Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

Yeah, but with single payor being politically impossible, how about the "public option" which was the original selling point of Obamacare (and the first thing to be scrapped in the negotiations with Congress).  Wouldn't that go a long way towards keeping private insurance companies competitive with their premium rates and help incentivize overall cost reduction? 

Probably. In theory.

I know thats vague, but there were issues with their implementstion of "the public option", too. It woukd depend on final form. Could help, could hurt, could be staus quo.

I think the concept presented back then was good, but we never really got to see something close to implementation...it never really got morphed by the House or Senate. A lot would depend on what it looked like at that point.

And honestly, unless the dems make a lot more noise than i expect them to.....i'd expect at least a couple more years of general gridlock.  They dont have the numbers or mandate, currently, to push through a public option, unless they can manage a bipartisan move. Given the current climate.....i think thats an outside shot.

[Drew]

THEY ARE HERE.

THEY NEED EMERGENT CARE.

THEY ARE PEOPLE.

So...are you going to amnesty everyone currently in the country?

Or do you plan to try to round them up and deport them all (good luck with that...the costs of that enforcement squad will dwarf the costs you're looking at eliminating...and your healthcare costs will drop such a tiny amount, you likely won't notice it, and it will disappear in about 16 months)?

Or are you going to let them die?

Those are your 3 choices. Pick one

And if you choose the last one, keep in mind, current laws say that non-profit providers (and there are lots of them, at least one in every state, and more like one in every urban area) MUST PROVIDE emergent care to anyone who needs it, with an ability to pay or not. You can't even ASK, for emergent care, at a non profit.

So...you give them permission to refuse service and let the patient die on their doorstep..you also give them permission to refuse service to ANYONE who can't provide evidence they can pay when they get there. So...if...for example...you're in a car accident, you're in rough shape and unconcious, and your wallet is thrown clear...and you happen to be..I don't know..a little too brown...they let you die? Right? Because they don't know if you are an illegal or not. And you're obviously going to cost a ton of money to take care of.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  You're talking out of your ass to try to support SOMEONE ELSE'S talking points. You're theory crafting a pie in the sky situation, instead of living in the real world. And every time you write another line, you keep proving my point.

As for breaking the law...do you go faster than the speed limit? So, if you are in an accident, and need urgent care...the provider should instantly disqualify you from being seen. Your care will be expensive, and increase premiums. Or at least triage you down the line...because the EMS report clearly shows you were speeding. C'mon, man.  At least live in the real world.

We'll disagree on whether I or tax payers should have to pay for an illegal's care and to make sure they can get by. You obviously think the tax payer should. If I'm correct, you think, if ten million illegal immigrants came into this country today, the U.S tax payer should pay for the services to help them and take care of them. Emergency care or anything they may need should be paid for by the tax payer. Because they are people and well, they are in the country now.

Yes, I believe if one cannot prove they are a legal U.S. citizen they should be removed from this country immediately.

Please do not tell me what amount of health-care I would or would not notice if it were to increase or decrease. You do not know what your talking about or as you like to say, your talking out of your ass.

If I were in another country illegally and breaking a number of laws, in this case speeding, I do think I should be refused emergency service. When someone is in another country, it's in the best interest of self-preservation that one abides by the laws.

[pilferk]

THEY ARE HERE.

THEY NEED EMERGENT CARE.

THEY ARE PEOPLE.

So...are you going to amnesty everyone currently in the country?

Or do you plan to try to round them up and deport them all (good luck with that...the costs of that enforcement squad will dwarf the costs you're looking at eliminating...and your healthcare costs will drop such a tiny amount, you likely won't notice it, and it will disappear in about 16 months)?

Or are you going to let them die?

Those are your 3 choices. Pick one

And if you choose the last one, keep in mind, current laws say that non-profit providers (and there are lots of them, at least one in every state, and more like one in every urban area) MUST PROVIDE emergent care to anyone who needs it, with an ability to pay or not. You can't even ASK, for emergent care, at a non profit.

So...you give them permission to refuse service and let the patient die on their doorstep..you also give them permission to refuse service to ANYONE who can't provide evidence they can pay when they get there. So...if...for example...you're in a car accident, you're in rough shape and unconcious, and your wallet is thrown clear...and you happen to be..I don't know..a little too brown...they let you die? Right? Because they don't know if you are an illegal or not. And you're obviously going to cost a ton of money to take care of.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  You're talking out of your ass to try to support SOMEONE ELSE'S talking points. You're theory crafting a pie in the sky situation, instead of living in the real world. And every time you write another line, you keep proving my point.

As for breaking the law...do you go faster than the speed limit? So, if you are in an accident, and need urgent care...the provider should instantly disqualify you from being seen. Your care will be expensive, and increase premiums. Or at least triage you down the line...because the EMS report clearly shows you were speeding. C'mon, man.  At least live in the real world.

We'll disagree on whether I or tax payers should have to pay for an illegal's care and to make sure they can get by. You obviously think the tax payer should. If I'm correct, you think, if ten million illegal immigrants came into this country today, the U.S tax payer should pay for the services to help them and take care of them. Emergency care or anything they may need should be paid for by the tax payer. Because they are people and well, they are in the country now.

Yes, I believe if one cannot prove they are a legal U.S. citizen they should be removed from this country immediately.

Please do not tell me what amount of health-care I would or would not notice if it were to increase or decrease. You do not know what your talking about or as you like to say, your talking out of your ass.

If I were in another country illegally and breaking a number of laws, in this case speeding, I do think I should be refused emergency service. When someone is in another country, it's in the best interest of self-preservation that one abides by the laws.

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me.

And i did say likely. If you notice a change of roughly .50 to .60 every 2 weeks, you would be in the vast, vast, vast minority.

[Drew]

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me.

And i did say likely. If you notice a change of roughly .50 to .60 every 2 weeks, you would be in the vast, vast, vast minority.

And thank you for making mine. More and more people don't want to take responsibility for themselves who break the law.

No matter what the amount is, you spoke out of line.

[pilferk]

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me.

And i did say likely. If you notice a change of roughly .50 to .60 every 2 weeks, you would be in the vast, vast, vast minority.

And thank you for making mine. More and more people don't want to take responsibility for themselves who break the law.

No matter what the amount is, you spoke out of line.

I'm not makng your point, because you havent made one, other than you dont like illegals and want to blame them for anything you can.  Even when you have no clue what you are talking about.  I've certainly said nothing to bolster that.

I did not speak out of line. You are, at this point, grasping at any lifeline to score "a point". And failing.

I spoke of the global "you", not the specific "you", because we are talking about a large group of people. You, drew, mght notice .50 every two weeks. But the majority "you" likely wouldn't and doesn't. And if they do, they have larger issues to address that will have much more dramatic effects on the amount of money they take home.

But continue to fixate on someone else's talking points, and allowing yourself to be roused with the rest of the rabble. Continue to stomp your feet and tantrum about how things should be, ignoring how they actually ARE in the real world. Continue to glide by and ignore actual facts and data to arrive at the conclusion you just WANT to be so. On this topic, of healthcare, i trust i've exposed the fallacy enough to lend cintext to the reset of your posts on the topic.

Feel free to have the last word. You obviously need it.

[Drew]

your healthcare costs will drop such a tiny amount, you likely won't notice it

I did not speak out of line. You are, at this point, grasping at any lifeline to score "a point". And failing.

I spoke of the global "you", not the specific "you", because we are talking about a large group of people. You, drew, mght notice .50 every two weeks. But the majority "you" likely wouldn't and doesn't. And if they do, they have larger issues to address that will have much more dramatic effects on the amount of money they take home.

But continue to fixate on someone else's talking points, and allowing yourself to be roused with the rest of the rabble. Continue to stomp your feet and tantrum about how things should be, ignoring how they actually ARE in the real world. Continue to glide by and ignore actual facts and data to arrive at the conclusion you just WANT to be so. On this topic, of healthcare, i trust i've exposed the fallacy enough to lend cintext to the reset of your posts on the topic.

Feel free to have the last word. You obviously need it.

You should be more clearer when you post because it seemed your were speaking directly to me. You could have easily used 'the majority' or 'most people' but instead you used "you" which comes across as you were speaking directly to me.

And yes, you made my point because as I said, and wanting you to correct me at the time if I was wrong, it seems you would want to take care of everyone who entered this country illegally, breaking the law, and provide for them everything they need. Why make anyone pay for anything at all? You made a ridiculous point about if I were in a car crash and should my insurance cover my cost because I was speeding. Say that's true, do you know how long insurance companies would be in business if that wording was in their policies? About a week. Cause no one and I mean no one would ever pay for an insurance policy with that type of fine-line wording.

What if everyone stopped working and broke immigration laws and moved to another country expecting "free" handouts and to be taken care of? A country wouldn't last long with those type of immigration policies. Why should hard working people who are responsible and legal citizens have to take care of someone who is in a country illegally. I'm sorry, but Utopia does not exist. It's a fictional place.

You keep repeating this nonsense of "talking points" as well. I'm not grasping for any lifeline. Just because my opinion differs from yours on how we should deal with illegal immigration doesn't mean I'm wrong and your right. As I've said, my opinions are not talking points. I don't get my opinions from hearing some asshole on NBC, ABC, CBS, or insert what ever news organization outlet you want. They're all bias to me and I don't get my opinions or form my opinions from someone else. My opinions are formed thru my own personal experience.

Yes, I have a problem with people who break the law and cross into the U.S. or any country illegally. Anyone is more than welcome to come to this country if they do it the right way and the legal way.

And it's not about having the last word. I've been out of Junior High for a long time. I don't play those games. I thought we were having a discussion about why the U.S needs to fix the immigration problems and secure the borders.

[Malcolm]

Big win in New york for Trump

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Cruz just announced his Presidential Library will be in Manitoba. 

[ice cream sand pig]

go bernie!

[tim_m]

Cruz just announced his Presidential Library will be in Manitoba. 

The only presidential library that clown is getting is in his delusional mind.

[JAEBALL]

I am not sure what was worse...

Trump patting himself on the back or Obama refusing to call this what it was.

[tim_m]

I am not sure what was worse...

Trump patting himself on the back or Obama refusing to call this what it was.

He called it a terrorist act. Why does he have to single out Muslims and call it radical Islamic terrorism? If someone of another faith goes out and commits murder do we call it Christian radical terrorism etc? Of course not! Besides this was also a hate crime. It has come out this man regularly went to this club for 3 years and was on Grinder. He clearly had deep rooted issues about his sexuality thanks to society with how gays are treated. Which in this case manifested itself in this horrific shooting. As for what Trump tweeted after the shooting that was abhorrent.

[JAEBALL]

I am not sure what was worse...

Trump patting himself on the back or Obama refusing to call this what it was.

He called it a terrorist act. Why does he have to single out Muslims and call it radical Islamic terrorism? If someone of another faith goes out and commits murder do we call it Christian radical terrorism etc? Of course not! Besides this was also a hate crime. It has come out this man regularly went to this club for 3 years and was on Grinder. He clearly had deep rooted issues about his sexuality thanks to society with how gays are treated. Which in this case manifested itself in this horrific shooting. As for what Trump tweeted after the shooting that was abhorrent.

I didn't see Obama call it a terrorist act ... If he did my mistake.

I lean to the right a little bit ... But I'm with the left 100 percent on guns ... This is exhausting already.

As for the election , I can't vote for Trump ... However I think Hillary is a vile human being too ...smh...

[tim_m]

I am not sure what was worse...

Trump patting himself on the back or Obama refusing to call this what it was.

He called it a terrorist act. Why does he have to single out Muslims and call it radical Islamic terrorism? If someone of another faith goes out and commits murder do we call it Christian radical terrorism etc? Of course not! Besides this was also a hate crime. It has come out this man regularly went to this club for 3 years and was on Grinder. He clearly had deep rooted issues about his sexuality thanks to society with how gays are treated. Which in this case manifested itself in this horrific shooting. As for what Trump tweeted after the shooting that was abhorrent.

I didn't see Obama call it a terrorist act ... If he did my mistake.

I lean to the right a little bit ... But I'm with the left 100 percent on guns ... This is exhausting already.

As for the election , I can't vote for Trump ... However I think Hillary is a vile human being too ...smh...

He did in the very first sentence of his speech. He said it was an act of terror and act of hate. He also said the FBI was investigating it as an act of terrorism.

Yes, i agree, i could never vote for Trump. I don't much care for Hillary either but if voting for her keeps Trump from becoming POTUS i will do it. He is too dangerous to be in such a position.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 At this point Gary Johnson is looking like pretty good option to me, I align Libertarian on most things.  Could be a great opportunity to elect a 3rd party candidate with both the GOP and Dem nominees not really well liked by most people.

 I could never vote for Hillary. I'd vote for Trump before her.

One thing is for sure, we cant keep on going the way we are now, status quo not working. The ship is slowly sinking & we need a course correction. 

[tim_m]

I just can't see a third party candidate ever winning the presidential election.  Then again, 8 years ago i probably would've told you there's no way we'll have a black president or a female president in our lifetimes. But we have a chance to knock down those barriers with consecutive presidents.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 Looks like Hillary gets away with it at least legally. According to the FBI director, Hillary has shown extreme carelessness in her handling of classified information but not enough to merit criminal charges.
 

[pilferk]

Looks like Hillary gets away with it at least legally. According to the FBI director, Hillary has shown extreme carelessness in her handling of classified information but not enough to merit criminal charges.

She's not nearly as unique as the Repubs are trying to portray, on that front.  And she turned over the bulk of what she had (and they found stupid and careless, but not nearly to the level of treason or criminal negligence). The 33k emails that are apparently unaccounted for are, it seems, a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what she did turn over.  The investigation apparently brought to light she (or rather, her tech folks) are stupid (and the loss was explainable), not negligent or criminal (unless you think they're all lying....which is your right).

The G.W Bush administration had 5 million emails, many reportedly containing government business mentions, on a private server, associated with the RNC.  These included his CHIEF OF STAFF using the RNC email almost exclusively for white house business. Those emails were requested as part of a congressional investigation, and they had disappeared. 
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

There are (were? I think they've cleaned things up) a half dozen sitting US senators and about 100 members of the house, on both sides of the aisle, who were conducting government business using private email servers until it came to light this is a no no, according to governmental ethics laws (one guy was even using a public hosting service...not hotmail, but the rough equivalent...to house his business email for him and his staffers).  That's right now (and the ones who made a mea culpa).  I imagine there was a good number of former senators and reps doing the same thing, as well as a batch of current members of the legislature who have NOT admitted it.

I'm no Hillary fan.  If there was a decent Repub candidate running this election, they'd probably get my vote.  Gary Johnson would look more appealing if I could make that vote mean something (aka preventing Trump from holding office).  Honestly, I'd rather write in "None of the above", but can NOT stomach the thought of Trump running this country.  All that's to add context, here.

What she did was stupid.  It was politically tone deaf for someone who you know had eyes on higher office. It was mildly shady.  I'm not sure it reaches the litmus test for "criminal behavior".  Apparently certain officials agree (cue talk of backroom deals and political favors).

The Repubs like to create and "prosecute" scandal in the court of public opinion.  They've tried to do it to every major national political candidate from the opposing party for the past 20+ years.  It's beginning to feel a bit like "the boy who cried wolf".  It smacks of false indignation (especially when members of their own party were doing it) and rabble rousing, now. It just feels insincere....from the allegation all the way up to the righteous indignation when we get to the inevitable conclusion (if you read the stories from the time, pretty much everyone agreed that it looked like Hillary had been stupid, but not broken any federal laws).  And given the Repub candidate (ugh), the party is left with pretty much only one option going into November, and that's try to make her look worse than their guy.  This is SOOOOO much part of that political strategy rather than earnest indignation, IMHO.  If it weren't straight out of their election bag of tricks, I'd give it more credence, maybe.

If you want to get worked up over Hillary, there's a lot better things to look at. They're just not as "sexy"...and the headlines are a bit less jarring. But, IMHO, way more "worked up" worthy than this.

[tim_m]

Looks like Hillary gets away with it at least legally. According to the FBI director, Hillary has shown extreme carelessness in her handling of classified information but not enough to merit criminal charges.

She's not nearly as unique as the Repubs are trying to portray, on that front.  And she turned over the bulk of what she had (and they found stupid and careless, but not nearly to the level of treason or criminal negligence). The 33k emails that are apparently unaccounted for are, it seems, a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what she did turn over.  The investigation apparently brought to light she (or rather, her tech folks) are stupid (and the loss was explainable), not negligent or criminal (unless you think they're all lying....which is your right).

The G.W Bush administration had 5 million emails, many reportedly containing government business mentions, on a private server, associated with the RNC.  These included his CHIEF OF STAFF using the RNC email almost exclusively for white house business. Those emails were requested as part of a congressional investigation, and they had disappeared. 
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

There are (were? I think they've cleaned things up) a half dozen sitting US senators and about 100 members of the house, on both sides of the aisle, who were conducting government business using private email servers until it came to light this is a no no, according to governmental ethics laws (one guy was even using a public hosting service...not hotmail, but the rough equivalent...to house his business email for him and his staffers).  That's right now (and the ones who made a mea culpa).  I imagine there was a good number of former senators and reps doing the same thing, as well as a batch of current members of the legislature who have NOT admitted it.

I'm no Hillary fan.  If there was a decent Repub candidate running this election, they'd probably get my vote.  Gary Johnson would look more appealing if I could make that vote mean something (aka preventing Trump from holding office).  Honestly, I'd rather write in "None of the above", but can NOT stomach the thought of Trump running this country.  All that's to add context, here.

What she did was stupid.  It was politically tone deaf for someone who you know had eyes on higher office. It was mildly shady.  I'm not sure it reaches the litmus test for "criminal behavior".  Apparently certain officials agree (cue talk of backroom deals and political favors).

The Repubs like to create and "prosecute" scandal in the court of public opinion.  They've tried to do it to every major national political candidate from the opposing party for the past 20+ years.  It's beginning to feel a bit like "the boy who cried wolf".  It smacks of false indignation (especially when members of their own party were doing it) and rabble rousing, now. It just feels insincere....from the allegation all the way up to the righteous indignation when we get to the inevitable conclusion (if you read the stories from the time, pretty much everyone agreed that it looked like Hillary had been stupid, but not broken any federal laws).  And given the Repub candidate (ugh), the party is left with pretty much only one option going into November, and that's try to make her look worse than their guy.  This is SOOOOO much part of that political strategy rather than earnest indignation, IMHO.  If it weren't straight out of their election bag of tricks, I'd give it more credence, maybe.

If you want to get worked up over Hillary, there's a lot better things to look at. They're just not as "sexy"...and the headlines are a bit less jarring. But, IMHO, way more "worked up" worthy than this.

So basically it all boils down to that this is what we already knew a double standard witch hunt.

[pilferk]

So basically it all boils down to that this is what we already knew a double standard witch hunt.

For me? Yup, pretty much.  At least in terms of the whole prosecution thing.

Does it mean that it would effect my vote? I mean...do you really, ultimately, want someone that careless with classified info and that stupid in terms of their handling of technology in the White House?  So, if just about ANYONE else were running against Hillary, it would probably effect my vote. A lot.

But given the two choices....and lets not fool ourselves into thinking there are more..ONE of those two people are going to be president...it's literally NOT AS BAD as some of the things Trump has said and proposed or done.

And, quite frankly, if put in the exact same situation, I'd expect Trump to have done something at least as careless and stupid.  Because his history, just in the campaign trail, tells me he would.

The choices are fucking terrible and OMFG NO WAY, NO HOW TERRIBLE.