Are you sure "experience" is the word you're searching for there? Being an outsider candidate of a small party 17 years ago doesn't gain you experience points.
Yes. It gave him foresight to come back and win on a political level. Pinnacle thinking if you will.
I voted for Clinton but I m definitely giving trump a chance. I honestly think he s gonna do a good job. With a republican controlled congress we might actually get something done in this country.
As a student of history like you fanch is I'm sure well aware, until about 1900 the Democrats were considered the conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.
What about today's Republican Party makes you of the belief that they would champion causes of equality for minoroties or women? Hell, we can't even get them to agree to the belief that a woman should be paid equally as a man for equal work.
So please continue telling us how minorities and women have their freedoms because of conservative ideas present in today's Republican Party.
The parting words, which were also his signature catch phrase during his time as host of “Celebrity Apprentice,” came in the context of Trump discussing his plan to have his two eldest sons run his business ventures while he’s president.
“I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and I’ll say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say ...”
At that exact moment, the president-elect pulled out a finger gun and said, “You’re fired.”
And with that, his first press conference in six months was over.
good god what a fucking buffoon.
It's mind-blowing how many people support this guy. Common sense & critical thinking are a thing of the past.
it isn't really. remember GWB? he was not only elected but REELECTED by the same people.
Trump recognized the post-truth era quickly and unapologetically managed his campaign accordingly. Trump's opportunity existed almost exclusively because of the sleazy and incestuous world of Washington, big money, and the mainstream media, who have been colluding to manufacture news, policies, and collective opinions where serving themselves was the goal, and serving the public was incidental. This kind of nefarious behaviour trained the American population not to think and not to care (because they couldn't do anything about it anyways). People were willing to, in stages, reduce their engagement for a few reasons: mental laziness leaving them susceptible to undue thought control, or a reluctance or incapacity to unify to lay down the ground ethical rules for what should and shouldn't be tolerated by government, corporation, and media (which you could effectively aggregate into one group since they help each other so exclusively and wholly) to the pathetically low point of engagement we see today.
Today, when awakened by the crude but often correct rhetoric by Trump (particularly when analyzing the ineffectual nature of current-state media and government at being agents of change), people have begun to realize how complacent they had become. Clinton embodied everything that complacency encapsulated. There's something about seeing that a vote is effectively useless at driving change, that produces anger and rage, replacing reason and logic (so much so that Trump could point fingers at nefarious actions, and that resonated far more than the fact that he partakes in the same nefarious actions). The populace was then left with a few choices, and I'm guessing that split was something like this: complacent citizens who don't believe change is realistic with either candidate, choose Clinton. Everyone else, choose Trump. Of course, there were the ones who found both unpalatable, and didn't vote. I'm really not sure the inner dialogue went further than that in most cases. As for the "deplorables", Trump clearly subscribes to the "no press is bad press" train of thought (and clearly with good reason), so the best way to do that is a grassroots effort to hijack megaphones, which don't concern themselves with what spews out of them - just that it's loud. When Trump effectively refused to disavow David Duke of the KKK, the KKK became a megaphone sending pro-Trump messages. Extremists are particularly great at bearing megaphones - they are used to screaming loudly to ensure that their messages are heard.
Democracy gives the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent, the critical thinkers and the not-so-critical thinkers, equal ability to elect. It stands to reason, then, that a proper democracy needs to convert the not-so-intelligent, the not-so-critical thinkers, or the people who fall under both - into intelligent, critical thinkers, in order to hold elected officials accountable, and to ensure that further elected officials are elected for the right reasons. This is an uphill battle when the systems (political, social, economic, legal) are designed to make not-so-critical thinkers out of as many as possible, and I wish I could see a light at the end of a tunnel, but I honestly can't think of a road that doesn't lead to destruction, when factoring in our fatal human flaws of greed and selfishness. If there is a way, it must start with tremendous education reform.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++not sure why its doing that, me below
Nice post for sure, in reference to your last thought paragraph: Which group do you think better helps those that are un-intelligent or those that find it difficult to think critically? a. the group that only questions or points out what they see wrong with their opposing political party b. the group that questions government, politics, both partys in general, regardless of their political party affiliation or leanings
The problem specifically that I see in todays climate, which has been going on for years now, is that people do not criticize, question, or point out what is wrong with their own political parties or representatives. Democrats dont hold democrats accountable and republicans dont hold republicans accountable, they just point fingers at each other. Actually, its much worse then not holding their own party accountable, they go so far as to make excuses and defend actions that are in direct contrast to their beliefs leanings. No better example then wars bombs between Bush Obama.
Not sure if you intended this for me, but I've been vocal about people's preferences for seeking validation from their peers over dissidence from who they call their opponents.
My allegiance is to learning the truth first, and sharing the truth second. If my sharing of truth leads to learning that what I thought was truth was not, that's fantastic. We should all aspire to go to sleep each night knowing that we felt and we did what was best with the information we had at the time, and to be open to learning so that we can continue to do the same the next day.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
I see positives and negatives with the aca. Who knows, maybe something better will come out of it.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
I see positives and negatives with the aca. Who knows, maybe something better will come out of it.
I agree, there are positives and negatives, but from what I understand, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Without a replacement, I don't see what republicans are going to do when it's repealed.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
Now Ryan is putting heat on the ethics head guy to not put pressure on Baffon to disclose his business ties , this is absurd this Bafoon should not be in charge of anything I wouldn't let him near my dog !!
That's a nice outline, but this isn't a 9th grade essay you get to just turn in and pat yourself on the back for your great ideas. They have to actually figure out how to implement these ideas. I can also come up with an outline and ideas on how I'd like to see pigs fly. If it was so simple, they would have already done it, right?
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
I see positives and negatives with the aca. Who knows, maybe something better will come out of it.
What's the "something?" The Repubs had 6 years from passage, 8 years from incarnation, 70 years from concept to have "something." Hate to break it to you but Trump has nothing. And neither do the Repubs.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
As a student of history like you fanch is I'm sure well aware, until about 1900 the Democrats were considered the conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.
What about today's Republican Party makes you of the belief that they would champion causes of equality for minoroties or women? Hell, we can't even get them to agree to the belief that a woman should be paid equally as a man for equal work.
So please continue telling us how minorities and women have their freedoms because of conservative ideas present in today's Republican Party.
The parting words, which were also his signature catch phrase during his time as host of “Celebrity Apprentice,” came in the context of Trump discussing his plan to have his two eldest sons run his business ventures while he’s president.
“I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and I’ll say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say ...”
At that exact moment, the president-elect pulled out a finger gun and said, “You’re fired.”
And with that, his first press conference in six months was over.
good god what a fucking buffoon.
It's mind-blowing how many people support this guy. Common sense & critical thinking are a thing of the past.
it isn't really. remember GWB? he was not only elected but REELECTED by the same people.
Trump recognized the post-truth era quickly and unapologetically managed his campaign accordingly. Trump's opportunity existed almost exclusively because of the sleazy and incestuous world of Washington, big money, and the mainstream media, who have been colluding to manufacture news, policies, and collective opinions where serving themselves was the goal, and serving the public was incidental. This kind of nefarious behaviour trained the American population not to think and not to care (because they couldn't do anything about it anyways). People were willing to, in stages, reduce their engagement for a few reasons: mental laziness leaving them susceptible to undue thought control, or a reluctance or incapacity to unify to lay down the ground ethical rules for what should and shouldn't be tolerated by government, corporation, and media (which you could effectively aggregate into one group since they help each other so exclusively and wholly) to the pathetically low point of engagement we see today.
Today, when awakened by the crude but often correct rhetoric by Trump (particularly when analyzing the ineffectual nature of current-state media and government at being agents of change), people have begun to realize how complacent they had become. Clinton embodied everything that complacency encapsulated. There's something about seeing that a vote is effectively useless at driving change, that produces anger and rage, replacing reason and logic (so much so that Trump could point fingers at nefarious actions, and that resonated far more than the fact that he partakes in the same nefarious actions). The populace was then left with a few choices, and I'm guessing that split was something like this: complacent citizens who don't believe change is realistic with either candidate, choose Clinton. Everyone else, choose Trump. Of course, there were the ones who found both unpalatable, and didn't vote. I'm really not sure the inner dialogue went further than that in most cases. As for the "deplorables", Trump clearly subscribes to the "no press is bad press" train of thought (and clearly with good reason), so the best way to do that is a grassroots effort to hijack megaphones, which don't concern themselves with what spews out of them - just that it's loud. When Trump effectively refused to disavow David Duke of the KKK, the KKK became a megaphone sending pro-Trump messages. Extremists are particularly great at bearing megaphones - they are used to screaming loudly to ensure that their messages are heard.
Democracy gives the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent, the critical thinkers and the not-so-critical thinkers, equal ability to elect. It stands to reason, then, that a proper democracy needs to convert the not-so-intelligent, the not-so-critical thinkers, or the people who fall under both - into intelligent, critical thinkers, in order to hold elected officials accountable, and to ensure that further elected officials are elected for the right reasons. This is an uphill battle when the systems (political, social, economic, legal) are designed to make not-so-critical thinkers out of as many as possible, and I wish I could see a light at the end of a tunnel, but I honestly can't think of a road that doesn't lead to destruction, when factoring in our fatal human flaws of greed and selfishness. If there is a way, it must start with tremendous education reform.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++not sure why its doing that, me below
Nice post for sure, in reference to your last thought paragraph: Which group do you think better helps those that are un-intelligent or those that find it difficult to think critically? a. the group that only questions or points out what they see wrong with their opposing political party b. the group that questions government, politics, both partys in general, regardless of their political party affiliation or leanings
The problem specifically that I see in todays climate, which has been going on for years now, is that people do not criticize, question, or point out what is wrong with their own political parties or representatives. Democrats dont hold democrats accountable and republicans dont hold republicans accountable, they just point fingers at each other. Actually, its much worse then not holding their own party accountable, they go so far as to make excuses and defend actions that are in direct contrast to their beliefs leanings. No better example then wars bombs between Bush Obama.
Ok you & JC have all the answers so can you let us know how you go about dismantling of all the shortcomings of our government , we have the incoming administration that most feel is not on track to work for all the population ! I'm not sure how we get to the promised land ..
Except Free isn't turning into a Trump ass kisser like JC has lately.
"Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.
There is a clear gulf in these perceptions between the health insurance haves and have-nots. According to a Sept. 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll, the 85% of Americans with health insurance coverage are broadly satisfied with the quality of medical care they receive and with their healthcare costs. At 79%, satisfaction with costs among Medicare/Medicaid recipients is particularly high.
The 15% who are uninsured are far less satisfied with the quality of their medical care (50% are satisfied), and only 27% are satisfied with their healthcare costs. (Sixty-nine percent are dissatisfied with their costs.)"
"If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent."
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Yup, you're the devil.
I'm the devil I can do what I want Whatever I got I'm gonna flaunt There's never been a rock off that I've ever lost.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Yup, you're the devil.
I'm the devil I can do what I want Whatever I got I'm gonna flaunt There's never been a rock off that I've ever lost.
Comments
It gave him foresight to come back and win on a political level.
Pinnacle thinking if you will.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I would love to be proven wrong on Trump. Love to.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Not sure if you intended this for me, but I've been vocal about people's preferences for seeking validation from their peers over dissidence from who they call their opponents.
My allegiance is to learning the truth first, and sharing the truth second. If my sharing of truth leads to learning that what I thought was truth was not, that's fantastic. We should all aspire to go to sleep each night knowing that we felt and we did what was best with the information we had at the time, and to be open to learning so that we can continue to do the same the next day.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
GB,
Can you not see where the disconnect is between dems and repubs from posts like this? Disbelief.
President Trump is in office.
www.thebalance.com/obamacare-pros-and-cons-3306059
I don't understand some democratic American way of thinking such when the info has always been here before President Trump was elected.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/HCReformPaper.pdf
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/health-care/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Except Free isn't turning into a Trump ass kisser like JC has lately.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/Cost-Is-Foremost-Healthcare-Issue-for-Americans.aspx
"Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.
There is a clear gulf in these perceptions between the health insurance haves and have-nots. According to a Sept. 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll, the 85% of Americans with health insurance coverage are broadly satisfied with the quality of medical care they receive and with their healthcare costs. At 79%, satisfaction with costs among Medicare/Medicaid recipients is particularly high.
The 15% who are uninsured are far less satisfied with the quality of their medical care (50% are satisfied), and only 27% are satisfied with their healthcare costs. (Sixty-nine percent are dissatisfied with their costs.)"
And this from 2010
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/george-will/will-says-95-percent-people-health-insurance-are-s/
"If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent."
You just got some satisfaction
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Whatever I got I'm gonna flaunt
There's never been a rock off that I've ever lost.