President Elect Trump

my2hands said:

Trump co-opted Bernies economic populist message and won with it in the Midwest which we all know lead to his victory. Bernie would not have lost the entire rust belt, would gave done better with working class whites then HRC, had zero political scandal, and would have defeated Trump

No question

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

bootleg said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

It's sarcasm Friday!

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"?

Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?

And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.

The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.

In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).

Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.

Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.

I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.

Of course he wouldn't have won. He hit his ceiling in the primaries. It is alternate universe thinking.

Not alternate universe thinking. Sanders was up 10 to 12 points in head to head polls with trump. Combine that with no emails and no Benghazi.

Numbers and polls again huh?
In six days all that shit doesn't matter.
Numbers and polls
President Trump won w/ low polls

Free said:

Bernie had millions behind him. anyone saying he didn't have much chance don't know what they're talking about.

mickeyrat said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

bootleg said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

It's sarcasm Friday!

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"?

Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?

And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.

The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.

In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).

Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.

Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.

I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.

Of course he wouldn't have won. He hit his ceiling in the primaries. It is alternate universe thinking.

Not alternate universe thinking. Sanders was up 10 to 12 points in head to head polls with trump. Combine that with no emails and no Benghazi.

Numbers and polls again huh?
In six days all that shit doesn't matter.
Numbers and polls
President Trump won w/ low polls

Trump won based on an antiquated system put in place to protect the slaveholding states and slavery itself. By 80k or so votes in 3 states. A plain fact of the estimated 230-240 million eligible voters, he garnered a scant 25% of said eligible votes.

Go Beavers said:

What slavery is proposed by big government urban elite? And who are these urban elite? Are they fun to hang out with?

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

It's sarcasm Friday!

I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.

A bad job by Trump would be good for America. If he does a good job, the deplorable changes he makes will likely take decades to reverse.

He hasn't even taken office yet and we re saying things like "deplorable changes". Give the man a chance.