actuarial numbers the policies would be prohibitively expensive for most people. And they would almost certainly impose lifetime limits so that if, say, your cancer care cost more than $1 million, you'd be on your own once you reached that threshold.

In other words, there is always a market solution, but it's questionable how much the solution solves if it's either out of reach or of limited utility to most people.

I think the real question here lies upstream of a decision about a market response vs. a government-mandated response. The question is whether, as a society, we're OK with letting people die who could otherwise be saved if they could afford healthcare in an open marketplace. Government policies reflect some hedging back and forth over the years on that question.

And this question feeds into another fundamental question over whether healthcare is a right or a commodity. A purely market response would be to say that it's a commodity. A majority of Americans have come to believe it is a right.

We won't really have coherent healthcare policies in this country until we resolve these fundamental questions.

---

I disagree. If there is a need the market finds a way to meet that need. An overpriced product won't do that. So I would like to give the market a chance. While I can't predict exactly what the market would create I think untethering health insurance from employment would be a first step. I had a term life policy that stayed with me for twenty years and three different employers. And we all have the pre-existing condition of dying.

The notion of healthcare as a right, which thereby includes the notion of govt protected or even provided, is a barrier to the traditional partner to private coverage for those who can afford it: charitable hospitals. Democrats no longer say " I gave at the office" they say "I pay taxes for that". We just flat need less govt.

quash said:

---

I think untethering health insurance from employment would be a first step.

---

I would like to see this

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

I think untethering health insurance from employment would be a first step.

---

I would like to see this

---

But how does that work? It would be like removing great facilities away from football recruiting.

Facilities help recruit and retain great players like benefits help recruit and retain great employees.

The companies could take the money they would save from not subsidizing employee healthcare and pay their employees more. That would also help recruit new talent.

CSIBear said:

---

The companies could take the money they would save from not subsidizing employee healthcare and pay their employees more. That would also help recruit new talent.

---

agree with this 100%