GOP Health Plan Released

[Latrinsorm]

https://i.imgflip.com/1m319e.jpg

Also want to give a quick t of the h to myself for pointing out that the narrowness of the Republicans' advantage in Congress was relevant, not just that they had a majority. Nice job, me! :D

[time4fun]

https://i.imgflip.com/1m319e.jpg

Also want to give a quick t of the h to myself for pointing out that the narrowness of the Republicans' advantage in Congress was relevant, not just that they had a majority. Nice job, me! :D

1.5%-ish vote advantage in the House = 50 seat advantage. Almost 11% fewer votes in Senate = 2 seat advantage. (Though in fairness, that's sort of the point of the Senate). 2.1% fewer votes for President = Winning.

Ahhh Democracy.

[time4fun]

Muslim bans could be blamed on biased courts or some such handwaving. He tried to fulfill his campaign promise and outside forces intervened.

The Russia stuff hasn't stuck yet, and I doubt it ever will. If anyone gets busted, it'll be someone on his campaign staff who everyone else will disavow. That's "best case" scenario for those waving that flag.

I don't think approval ratings are much of a factor in anything, which is odd, but look at the general election.

Crowd size arguments and gaffes are not major blows to a presidency by any metric.

It was his own party that stone walled him on healthcare. Many Trump supporters wanted nothing to do with this revision to the ACA, and he was actively stumping for it.

You're trying to say a whole bunch of bad things don't matter/aren't hurting him, but with a historically low approval rating that's a tough argument to buy.

You're dismissing the evidence that it's sticking and using that to dismiss the causes.

[Tgo01]

1.5%-ish vote advantage in the House = 50 seat advantage. Almost 11% fewer votes in Senate = 2 seat advantage. (Though in fairness, that's sort of the point of the Senate). 2.1% fewer votes for President = Winning.

Ahhh Democracy.

You're STILL pushing for the idea that we should do a nationwide popular vote and divvy up house and senate seats in such a fashion? Even Latrinsorm isn't going to agree with such nonsense, and he's usually up for all sorts of nonsense.

[Candor]

Yeah, this is honestly worse than most of us imagined. I think at this point in time it's pretty clear that some of his associates are going to be facing criminal charges. And at that point- whether or not Trump ends up with charges against him- it's going to be really hard to convinced the majority of Americans that it was just his National Security Adviser, Campaign Manager, and top adviser who were colluding with Russia, and that he had no idea any of it was going on. (regardless of whether or not that's true)

And that's not even getting into the Russian money laundering cases being pursued right now by a bank he happens to owe $300m to, which is also tied to another major Russian money laundering bank whose former Vice Chairman is now Trump's Secretary of Commerce. Nor the scandal of him abruptly firing the prosecutors looking into that case. Or the whole Trukish kidnapping escapade (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/michael-flynn-discussed-covert-extradition-plan-with-turkish-government/) Flynn was reportedly trying to make happen. The list goes on. For whatever reason everywhere you look around Trump, you find Russia. Regardless of the truth, the optics really couldn't be worse.

At best, he just ends up dogged by this Russian news cycle through the next 4 years as more and more shoes drop. At worst, he's out of here in a year or two and lives out the rest of his life in jail. Most likely the end result lives somewhere in between the extremes.

I am going to quote your post in a year or two so everyone can have a good laugh.

[time4fun]

I am going to quote your post in a year or two so everyone can have a good laugh.

You honestly think Paul Manafort is going to get off without charges? There are three different countries at minimum who are investigating him right now. And two of them have handed over their evidence to the US.

[SHAFT]

https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/G47.Z02p_.EOAJG_mMRyhw--/aD05NjA7dz0xMDQyO3NtPTE7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1042/db27bcf998293f019251ae8bbe445e5c18ace6b9.gif

This is what Republicans do best these days. Hillary memes.

Certainly not making deals or #winning.

[Fallen]

You're trying to say a whole bunch of bad things don't matter/aren't hurting him, but with a historically low approval rating that's a tough argument to buy.

You're dismissing the evidence that it's sticking and using that to dismiss the causes.

It isn't like if he hits a certain number he'll explode or be impeached. It was the same way during the election. Both candidates were historically unpopular. Congressional approval ratings are constantly around 10-15%

"In September 2012, 13% of Americans gave Congress a favorable rating yet we returned incumbents to the House at a rate of 90% and to the Senate at a rate of 91%." - some website.

[Androidpk]

You honestly think Paul Manafort is going to get off without charges? There are three different countries at minimum who are investigating him right now. And two of them have handed over their evidence to the US.

Multiple countries are investigating the Clinton Foundation too.

[time4fun]

It isn't like if he hits a certain number he'll explode or be impeached. It was the same way during the election. Both candidates were historically unpopular. Congressional approval ratings are constantly around 10-15%

"In September 2012, 13% of Americans gave Congress a favorable rating yet we returned incumbents to the House at a rate of 90% and to the Senate at a rate of 91%." - some website.

It's more about the physics of approval ratings and elections. The GOP is facing a midterm election in 2018 while holding both Houses of Congress and the White House. The majority party in those cases almost always loses seats. If the President's approval is less than 50%, it tends to hurt. If the President is significantly lower than that, you have fertile ground for a wave.

And Presidential approval ratings don't tend to get better after the first 100 days, if you catch my drift.

Granted, we don't have a data point from a President who is this deeply unpopular so early. Given there's only so much lower to go, he may be the first to go up.

Regardless, this is an unprecedentedly poor start.

[Tgo01]

Regardless, this is an unprecedentedly poor start.

I think a lot of people would argue that Lincoln had a worse first ~70 days.

Probably was much less popular too.

[Androidpk]

Harrison had the worst POTUS start of all time.

[Tyronebiggums]

Harrison had the worst POTUS start of all time.



Yah, his plane was hijacked by Gary Oldman

[SHAFT]

Multiple countries are investigating the Clinton Foundation too.

Who gives a shit about Hillary these days? She's a loser.

[Androidpk]

Who gives a shit about Hillary these days? She's a loser.

I do!

[Fallen]

It's more about the physics of approval ratings and elections. The GOP is facing a midterm election in 2018 while holding both Houses of Congress and the White House. The majority party in those cases almost always loses seats. If the President's approval is less than 50%, it tends to hurt. If the President is significantly lower than that, you have fertile ground for a wave.

And Presidential approval ratings don't tend to get better after the first 100 days, if you catch my drift.

Granted, we don't have a data point from a President who is this deeply unpopular so early. Given there's only so much lower to go, he may be the first to go up.

Regardless, this is an unprecedentedly poor start.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/14/democrats_unlikely_to_take_the_senate_in_2018_midt erms.html

Article is a bit old, but that's more or less what I was told when I spoke with people about a mid term change in seats due to Trump. I'm all for hearing an argument why that's wrong, though. It'd make sense for R's to lose seats, but I keep hearing the seats up for grabs don't look all that promising for Democrats.

[Candor]

You honestly think Paul Manafort is going to get off without charges? There are three different countries at minimum who are investigating him right now. And two of them have handed over their evidence to the US.

May I suggest that it would be better to wait until the investigations are completed before making any assumptions about guilt.

[RichardCranium]

Guilty until proven innocent. It's a staple of American justice.

[Latrinsorm]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/14/democrats_unlikely_to_take_the_senate_in_2018_midt erms.html

Article is a bit old, but that's more or less what I was told when I spoke with people about a mid term change in seats due to Trump. I'm all for hearing an argument why that's wrong, though. It'd make sense for R's to lose seats, but I keep hearing the seats up for grabs don't look all that promising for Democrats.The premise of the article is if the 2018 map looks like 2016, the Democrats will not gain. Let us test that premise by comparing the electoral map of 2010 to 2008: Republicans gained in Wisconsin (+14 Obama), Illinois (+25), Indiana (+1), and Pennsylvania (+10). Or look from a broader view: the only midterm election since the Second World War Two when the President's party gained seats in both houses was 2002. I'd have a beer with whoever that President was, but the point is that midterm maps don't look like Presidential maps, and not to beat a dead horse here but the Republicans are scraping by to get stuff done now. Even if the Democrats don't take a nominal majority, any narrowing of the already precarious Republican lead is only going to make things worse, and that's not taking into consideration how many Republicans are going to be replaced from within their own party. Maybe they consolidate under moderation or extremity, but the more likely outcome seems like further fracturing.

[Androidpk]

The premise of the article is if the 2018 map looks like 2016, the Democrats will not gain. Let us test that premise by comparing the electoral map of 2010 to 2008: Republicans gained in Wisconsin (+14 Obama), Illinois (+25), Indiana (+1), and Pennsylvania (+10). Or look from a broader view: the only midterm election since the Second World War Two when the President's party gained seats in both houses was 2002. I'd have a beer with whoever that President was, but the point is that midterm maps don't look like Presidential maps, and not to beat a dead horse here but the Republicans are scraping by to get stuff done now. Even if the Democrats don't take a nominal majority, any narrowing of the already precarious Republican lead is only going to make things worse, and that's not taking into consideration how many Republicans are going to be replaced from within their own party. Maybe they consolidate under moderation or extremity, but the more likely outcome seems like further fracturing.


Let's find out what Nate Silver says.

[time4fun]

The premise of the article is if the 2018 map looks like 2016, the Democrats will not gain. Let us test that premise by comparing the electoral map of 2010 to 2008: Republicans gained in Wisconsin (+14 Obama), Illinois (+25), Indiana (+1), and Pennsylvania (+10). Or look from a broader view: the only midterm election since the Second World War Two when the President's party gained seats in both houses was 2002. I'd have a beer with whoever that President was, but the point is that midterm maps don't look like Presidential maps, and not to beat a dead horse here but the Republicans are scraping by to get stuff done now. Even if the Democrats don't take a nominal majority, any narrowing of the already precarious Republican lead is only going to make things worse, and that's not taking into consideration how many Republicans are going to be replaced from within their own party. Maybe they consolidate under moderation or extremity, but the more likely outcome seems like further fracturing.

This.

The Senate is probably a lost cause unfortunately. Dems will likely grab NV, but when your lowest hanging fruit for a majority are AZ and TX, things aren't great.

The House would be vulnerable to a wave. Nothing short of that would flip it, but there are about 80 GOP seats that could be flipped. The Dems would need about 50.

If the Russian investigations turn sour, that could do it. And if z Trump's approval stays in the low 40s, that would likely do it as well.

[time4fun]

I do!

Hey PK. It's over.

Your manufactured scandals were just that- manufactured. You fell for a cynical political strategy and foreign interference from a rival country who was afraid of her becoming President.

No one ever found anything criminal going on with her or the *public* foundation that shares a name with her.

It's time to move on with your life.

[Androidpk]

Hey PK. It's over.

Your manufactured scandals were just that- manufactured. You fell for a cynical political strategy and foreign interference from a rival country who was afraid of her becoming President.

No one ever found anything criminal going on with her or the *public* foundation that shares a name with her.

It's time to move on with your life.

The FBI criminal investigations were manufactured? Hey whatever lets you sleep better at night.

[SHAFT]

Word on the streets is Flynn has flipped. He's got a deal with the FBI.

[macgyver]

Word on the streets is Flynn has flipped. He's got a deal with the FBI.

This is actually the rumor up on the hill, not sure how substantial it is, nowadays everything is just gossip until a mathmatical proof says otherwise.

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/1BBAC7E1-066E-46B9-B85D-05290EBB0447.png (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/1BBAC7E1-066E-46B9-B85D-05290EBB0447.png.html)

[macgyver]

One thing is for sure from all this, don't fuck with the FBI.

[Fallen]

This.

The Senate is probably a lost cause unfortunately. Dems will likely grab NV, but when your lowest hanging fruit for a majority are AZ and TX, things aren't great.

The House would be vulnerable to a wave. Nothing short of that would flip it, but there are about 80 GOP seats that could be flipped. The Dems would need about 50.

If the Russian investigations turn sour, that could do it. And if z Trump's approval stays in the low 40s, that would likely do it as well.


I believe there will be a shift towards more Democrats in Congress come mid terms should things stay roughly on the same course they are now. We'll see about a 50+ seat swing, but I think that's a bit much.

[Tgo01]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/1BBAC7E1-066E-46B9-B85D-05290EBB0447.png (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/1BBAC7E1-066E-46B9-B85D-05290EBB0447.png.html)

Didn't they say the same thing about Anthony Wiener and his wife in regards to Hillary?

I'll believe this shit when I see more proof than some random Tweets.

[macgyver]

I believe there will be a shift towards more Democrats in Congress come mid terms should things stay roughly on the same course they are now. We'll see about a 50+ seat swing, but I think that's a bit much.

Economy, economy, economy. If the economy tanks over the next 6-12 months, anythings possible.

[Androidpk]

Didn't they say the same thing about Anthony Wiener and his wife in regards to Hillary?

I'll believe this shit when I see more proof than some random Tweets.

Yes, Wiener and a few others.

[SHAFT]

It's all over Twitter. Jester is saying so as well.

I'm not saying it's 100% but there is a lot of smoke on it.

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/19701C49-B694-447E-B3DF-FF2B62F8F8C6_1.png (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/19701C49-B694-447E-B3DF-FF2B62F8F8C6_1.png.html)

[Fallen]

Economy, economy, economy. If the economy tanks over the next 6-12 months, anythings possible.

Sure. Like I said, barring any drastic changes, I don't see massive swings in Congress. But i've been wrong about politics before. Didn't think Trump had a snowball's chance.

[Parkbandit]

Let's find out what Nate Silver says.

He fucking NAILED the 2016 race though. By 9PM on 11/9/17, he had the odds of Trump winning over 50%!

He's amazing.

[Parkbandit]

This.

The Senate is probably a lost cause unfortunately. Dems will likely grab NV, but when your lowest hanging fruit for a majority are AZ and TX, things aren't great.

The House would be vulnerable to a wave. Nothing short of that would flip it, but there are about 80 GOP seats that could be flipped. The Dems would need about 50.

If the Russian investigations turn sour, that could do it. And if z Trump's approval stays in the low 40s, that would likely do it as well.

I love it when you turn into a political prognosticator... you've been dead wrong on every election ever.


Clinton: 352
Trump: 186


https://media.giphy.com/media/VrSZDlpRaHYje/giphy.gif

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/9E492382-2062-4EE9-B4D8-C667499F8C3C.png (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/9E492382-2062-4EE9-B4D8-C667499F8C3C.png.html)

Yes Donald, we do. Know where we can find one? No Cossacks please.

[Candor]

But i've been wrong about politics before. Didn't think Trump had a snowball's chance.

I thought Trump would drop out of the election process after a week or two of getting into it. Shows what I know.

As for this Flynn rumor (and that's what it is at the moment...a rumor), no doubt the truth will be made plain fairly soon.

[Latrinsorm]

He fucking NAILED the 2016 race though. By 9PM on 11/9/17, he had the odds of Trump winning over 50%!

He's amazing.I was really hoping that a GOP win would reduce the general skinned-knee sensitivity of our party. It was not to be. Alas. Makes you wonder- no, I tell a lie. It makes ME wonder what ever could. If I could ever find your puppeteers I could ask them, but I suspect not even they know.

[time4fun]

I thought Trump would drop out of the election process after a week or two of getting into it. Shows what I know.

As for this Flynn rumor (and that's what it is at the moment...a rumor), no doubt the truth will be made plain fairly soon.

Um, there's a LOT going on with Flynn at this point that isn't a rumor. He's already violated Federal law regarding foreign agents.

[Thondalar]

Um, there's a LOT going on with Flynn at this point that isn't a rumor. He's already violated Federal law regarding foreign agents.

And the people wiretapping him also violated Federal law.

[time4fun]

And the people wiretapping him also violated Federal law.

Except you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

First, you have no evidence *HE* was wiretapped.

Secondly, if he was caught via official surveillance that means that either they had a warrant, or he was caught in incidental surveillance- in which case unmasking his name would have been absolutely legal if he and the Ambassador were talking about Russian sanctions while Russia was in the middle of meddling with our democracy.

[Tgo01]

while Russia was in the middle of meddling with our democracy.

:lol2:

[time4fun]

Oh, and by the way (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-michael-flynn-fethullah-gulen-20170325-story.html):


Former CIA Director James Woolsey has accused the Trump administration's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, of participating in a discussion with Turkish officials about possibly subverting the U.S. extradition process to remove a Turkish cleric from the United States.

i.e. kidnapping

Three guesses as to why Woolsey- who left the Trump campaign abruptly in January- suddenly decided to fess up about being in the room while this conversation was going on back in September.

[Thondalar]

Except you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

First, you have no evidence *HE* was wiretapped.

This is all pretty much public knowledge at this point. Flynn was not the target of the wiretapping, but he was recorded against Federal law.


Secondly, if he was caught via official surveillance that means that either they had a warrant, or he was caught in incidental surveillance- in which case unmasking his name would have been absolutely legal if he and the Ambassador were talking about Russian sanctions while Russia was in the middle of meddling with our democracy.

And I'm the one that has no idea what I'm talking about.

[Tgo01]

Oh, and by the way (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-michael-flynn-fethullah-gulen-20170325-story.html):



i.e. kidnapping

Three guesses as to why Woolsey- who left the Trump campaign abruptly in January- suddenly decided to fess up about being in the room while this conversation was going on back in September.

Do you read your own articles? Or you too being stupid?


Woolsey described the discussion as "brainstorming, but it was brainstorming about a very serious matter that would pretty clearly be a violation of law." Though, Woolsey noted that the discussion "did not rise to the level of being a specific plan to undertake a felonious act."

Newsflash you simpleton! Kidnapping IS a felony!

Also yes, I do wonder why this guy waited 6 months to mention this very heinous and illegal action that Flynn was discussing.

[Androidpk]

Except you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


Just stop already.

[Androidpk]

but he was recorded against Federal law.

You sure about that? It sounds like the only thing illegal about this was someone unmasking Flynn when they weren't supposed to.

[Warriorbird]

Nobody really knows specifics. I'm curious what the results are. I doubt he flipped.

[Androidpk]

You'd be surprised who flips to avoid prison.

[Methais]

This is all pretty much public knowledge at this point. Flynn was not the target of the wiretapping, but he was recorded against Federal law.



And I'm the one that has no idea what I'm talking about.

Soon you will learn to stop wasting your time by taking anything she says seriously. She takes herself seriously and has the fart sniffing glass to prove it, but that's about it.

[Back]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/donald-trump-russian-influence-washington/

Russia’s White House Spy Exposed — KGB Turncoat Tells Allhttp://2.gravatar.com/avatar/5bc762410b303e0c56adb653fbf3ef26?s=64&d=identicon&r=gBy National ENQUIRER Staff (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/author/nestaff/)
Posted on Mar 23, 2017 @ 7:48AM


The one man who can expose Russia’s vast infiltration of America has been hiding in plain sight — and now the KGB spymaster is telling all in the new issue of The National ENQUIRER (https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/SR/NEQ/NEQ_printsub.jsp?cds_page_id=21735&cds_mag_code=NEQ&id=1469634154491&lsid=62091042344039134&vid=1), on newsstands now! The insider's shocking revelations about Kremlin spies on U.S. soil are backed by top White House officials who claim ousted Trump advisor (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/donald-trump-michael-flynn-resignation/) Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn “was, in essence, the Russian spy in Trump’s midst!”

[Tgo01]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/donald-trump-russian-influence-washington/

Russia’s White House Spy Exposed — KGB Turncoat Tells Allhttp://2.gravatar.com/avatar/5bc762410b303e0c56adb653fbf3ef26?s=64&d=identicon&r=gBy National ENQUIRER Staff (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/author/nestaff/)
Posted on Mar 23, 2017 @ 7:48AM

[/COLOR]

This will surely be Trump's downfall. The clock is ticking. Trump will be impeached before the year is over. All of you dumb conservatives who voted for him should be ashamed.

Beat you to it, time4fun!

[Parkbandit]

I mean, it is THE NATIONAL Enquirer. If it was some local publication, we might be able to question it.. but it is NATIONAL.. so it's above reproach.

PS - I'm not shocked at all that Backlash reads it and believes it.

Like at all.

[Warriorbird]

They did out John Edwards... but yeah.

[Back]

I mean, it is THE NATIONAL Enquirer. If it was some local publication, we might be able to question it.. but it is NATIONAL.. so it's above reproach.

PS - I'm not shocked at all that Backlash reads it and believes it.

Like at all.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-national-enquirer/

TABLOID’S SHOCKING LOVE AFFAIR WITH TRUMP REVEALED!

NATIONAL ENQUIRER PARTIES AT HIS POSH HOTEL!

NO DIRT ON DONALD CHECKS OUT, SEZ EDITOR!


“Our readers have a great affection and fondness for Donald Trump,” editor-in-chief Dylan Howard said in a recent interview. “It’s a readership that is disenfranchised. They do not like the political establishment. They see Donald Trump as someone who will champion their cause, just like the National Enquirer has championed their cause for many decades.”That affection for Trump from a readership that has long accepted (https://books.google.com/books?id=Qiv5eYGDxa8C&lpg=PT70&ots=9EyUDeMSMX&dq=Jack%20Vitek%20National%20Enquirer%20blurring%2 0truth%20fiction&pg=PT70#v=onepage&q=Jack%20Vitek%20National%20Enquirer%20blurring%20 truth%20fiction&f=false) the Enquirer’s blurring of truth and fiction—and never tired of its stories of get-rich-quick schemes—is a mutual one.

In 2011, shortly after Trump announced he would not run for the Republican nomination for president, theEnquirer published (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/millions-implore-donald-trump-reconsider-new-presidential-run/) an article headlined, “Millions Implore Donald Trump to Reconsider New Presidential Run.” Eventually, Trump obliged. And soon after he declared his candidacy last summer, he gave Enquirerreaders a world exclusive, in which he explained why he was running. “I am the only one who can make America great again!” he wrote (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/real-life/donald-trump-writes-exclusively-national-enquirer/).

More first-person essays from Trump followed. So did a flurry of articles from the Enquirer’s staff knocking his Republican primary opponents: Ben Carson was a “bungling surgeon (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/bungling-surgeon-ben-carson-left-sponge-patients-brain/),” Jeb Bush had “sleazy cheating scandals (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/dirtiest-race-ever/),” Ted Cruz’s father was linked (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-scandal-father-jfk-assassination/) to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (Each of the candidates, or their surrogates, quickly disputed the Enquirer's reporting.) In March, the Enquirer endorsed Trump for president—its first endorsement in its 90-year history.

And when the Enquirer throws itself a 90th birthday party Thursday night, it will do so, naturally, at the Trump SoHo hotel in Manhattan.

[Parkbandit]

They did out John Edwards... but yeah.

A broken watch is right twice a day.

[Parkbandit]

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-national-enquirer/

TABLOID’S SHOCKING LOVE AFFAIR WITH TRUMP REVEALED!

NATIONAL ENQUIRER PARTIES AT HIS POSH HOTEL!

NO DIRT ON DONALD CHECKS OUT, SEZ EDITOR!

The
Obamas DIVORCE! http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/barack-michelle-obama-divorce-separation-plans/

Obama to Pardon Hillary! http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-scandals-fbi-barack-obama-pardon/

President Obama's crazy cocaine-crazed Pardons! http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/obama-presidential-pardons-cocaine-drug-use-claims/

I see the lure for you though.. pretty color pictures. Maybe stick with the USA Today though.. or Highlights?

[~Rocktar~]

So the flip and the deal might be Fake News . . .

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/03/cnn-flyn-fbi/

[Tgo01]

So the flip and the deal might be Fake News . . .

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/03/cnn-flyn-fbi/


"My informed analysis of this case is based on my years of experience in the national security arena."

Holy shit. If I didn't know any better I would say this person is time4fun.

Facts? Credible sources? Citations? Fuck that! I used to be <insert relative occupation/field of study in school/social status/wealth status here> so I know all about this!

[~Rocktar~]

Holy shit. If I didn't know any better I would say this person is time4fun.

Facts? Credible sources? Citations? Fuck that! I used to be <insert relative occupation/field of study in school/social status/wealth status here> so I know all about this!

Yup.

[time4fun]

This is all pretty much public knowledge at this point. Flynn was not the target of the wiretapping, but he was recorded against Federal law.



And I'm the one that has no idea what I'm talking about.

Please explain which law was broken and how. And how you know that after admitting you don't know the specifics.

[time4fun]

Holy shit. If I didn't know any better I would say this person is time4fun.

Facts? Credible sources? Citations? Fuck that! I used to be <insert relative occupation/field of study in school/social status/wealth status here> so I know all about this!

LOL. That article is ridiculous, as is your fear of facts and your deeply held belief that you should only talk about things you know nothing about.

You're a human parody.

[~Rocktar~]

LOL. That article is ridiculous, as is your fear of facts and your deeply held belief that you should only talk about things you know nothing about.

You're a human parody.

And you are simply grotesque in the old fashioned sense of the word.

[SHAFT]

Can anyone tell me when Hillary is getting locked up? Donald said it'd happen. I'd hate to be let down.

[Androidpk]

Can anyone tell me when Hillary is getting locked up? Donald said it'd happen. I'd hate to be let down.

RSN

[Tgo01]

LOL. That article is ridiculous, as is your fear of facts and your deeply held belief that you should only talk about things you know nothing about.

You're a human parody.

Of course the article is ridiculous, I'm not going to pretend Milo is objective. However what I quoted wasn't from Milo, it was from the chick herself who started this whole rumor bullshit.

She heavily implied she had "sources" who had inside information. She then later "clarified" it was just her observation and the observation of "sources" that it "looked" like Flynn might have flipped against Trump.

But I see why you're confused; to you someone "looking" guilty is the same as proof.

Don't worry, time4fun, someday you'll learn actual logic.

It's kind of sad really that this is what passes for "facts" on the left these days. It would be great if I could read just ONE article about this whole Russia shit that didn't use words like "looks like", "apparently", "could be", "possible", or cites anonymous sources.

[Methais]

LOL. That article is ridiculous, as is your fear of facts and your deeply held belief that you should only talk about things you know nothing about.

You're a human parody.

Holy fuck I can't decide which part of this post is better....you of all people accusing someone else of being afraid of facts, talking about things he knows nothing about, or being a human parody.

Macgyver should make a poll for this. Probably wouldn't even need tacos.

[Methais]

Can anyone tell me when Hillary is getting locked up? Donald said it'd happen. I'd hate to be let down.

Start keeping up noob.

https://cdn.trumpfaketweet.com/uploads/trump-tweet20170327-9-ctfewt.jpg

[SHAFT]

That's fake news.

[everan]

Ever since ACA, our company's healthcare plan has gotten worse. Sure, I get a free physical every year now, but everything else I do goes toward my deductible. I, for one, feel that Congress should receive whatever healthcare plan they enact on the country.

I'm really annoyed that the GOP couldn't get a healthcare bill passed. For goodness sake, you have control of both houses and the executive branch, and you still couldn't get it done?

For what it's worth, I'm not so much worried about repeal and replace - just fix what you have going on now.

[SHAFT]

Ever since ACA, our company's healthcare plan has gotten worse. Sure, I get a free physical every year now, but everything else I do goes toward my deductible. I, for one, feel that Congress should receive whatever healthcare plan they enact on the country.

I'm really annoyed that the GOP couldn't get a healthcare bill passed. For goodness sake, you have control of both houses and the executive branch, and you still couldn't get it done?

For what it's worth, I'm not so much worried about repeal and replace - just fix what you have going on now.

The bill they presented was shit. Hard to vote for a bill that leaves 24m+ uninsured.

Not to mention the strong-arm tactics the Trump administration tried to use to get votes. The Republicans who voted no either hated the bill or laughed at being told they had to vote for something, and voted no out of spite.

Trump delegating the bill to Ryan and whoever else, and trump not knowing the details helped sink it as well.

[ClydeR]

Certain People are starting to say that we need to bring back Congressional earmarks, which Congress banned in 2010. Earmarks allowed members of Congress to designate very small parts of the budget for projects in their district, such as museums, bridges, etc. When Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House, did he have to worry about picayune little Representatives voting contrary to his will? No. If they crossed him, he'd just nix their new bridge or museum -- a tangible punishment felt by the Representative's constituents. Before 2010, the House was the Speaker's kingdom. The Senate was more complicated, but let's fix the House first and then worry about that.

Sometimes you have to fill the swamp before draining it.

[time4fun]

The bill they presented was shit. Hard to vote for a bill that leaves 24m+ uninsured.

Not to mention the strong-arm tactics the Trump administration tried to use to get votes. The Republicans who voted no either hated the bill or laughed at being told they had to vote for something, and voted no out of spite.

Trump delegating the bill to Ryan and whoever else, and trump not knowing the details helped sink it as well.

The actual problem was that it wasn't a healthcare bill. Nor was it intended to be. As you pointed out- it left 24m people without insurance, it also raised premiums significantly on the poor and elderly (and everyone else in the short-term), and it would have dramatically reduced quality of coverage. If you look at it as a healthcare bill- it's inexplicable and indefensible.

It only makes sense when you look at it for what it was: a bill to reduce taxes on the wealthy and to bank extra money for tax bill negotiations later. The only thing "healthcare" about it was that it was using Medicaid and the ACA insurance credits to pay for those things. The real reason why the GOP loathes the ACA is that it represented a tax hike on the wealthy- which is the GOP's core issue. That's why they have continued to rail so hard against the medical device tax- which to a normal person is sort of a WTF thing to focus in on such a massive and far reaching bill. But they're concerned about taxes. Not healthcare.

[time4fun]

Ever since ACA, our company's healthcare plan has gotten worse. Sure, I get a free physical every year now, but everything else I do goes toward my deductible. I, for one, feel that Congress should receive whatever healthcare plan they enact on the country.

I'm really annoyed that the GOP couldn't get a healthcare bill passed. For goodness sake, you have control of both houses and the executive branch, and you still couldn't get it done?

For what it's worth, I'm not so much worried about repeal and replace - just fix what you have going on now.

The ACA did not make your company's healthcare plan worse.

Your company did that. And the insurance company did that.

[everan]

The ACA did not make your company's healthcare plan worse.

Your company did that. And the insurance company did that.

That's a rather distorted view. Yes, of course, you're technically correct, since I don't have a plan off the government site. The problem here, is that the insurance companies re-wrote their plans to meet the specifications of the ACA guidelines. It's great that lots more people have insurance, but it's at the expense of affordability. Now we have lots of people who used to have great plans that no longer receive any benefits. We pay the same amount in premiums, but the insurance doesn't pay for routine doctor visits and lab tests. 40m people gained insurance, and 100m (conjecture) have plans where they can't afford to actually use the insurance because all of the first dollars go towards deductibles. It's great if you have really expensive care, since you're always over the deductible, but it's terrible if you fall in the middle ground.

[Parkbandit]

Can anyone tell me when Hillary is getting locked up? Donald said it'd happen. I'd hate to be let down.

Get used to it.. your parents did.

[Parkbandit]

Ever since ACA, our company's healthcare plan has gotten worse. Sure, I get a free physical every year now, but everything else I do goes toward my deductible. I, for one, feel that Congress should receive whatever healthcare plan they enact on the country.

Here fucking here. If you are voting for policies that affect every American, you shouldn't be able to exempt yourself.

Put Congress on ACA and watch how fucking quickly it'll get fixed.


I'm really annoyed that the GOP couldn't get a healthcare bill passed. For goodness sake, you have control of both houses and the executive branch, and you still couldn't get it done?

For what it's worth, I'm not so much worried about repeal and replace - just fix what you have going on now.

It's all of Congress' fault. Dems want single payer, government run.. so anything short of that won't get passed. Conservatives don't want it replaced, just repeal it.. and GOP is so worried about their own precious jobs that they won't do anything that polls negatively.

[Parkbandit]

The bill they presented was shit. Hard to vote for a bill that leaves 24m+ uninsured.

Not to mention the strong-arm tactics the Trump administration tried to use to get votes. The Republicans who voted no either hated the bill or laughed at being told they had to vote for something, and voted no out of spite.

Trump delegating the bill to Ryan and whoever else, and trump not knowing the details helped sink it as well.

You literally know nothing about anything. It's not the President's job to pass legislation.. they are their for the big picture.

Blaming Trump for this because you are still buttsore your girl lost is retarded.

[SHAFT]

Get used to it.. your parents did.

Don't you want Hillary locked up to? You know you were in the stands at one of those rallies yelling "Lock her up"!

[Methais]

That's fake news.

Yes, Savants are fake news.

[Parkbandit]

That's a rather distorted view. Yes, of course, you're technically correct, since I don't have a plan off the government site. The problem here, is that the insurance companies re-wrote their plans to meet the specifications of the ACA guidelines. It's great that lots more people have insurance, but it's at the expense of affordability. Now we have lots of people who used to have great plans that no longer receive any benefits. We pay the same amount in premiums, but the insurance doesn't pay for routine doctor visits and lab tests. 40m people gained insurance, and 100m (conjecture) have plans where they can't afford to actually use the insurance because all of the first dollars go towards deductibles. It's great if you have really expensive care, since you're always over the deductible, but it's terrible if you fall in the middle ground.

You will find that everything time4fun posts is distorted from far left standpoint.

Having a $5K or $10K deductible is basically being without insurance.. unless you are severely hurt or in perfect health.

[Parkbandit]

Don't you want Hillary locked up to? You know you were in the stands at one of those rallies yelling "Lock her up"!

Never been to a Trump rally. Sorry.

But yes, I believe she should be treated like anyone else that would have done what she did.

[SHAFT]

You literally know nothing about anything. It's not the President's job to pass legislation.. they are their for the big picture.

Blaming Trump for this because you are still buttsore your girl lost is retarded.

Whoa whoa old timer, don't pop your pace-maker! I didn't vote for Hillary and she's not my girl. Also, in the post that you quoted, I never blamed trump specifically. Don't get so riled up! You should be taking it easy.

It doesn't even matter who's "fault" it was. I do think it looks extremely bad on the Donald not being able to make a deal, considering how much he said he was the ultimate deal-maker during his campaign. But anyone who actually believed that is an imbecile, whichmost of his voters are...

You keep lumping me in with Hillary supporters and that couldn't be further from the truth. I just think Trump is a conman and he sold the stupid part of America on a bill of goods that will never materialize. You keep trying to justify that vote though. You're going to start feeling silly though after a while... if you're capable that is.

[SHAFT]

Is your head spinning yet from all the winning? #winning

[everan]

It's all of Congress' fault. Dems want single payer, government run.. so anything short of that won't get passed. Conservatives don't want it replaced, just repeal it.. and GOP is so worried about their own precious jobs that they won't do anything that polls negatively.
That's the part that the GOP doesn't get. If they can't deliver on all the rhetoric, the mid-term election is going to be a whipsaw. All those disenfranchised voters want results, not just a good try. Fail, and we'll see Hillary back in 2020. I'll go Democratic just to help prove a point. All the Republican legislators facing angry town halls from the Left are now going to be facing both sides now while they try to answer why they aren't getting anything done.

[Parkbandit]

Whoa whoa old timer, don't pop your pace-maker!

OMG! I'M OLD! You're hilarious. Really.

Come with some new material.


I didn't vote for Hillary and she's not my girl.

You're still crying 5 months later that Trump is the President. The only other person that was running and had a chance was Hillary.

Hillary would be 10x worse and not nearly as entertaining as Trump as President.

Therefore, if you don't like Trump, you must like Hillary.

Unless you are trying for some alternate universe theory.


Also, in the post that you quoted, I never blamed trump specifically. Don't get so riled up! You should be taking it easy.

You should read your own posts. Here, I'll bold the sections you blamed Trump:


Not to mention the strong-arm tactics the Trump administration tried to use to get votes. The Republicans who voted no either hated the bill or laughed at being told they had to vote for something, and voted no out of spite.

Trump delegating the bill to Ryan and whoever else, and trump not knowing the details helped sink it as well.


It doesn't even matter who's "fault" it was.

The POTUS doesn't make legislation. Civics 101


I do think it looks extremely bad on the Donald not being able to make a deal, considering how much he said he was the ultimate deal-maker during his campaign.

He also isn't a politician.. and it shows when he makes big promises and can't get them delivered.


But anyone who actually believed that is an imbecile, whichmost of his voters are...

Irony coming from you at this point.


You keep lumping me in with Hillary supporters and that couldn't be further from the truth. I just think Trump is a conman and he sold the stupid part of America on a bill of goods that will never materialize. You keep trying to justify that vote though. You're going to start feeling silly though after a while... if you're capable that is.

There were specifically TWO choices for President in 2016. Hillary or Trump. Sure you could vote for the other 2 idiots who had no chance at all... so it really came down to 2 to choose from.

I wasn't a Trump supporter throughout the primaries.. but when it came down to voting for Trump or Hillary, there was only 1 choice for me.

Plus, the amount of entertainment people like you have given me over the past 5 months tells me I voted for the right candidate.

[Methais]

The actual problem was that it wasn't a healthcare bill. Nor was it intended to be. As you pointed out- it left 24m people without insurance, it also raised premiums significantly on the poor and elderly (and everyone else in the short-term), and it would have dramatically reduced quality of coverage. If you look at it as a healthcare bill- it's inexplicable and indefensible.

It only makes sense when you look at it for what it was: a bill to reduce taxes on the wealthy and to bank extra money for tax bill negotiations later. The only thing "healthcare" about it was that it was using Medicaid and the ACA insurance credits to pay for those things. The real reason why the GOP loathes the ACA is that it represented a tax hike on the wealthy- which is the GOP's core issue. That's why they have continued to rail so hard against the medical device tax- which to a normal person is sort of a WTF thing to focus in on such a massive and far reaching bill. But they're concerned about taxes. Not healthcare.

lol


The ACA did not make your company's healthcare plan worse.

Your company did that. And the insurance company did that.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL that's even better than "You didn't build that!"

http://i.imgur.com/QyvLA5N.png

[Parkbandit]

Is your head spinning yet from all the winning? #winning

I'm just entertained at your constant hissy fit.

Thank you.

[Parkbandit]

That's the part that the GOP doesn't get. If they can't deliver on all the rhetoric, the mid-term election is going to be a whipsaw. All those disenfranchised voters want results, not just a good try. Fail, and we'll see Hillary back in 2020. I'll go Democratic just to help prove a point. All the Republican legislators facing angry town halls from the Left are now going to be facing both sides now while they try to answer why they aren't getting anything done.

That bill should never have been put forth. You can't use retarded liberal tactics like "Pass this one and phase 2 and 3 will fix it!" and believe it will get widespread support.

[SHAFT]

Also, one thing I've noticed from trump supporters is when they have to defend trump or justify a trump statement or action, whether it's on CNN, bill maher, twitter, even here on the PC, they naturally want to immediately start bashing Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is old news. She isn't relevant to anything currently happening. You can't bash Hillary as a defense of trump. At some point, trump supporters, you actually have to try to justify or rationalize anything the guy does, has done, or will do. So far it's been a whole lot of #losing and bullshit. He's already a lame duck.

[Androidpk]

Also, one thing I've noticed from trump supporters is when they have to defend trump or justify a trump statement or action, whether it's on CNN, bill maher, twitter, even here on the PC, they naturally want to immediately start bashing Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is old news. She isn't relevant to anything currently happening. You can't bash Hillary as a defense of trump. At some point, trump supporters, you actually have to try to justify or rationalize anything the guy does, has done, or will do. So far it's been a whole lot of #losing and bullshit. He's already a lame duck.

I know I can't speak for others but generally when I bring up HC it's because of the hypocrisy of liberals complaining about Trump for shit they gave Hillary a complete pass on. Just because the election is over doesn't mean the stuff Hillary did is no longer relevant.

[Methais]

I know I can't speak for others but generally when I bring up HC it's because of the hypocrisy of liberals complaining about Trump for shit they gave Hillary a complete pass on. Just because the election is over doesn't mean the stuff Hillary did is no longer relevant.

I was hoping Trump would harp on blaming "the previous administration" every time he opened his mouth like Obama did about Bush, just to watch the sure to be entertaining reaction it would get from liberals.

[time4fun]

You literally know nothing about anything. It's not the President's job to pass legislation.. they are their for the big picture.

Blaming Trump for this because you are still buttsore your girl lost is retarded.

By all accounts, Trump was calling the shots here. He's the one who set the arbitrary deadlines for voting. He was very involved in this.

Yes Congress passes laws, but when the Speaker of the House is running (literally at some points) back and forth to the White House to get buy in for next steps, you can't pretend this was an independent endeavor.

What's really going on is the continuation of decades of Congress watering down its own authority and acting like the tool of the Executive instead of as their own independent Branch.

[time4fun]

That's a rather distorted view. Yes, of course, you're technically correct, since I don't have a plan off the government site. The problem here, is that the insurance companies re-wrote their plans to meet the specifications of the ACA guidelines. It's great that lots more people have insurance, but it's at the expense of affordability. Now we have lots of people who used to have great plans that no longer receive any benefits. We pay the same amount in premiums, but the insurance doesn't pay for routine doctor visits and lab tests. 40m people gained insurance, and 100m (conjecture) have plans where they can't afford to actually use the insurance because all of the first dollars go towards deductibles. It's great if you have really expensive care, since you're always over the deductible, but it's terrible if you fall in the middle ground.

So I don't know the specifics of your state or company, which means there's only so much I can speak to.

But, here's the deal:

Since the ACA, employer-based health insurance premiums have been increasing at a glacial pace. (they always have, and that hasn't changed). It's estimated that they're going up about 3-4% a year under the ACA: (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/)


. That total average cost for a family plan rose $5,462 between 2008 and 2016, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust annual survey on employer health benefits. The average employee-paid portion rose $1,923 in that time frame.

The Urban Institute's (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/) research was similar:


“We don’t think the ACA could have had much more of an effect on [employer-sponsored] premiums beyond the 1-3 percent increase in 2011 attributable to those early requirements,” Fredric Blavin, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, told us in an email. “The biggest changes under the law since 2011 were the Marketplace and Medicaid coverage expansions in 2014, but very little has changed in the employer market (especially since the Cadillac Tax was delayed).

The ACA impacted the individual market (which was already headed to a crash, by the way). It had very little impact on employer-based insurance premiums. And there's no evidence (that I could find) that it caused companies to abandon better plans for worse ones. What was likely going on is that your company decided to save itself some money by going to a crappier plan- which is was going to end up doing anyway. The ACA has been in effect for several years now. If the ACA were going to cause some huge disruption in your insurance plan, it wouldn't have been last year. It would've been in 2012 (http://www.gailwilensky.com/):


Gail Wilensky, who was the head of the Medicare and Medicaid programs during the George H.W. Bush administration and is now a senior fellow at Project HOPE, a health training and humanitarian organization, told us the increase due to the ACA provisions in 2011 would have been static.
“Those changes have been built into the rates, starting in 2012, so that unless there is a change in the provisions, they are still there but not growing,” she said in an email to FactCheck.org. “It’s why many of the insurance companies said in 2012 that even if the Supreme Court nullified the ACA, they would/could still keep those provisions.”


So here's what's really going on: insurance companies are continuing to do crappy things, and employers are continuing to cut costs by reducing benefits. But since 2012, everyone is automatically blaming the ACA (including for normal yearly increases). Super convenient for the real culprits.

When you see those estimates saying premiums are rising like 35%, that's a problem. (And is a larger problem in states where GOP Governors refused the medicaid expansion knowing full well what it would do to premiums) But most of those costs are being absorbed by the insurance companies and the tax credits. Something like 85% of the people in the exchanges/individual markets are getting subsidies. The people who're taking on higher premiums are the ones who were on really crappy insurance that didn't cover anything and who are now on plans that do actually cover them. You can love that or hate that, but it's not related to what's going on with your employer.

TL:DR Your crappier plan likely has nothing to do with the ACA. The people who were screwing you over before the ACA haven't stopped just because the ACA is around. They just have fewer ways to screw with you now.

[time4fun]

I know I can't speak for others but generally when I bring up HC it's because of the hypocrisy of liberals complaining about Trump for shit they gave Hillary a complete pass on. Just because the election is over doesn't mean the stuff Hillary did is no longer relevant.

That's because you're so twisted up that you can't see how having an email server is in no way comparable to possible collusion with a foreign government to hijack our democratic elections.

And it's mind blowing that this has to be explained to you.

[Androidpk]

That's because you're so twisted up that you can't see how having an email server is in no way comparable to possible collusion with a foreign government to hijack our democratic elections.

And it's mind blowing that this has to be explained to you.

Sure, when you distort everything about that to make it fit YOUR narrative.. it sounds logical. She just didn't have an email server. That was never the issue and you know it. It was the illegal storage and dissemination of highly classified information and all the lies and the attempt to destroy evidence and federal records.

[Androidpk]

Also, there is tons of evidence on the Hillary scandal yet the only evidence shown so far with Trumps "collusion" with Russia is hearsay and assumptions.

[time4fun]

Also, there is tons of evidence on the Hillary scandal yet the only evidence shown so far with Trumps "collusion" with Russia is hearsay and assumptions.

According to about a dozen investigations- largely by people who wanted nothing more than to see her jailed- you're wrong. She didn't do anything criminal. You need to accept that you were wrong. The FBI has.

Your statement about the Trump situation tells me you're not really following it very carefully.

Weird. You swore you just really care about national security last year, which is why you were obsessed with the Clinton email server. And yet now suddenly it's different.

[Androidpk]

According to about a dozen investigations- largely by people who wanted nothing more than to see her jailed- you're wrong. She didn't do anything criminal. You need to accept that you were wrong. The FBI has.

Your statement about the Trump situation tells me you're not really following it very carefully.

Weird. You swore you just really care about national security last year, which is why you were obsessed with the Clinton email server. And yet now suddenly it's different.

So when the FBI comes out and says there was no collusion between Trump and Russia will you admit that you were wrong?

[Methais]

That's because you're so twisted up that you can't see how having an email server is in no way comparable to possible collusion with a foreign government to hijack our democratic elections.

And it's mind blowing that this has to be explained to you.

Since Hillary is being brought up again, what is your opinion on why they destroyed their phones with hammers?

[Tgo01]

So here's what's really going on: insurance companies are continuing to do crappy things, and employers are continuing to cut costs by reducing benefits. But since 2012, everyone is automatically blaming the ACA (including for normal yearly increases). Super convenient for the real culprits.

Gee, almost as if it was a horrible idea to begin with to give insurance companies even greater control over our healthcare. Who could have seen this coming?

I also love this part of the study you linked to:


And as we’ve pointed out, that market has seen much higher average premium increases than the employer-sponsored market. The average increase for the second lowest-cost silver plan on HealthCare.gov — which encompassed 38 states over the past two years — was 25 percent from 2016 to 2017; it was 7.2 percent the year before. The average increase for an employer-provided family plan in 2016, meanwhile, was 3 percent — marking the fifth straight year of 3 percent or 4 percent premium growth.

Good news, everybody! Those suckers using the healthcare exchanges are seeing 25% increases on their premiums, but those employed by Planet Express are only seeing 4% increases! OBAMACARE WORKS!


In 2011, the average employer-sponsored family plan premium jumped up 9 percent from 2010 — a big increase compared with the mere 3 percent increase for the year before. Republicans blamed the Affordable Care Act, but several independent experts told us the bulk of the increase was due to rising health care costs. They estimated that a 1 percent to 3 percent increase was attributable to benefit requirements instituted by the ACA.

Well ONLY a 1-3% increase cost for a law called the AFFORDABLE Care Act, which was supposed to make healthcare cheaper.


And deductibles have gone up. While the average family plan premium went up 3 percent in 2016 and 4 percent the year before, a greater share of workers moved into high-deductible plans — 29 percent in 2016 were in such plans, which typically have health savings accounts or similar arrangements, compared with 20 percent in 2014.

Thanks, Obama!

[Androidpk]

Since Hillary is being brought up again, what is your opinion on why they destroyed their phones with hammers?

Because they used up their supply of Shamwow cloths on wiping the servers.

[Nathala Crane]

Also, one thing I've noticed from trump supporters is when they have to defend trump or justify a trump statement or action, whether it's on CNN, bill maher, twitter, even here on the PC, they naturally want to immediately start bashing Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is old news. She isn't relevant to anything currently happening. You can't bash Hillary as a defense of trump. At some point, trump supporters, you actually have to try to justify or rationalize anything the guy does, has done, or will do. So far it's been a whole lot of #losing and bullshit. He's already a lame duck.

Bu-but her emails

[Androidpk]

Bu-but her emails


https://m.popkey.co/abf6c4/ZR90_f-maxage-0.gif

[Methais]

Bu-but her emails

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?107729-GOP-Health-Plan-Released&p=1932597#post1932597

[time4fun]

Bu-but her emails

Yeah so glad they saved us from the evils of email servers. That's way worse than what's going on right now

[Androidpk]

Yeah so glad they saved us from the evils of email servers. That's way worse than what's going on right now

Okay, continue to be ignorant.

Anyways, will you accept the FBI's results if they come back and say there was no collusion between Trump and Russia?

[SHAFT]

Okay, continue to be ignorant.

Anyways, will you accept the FBI's results if they come back and say there was no collusion between Trump and Russia?

I would. I want to believe Comey is a good dude and he wants to make right after the Hillary-email thing he pulled in late Oct.

There's a lot of shit going on right now. You have FBI field officers in NY being investigated, you have Flynn supposedly flipping and speaking with the FBI, you have the Steele dossier, you have Epshtyen resigning and the word on Twitter is he's basically the Deep Throat of #Russiagate....

Who fucking knows. It's chaos and incompetence though. Our country is being ran by a bunch of nitwits. Stunned people thought it'd be a wise and responsible thing when filling in the little circle with Donald Trump's name. What did people expect? He's turned the US into a high-drama reality TV show.

Also I'm very interested to see the public testimonies of Stone, Manafort, and Page.

[Tgo01]

you have Flynn supposedly flipping and speaking with the FBI

This has already been debunked. The CNN chick who said this later clarified that she said this was her observation (and the observation of her "sources") based on the fact that Flynn didn't testify before congress.

I suppose it's possible Flynn flipped, but as of yet we have zero evidence to suggest it.

[SHAFT]

This has already been debunked. The CNN chick who said this later clarified that she said this was her observation (and the observation of her "sources") based on the fact that Flynn didn't testify before congress.

I suppose it's possible Flynn flipped, but as of yet we have zero evidence to suggest it.

I hear ya and I saw that, but this guy hasn't made an appearance or a peep in a while.

[SHAFT]

If this current shit happening with Russiagate and Manafort/Page/Stone and every other bit of nonsense currently unfolding had happened in someone like Obama's first 100 days, can you imagine the shit storm? Espionage and treason possibly? The Republicans got pissed when Obama didn't put his hand over his heart during a song.

Democrats need to step their game up.

[time4fun]

This has already been debunked. The CNN chick who said this later clarified that she said this was her observation (and the observation of her "sources") based on the fact that Flynn didn't testify before congress.

I suppose it's possible Flynn flipped, but as of yet we have zero evidence to suggest it.

What're you talking about? This hasn't been debunked because nobody reputable has made the claim that it's happened for sure. I saw the inane article you posted- the woman on CNN tweeted that he MAY be speaking with the FBI. Then some crazy person went nuts in a long, ranting "article" (I'd guess it was you, but they used big words) about how she was wrong and admitted it when- in response to the right wing tizzy- she tweeted later emphasizing that it was speculation, not certainty. But it wasn't a retraction- it was just reminding everyone to circle their degree and amount words.

[time4fun]

If this current shit happening with Russiagate and Manafort/Page/Stone and every other bit of nonsense currently unfolding had happened in someone like Obama's first 100 days, can you imagine the shit storm? Espionage and treason possibly? The Republicans got pissed when Obama didn't put his hand over his heart during a song.

Democrats need to step their game up.

What's driving me crazy is that they should be using the SCOTUS filibuster to push for an independent investigation. I'm actively angry at the Dems for threatening to filibuster Gorsuch for no particular reason other than angst. It's dangerous to hold a SCOTUS seat vacant this long. I don't care how disgusting what the GOP did with the vacancy was. And while nothing compares to the insane behavior of Nunes, Schiff running around saying things like "We have more than circumstantial evidence" is out of line. Dems don't need to politicize this further- we need to de-politicize it and get to a truth that we can all have faith in.

But if Dems were going to negotiate for an independent investigation- it would be REALLY tough for the GOP to say no to. Nunes has made such a mockery of the process that it would look incredibly bad to refuse under those circumstances. The national security implications of the investigation are one of the few things that would justify the threat to the legal system.

[Tgo01]

This hasn't been debunked because nobody reputable has made the claim that it's happened for sure.

Right, she just said from her sources Flynn may have a deal with the FBI. But she didn't say it's happened for sure!

[Androidpk]

I would. I want to believe Comey is a good dude and he wants to make right after the Hillary-email thing he pulled in late Oct.

He wants to make right after the Hillary-email thing he pulled? He didn't pull anything, he did what he should have done.

[Androidpk]

What's driving me crazy is that they should be using the SCOTUS filibuster to push for an independent investigation. I'm actively angry at the Dems for threatening to filibuster Gorsuch for no particular reason other than angst. It's dangerous to hold a SCOTUS seat vacant this long. I don't care how disgusting what the GOP did with the vacancy was. And while nothing compares to the insane behavior of Nunes, Schiff running around saying things like "We have more than circumstantial evidence" is out of line. Dems don't need to politicize this further- we need to de-politicize it and get to a truth that we can all have faith in.

But if Dems were going to negotiate for an independent investigation- it would be REALLY tough for the GOP to say no to. Nunes has made such a mockery of the process that it would look incredibly bad to refuse under those circumstances. The national security implications of the investigation are one of the few things that would justify the threat to the legal system.


What's the matter, Russians got your tongue? Can't admit to us that when the FBI comes back and say there was no foul play you'll refuse to believe them.

[SHAFT]

He wants to make right after the Hillary-email thing he pulled? He didn't pull anything, he did what he should have done.

You have me there. Poor choice of words on my part. Comey didn't "have to" but yet he did, have to make an announcement.

This is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

[Candor]

What're you talking about? This hasn't been debunked because nobody reputable has made the claim that it's happened for sure. I saw the inane article you posted- the woman on CNN tweeted that he MAY be speaking with the FBI. Then some crazy person went nuts in a long, ranting "article" (I'd guess it was you, but they used big words) about how she was wrong and admitted it when- in response to the right wing tizzy- she tweeted later emphasizing that it was speculation, not certainty. But it wasn't a retraction- it was just reminding everyone to circle their degree and amount words.

C'mon now everyone...some liberals were cracking open the champagne and having parties over this rumor, and a few are still celebrating. Let them have their sense of happiness until reality sets in.

[Androidpk]

You have me there. Poor choice of words on my part. Comey didn't "have to" but yet he did, have to make an announcement.

This is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

He told Congress he would let them know if the case was reopened for any reason. He let them know. I don't see what the big deal is.

[Parkbandit]

If this current shit happening with Russiagate and Manafort/Page/Stone and every other bit of nonsense currently unfolding had happened in someone like Obama's first 100 days, can you imagine the shit storm?

Yea...

Can you imagine if the Republicans were making up all this shit, you liberals would be crying "OMG U R RACIST!"

Oh wait..

[Parkbandit]

You have me there. Poor choice of words on my part. Comey didn't "have to" but yet he did, have to make an announcement.

This is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

If you are quoting the huffington post and calling it a good read, you have already lost.

Do not pass go.

Do not collect $200.

[ClydeR]

It's not the President's job to pass legislation.. they are their for the big picture.



Unless he assumes the responsibility..



http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump-repeal-tweet_02-09-2016_zpsthcpslwa.png
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/697182075045179392 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/697182075045179392)

[SHAFT]

If you are quoting the huffington post and calling it a good read, you have already lost.

Do not pass go.

Do not collect $200.

It's not foxnews so yeah, I see your point.

Also, I said it's a good "read". Doesn't make it truth, but I found it fascinating. unlike you and other trump supporters I can tell bullshit from truth.

[SHAFT]

Unless he assumes the responsibility..



http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump-repeal-tweet_02-09-2016_zpsthcpslwa.png
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/697182075045179392 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/697182075045179392)

I'm curious how many times Baby Donald said he'd immediately repeal and replace obamacare? I bet there are dozens of clips of him saying it.

"There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, 'No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private'… I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."

"Because the drug companies have an unbelievable lobby. And these guys that run for office, that are on my left and right and plenty of others, they're all taken care of by the drug companies. And they're never going to put out competitive bidding. So I said to myself wow, let me do some numbers. If we competitively bid, drugs in the United States, we can save as much as $300 billion a year."

"I'm not against vaccinations for your children, I'm against them in one massive dose. Spread them out over a period of time & autism will drop!"

"Obamacare. We're going to repeal it, we're going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!"

Just a few fantastic quotes from The Donald. I could go on and on. I means he's very convincing... how do you NOT vote for him?


https://youtu.be/35T9jC_MASQ

[SHAFT]

I mean just watch the video you dumb fucks. Keep supporting the guy... keep trying to justify your once-every-4-year vote you got conned out of. How fucking stupid do you have to be to not only vote for Trump, but to actually come out and ADMIT it? Stupid fucking people.

I get you don't like Hillary, I do. But stop, just stop.

[SHAFT]

The first couple minutes are the best:


https://youtu.be/iIjY0-jVbiM

��

[Tgo01]

I mean just watch the video you dumb fucks.

Okay, I managed to sit through 6.5 minutes of that third rate comedian Bill Maher. What in there was supposed to make me say "WHOA! Now I see why Trump is useless!"

I mean Bil Maher actually mocked Trump for claiming he would negotiate better drug prices with drug makers to help lower costs and yet this is exactly what a lot of countries do. In fact Medicare can't negotiate for better drug prices and that's exactly the law Hillary said she would want to do away with. But Trump gets mocked for his less than eloquent way of putting it.

Yeah, Trump gave up on his repeal and replace of Obamacare, I knew that was never going to happen anyways so I don't care. Once an entitlement such as Obamacare gets passed it's nearly impossible to repeal it.

Maher then mocks Trump because he said he would "quickly" defeat ISIS and bring in a lot of jobs. We're still in Trump's 100 days, I don't think anyone honestly thought he would defeat ISIS by now. Obama said he would close Gitmo within his first year in office yet Gitmo is still there.

A lot of the reason for supporting a candidate isn't necessarily for what they get done, but for what they support. Trump support tougher immigration laws and building a wall, I like those two stances. Hillary indicated Trump was the devil for tougher immigration laws so I can only surmise she wasn't in favor of tougher immigration laws and she wasn't in favor of a wall.

Trump doesn't strike me as the type of person who wants to get bogged down in identity politics and virtue signaling about how evil white Christian men are. Hillary did.

Yes, my entire reason for supporting Trump is he isn't Hillary. My entire support this time around was Anyone > Trump > Hillary.

I gave Obama a chance when he was first elected too. I had high hopes for his healthcare plan, what he delivered was a huge steaming pile of shit. I also didn't like that he said he was going to reach across the aisle and try to work with Republicans and instead he rushed to get Obamacare passed without any Republican support before his party lost the super majority in congress. I didn't like Obama diving into racial issues and making every situation he addressed worse. This was all within his first couple of years in office, I soured on him fast.

So far we have Trump who hasn't defeated ISIS yet and hasn't created millions of new jobs. All within his first 100 days. The bastard.

Meanwhile you have constant protests/riots from anti-Trump people. You have celebrities and "comedians" and politicians referring to Trump and his supporters as bigoted Nazis. You have a bunch of hyped up rumors of a Trump/Russia collusion usually filled with "looks like" and "appears to be" and "seems so." It's been a complete cluster fuck and not from Trump but from those who oppose him.

Yeah Obama had his birther detractors but that was always a fringe group of people. We didn't have rioters assaulting people with "Change we can believe in" hats on insisting they were bigoted Nazis and demanding to see a birth certificate.

[SHAFT]

Maher was pointing out how obvious Trump looked being a conman, while also pointing out how stupid people are for buying into his nonsense. During the primaries and all while he was campaigning, if anyone paid attention, it obvious Trump would say anything for a vote.

Tgo, forget Hillary. Look at what's happening now. Failure, lies, incompetence, and 4 member of trumps administration under investigation and if found guilty, leads to treason.

You have a guy who talked major shit about obama playing golf, and now trump is president he's spent 1 out of every 3 days of presidency at one of his own properties. Golf courses. It's stupid, just stupid.

[SHAFT]

I never expected Donald trump to do anything he said. It was all bullshit. American people (gullible 46%) + bill of trump goods (bullshit) = sold.

1. Travel ban v1.0 = fail
2. Travel ban v2.0 = fail
3. Hillary locked up = fail, will never happen
4. Repeal and replace = epic fail
5. Mexico paying for wall = never happen
6. Lies and bullshit = Yup
7. Jobs? = yeah, there are new jobs, but there are always new jobs
8. "Make America Great Again" = stolen from Reagan and Russia their slogan "let's make the world great again - together"
9. The pipeline - ok, this I salute. Let's drill. But American steel? Doubtful.

[Tgo01]

During the primaries and all while he was campaigning, if anyone paid attention, it obvious Trump would say anything for a vote.

I'm not sure taking a hard stance against illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorism was the best way to go about saying anything to get a vote.

If anything Trump made his stance on things very clear and he appealed to a very particular segment of America. THE RACIST SEGMENT OF COURSE! LOL!

Hillary on the other hand faked accents sometimes when giving speeches depending on what part of the country she was in and while running for senator of NY had to make up a story about how Chelsea was near the Twin Towers on 9/11 to make it seem like she "fit in" with NY. One election Hillary believes marriage is between a man and a woman, the very next election she believes in gay marriage. She was all over the place.

[tyrant-201]

Yeah Obama had his birther detractors but that was always a fringe group of people. We didn't have rioters assaulting people with "Change we can believe in" hats on insisting they were bigoted Nazis and demanding to see a birth certificate.

One of those birthers happens to be the current President. I didn't like Hillary either. I'm pretty well certain Trump isn't all there in the head, though.

[Tgo01]

1. Travel ban v1.0 = fail
2. Travel ban v2.0 = fail

Trump tried to get these things passed, he signed executive orders to make them happen. The courts are the ones who shot them down.


6. Lies and bullshit = Yup

A politician lying? IMPEACH HIM NOW!


8. "Make America Great Again" = stolen from Reagan and Russia their slogan "let's make the world great again - together"

Hitler also said he wanted to make Germany great again. Trump = Hitler!


9. The pipeline - ok, this I salute. Let's drill. But American steel? Doubtful.

Oh well.

Oh yeah, have we already forgotten to give Trump credit for killing TPP almost immediately? That trade agreement that he and Sanders were both in favor of killing meanwhile Hillary had to flip flop at the last minute to appeal to Bernie supporters, even going so far as to blatantly lie and claim she was never really in favor of it and said she "hoped" it would be the gold standard among trade deals, when in reality she said it WAS the gold standard.

[Tgo01]

One of those birthers happens to be the current President.

Sometimes it pays to be part of the fringe.

[Back]

Hillary on the other hand faked accents sometimes when giving speeches depending on what part of the country she was in and while running for senator of NY had to make up a story about how Chelsea was near the Twin Towers on 9/11 to make it seem like she "fit in" with NY. One election Hillary believes marriage is between a man and a woman, the very next election she believes in gay marriage. She was all over the place.


Oh yeah, have we already forgotten to give Trump credit for killing TPP almost immediately? That trade agreement that he and Sanders were both in favor of killing meanwhile Hillary had to flip flop at the last minute to appeal to Bernie supporters, even going so far as to blatantly lie and claim she was never really in favor of it and said she "hoped" it would be the gold standard among trade deals, when in reality she said it WAS the gold standard.

Dude, Hillary lost. Get over it.

[Tgo01]

Dude, Hillary lost. Get over it.

If we're arguing that Trump is a failure of a president because of the way he campaigned then I'm going to compare him to the person who would have won should he have lost. And that's Hillary.

It also pertains to my point that I'm only a Trump supporter because he's NOT Hillary. So again mentioning her works in this regard because she's the reason I even support Trump.

Had you morons put even a tenth of the effort into getting Sanders the nomination as you do about this whole Russia bullshit then Sanders would probably be president and I would have supported him over Trump. I wouldn't have been very happy with Sanders over president, but he would have been my choice over Trump.

But no. You dipshits just had to insist on the first woman president in an attempt to capture some of that "historical first!" hysteria wave that Obama rode into the White House.

[Back]

If we're arguing that Trump is a failure of a president because of the way he campaigned then I'm going to compare him to the person who would have won should he have lost. And that's Hillary.

It also pertains to my point that I'm only a Trump supporter because he's NOT Hillary. So again mentioning her works in this regard because she's the reason I even support Trump.

Had you morons put even a tenth of the effort into getting Sanders the nomination as you do about this whole Russia bullshit then Sanders would probably be president and I would have supported him over Trump. I wouldn't have been very happy with Sanders over president, but he would have been my choice over Trump.

But no. You dipshits just had to insist on the first woman president in an attempt to capture some of that "historical first!" hysteria wave that Obama rode into the White House.

Jesus... angry much? If your guy won why are you continuing at every turn attempting to further berate and belittle the losing side?

[Tgo01]

Jesus... angry much? If your guy won why are you continuing at every turn attempting to further berate and belittle the losing side?

Aww, poor little Back need a safe space because his candidate lost?

Fuck off. Your side spent 8 years insisting I was racist because I dared disagreed with a black man. Are liberals such as yourself such gigantic pussies that you can't even make it 100 days without breaking down and crying? At this rate weak liberals will be out bred by strong conservative stock in a couple of generations.

[Back]

Aww, poor little Back need a safe space because his candidate lost?

Fuck off. Your side spent 8 years insisting I was racist because I dared disagreed with a black man. Are liberals such as yourself such gigantic pussies that you can't even make it 100 days without breaking down and crying? At this rate weak liberals will be out bred by strong conservative stock in a couple of generations.

Uh... ok. Have a great night?

[~Rocktar~]

Jesus... angry much? If your guy won why are you continuing at every turn attempting to further berate and belittle the losing side?

Maybe if Liberal Socialist shitbags like you had not spent the last 8 years belittling, berating, condescending too and insulting Conservatives then perhaps we might be a little less intense about it. Payback is a bitch isn't it?

[Tgo01]

Uh... ok. Have a great night?

No safe spaces for you here, cupcake.

[SHAFT]

Trump tried to get these things passed, he signed executive orders to make them happen. The courts are the ones who shot them down.



A politician lying? IMPEACH HIM NOW!



Hitler also said he wanted to make Germany great again. Trump = Hitler!


1. Just because you're president doesn't make your word so.

Trump either:

A. Sought guidance, got bad advice, went forward with travel bans
B. Sought guidance, was told it could be shot down, went forward with travel ban
C. Said to himself "I'm the President now. I make the rules"! Went forward with travel ban

If they didn't think it'd get shot down they're either incompetent, stupid, or a combination of both.

2. Lies Tgo, flat out lies. Wire tapping, number of people at inauguration, "I didn't say repealing Obamacare in the first 64 days" when he actually said repeatedly it would be immediately... and yes I know the trumpcare thing wasn't 100% his fault but the buck stops at the president. Oh, might as well throw Flynn and Session's lies in there too.

3. Hey, you said it, not me. I could find the similarities between Hitler and trump for everyone, if you'd like?

[Nathala Crane]

It's been weird watching Tgo's descent into madness. But thoroughly entertaining.

[SHAFT]

Dude, Hillary lost. Get over it.

Back is right. Hillary lost. STOP bringing up Hillary to justify trump! I mean fuck, stop trying to justify the vote.

[tyrant-201]

BUTBUTBUT HILLARY!!!!

[Tgo01]

1. Just because you're president doesn't make your word so.

Trump either:

A. Sought guidance, got bad advice, went forward with travel bans
B. Sought guidance, was told it could be shot down, went forward with travel ban
C. Said to himself "I'm the President now. I make the rules"! Went forward with travel ban

If they didn't think it'd get shot down they're either incompetent, stupid, or a combination of both.

Not necessarily. Obama couldn't even close Gitmo in his first year in office because his Democrat super majority in congress didn't want to. Unless you're saying Obama was incompetent and stupid also, then sure.


2. Lies Tgo, flat out lies. Wire tapping, number of people at inauguration, "I didn't say repealing Obamacare in the first 64 days" when he actually said repeatedly it would be immediately... and yes I know the trumpcare thing wasn't 100% his fault but the buck stops at the president. Oh, might as well throw Flynn and Session's lies in there too.

And Obama repeatedly said things like "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and that he would reduce the premiums for the average family by 2500 dollars a year, neither of which happened. Trump's lies are just being highlighted more because he's clearly a racist, sexist, isolationist xenophobe.


I could find the similarities between Hitler and trump for everyone, if you'd like?

Sure.

[SHAFT]

It's sad and pathetic. I keep saying it; she's old news.

How about actually justifying the shit happening NOW? Kushner, Manafort, Page, and Stone. Better hope none of them slip up in these hearings. The people asking the questions may know the answers already with Flynn AWOL and the Steele dossier.

Then you have Nunes.... Trump's administration is making Dubya's look like Reagan 2.0.

[Tgo01]

It's been weird watching Tgo's descent into madness. But thoroughly entertaining.

Tgo has an opinion I don't like! Clearly he is MAD!!!


Back is right.

You have just lost any and all future arguments.


BUTBUTBUT HILLARY!!!!

Yeah, I get you guys want to not bring up Hillary because it's easier for you to say "BUT TRUMP IS A RACIST!" but that's not how the real world works. Hillary would have been president had Trump lost, so the logical way to look at this is "What would Hillary do?" Trust me on this, I used to teach logic.

What would Hillary do about Islamic terrorism? Probably appoint a "former" ISIS member as one of her advisors. Would I want that? No.

What would Hillary do about illegal immigration and border security? Probably tear down what little amount of border wall we do have and push for amnesty. Is this what I want? No.

What would Hillary have done with the TPP? I dunno, she claimed she wanted to do away with it, but she sure seemed to be in favor of it. Is that what I would want? No.

What would Hillary have done about identity politics? Probably made it a central theme of her presidency. Would I want that? No.

If it means having Trump in office so Hillary can't push her inane agenda then so be it.

Does that hurt your guys' feelings?

[SHAFT]

Not necessarily. Obama couldn't even close Gitmo in his first year in office because his Democrat super majority in congress didn't want to. Unless you're saying Obama was incompetent and stupid also, then sure.



And Obama repeatedly said things like "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and that he would reduce the premiums for the average family by 2500 dollars a year, neither of which happened. Trump's lies are just being highlighted more because he's clearly a racist, sexist, isolationist xenophobe.



Sure.

I changed my mind. Your penalty for buying a conmans BS is to look it up yourself. Trust me, there are similarities between Trump and dictators.

If you think saying the former president wire tapped you, while have not a shred of evidence, is compatible to Obama's thing about doctors, we're just on different levels.

Also, why are we bringing up obama? In the same way Hillary lost, obama is no longer president. Trying to argue for trump while bringing up people like Hillary or obama doesn't make sense and validates zero points.

How about this novelty idea: defend trump only by mentioning trump, his family, and his administration. Oh, and Russia and Putin. They belong in the same sentence at this point.

[Tgo01]

How about actually justifying the shit happening NOW? Kushner, Manafort, Page, and Stone.

I'm so worried that this trumped up fake news about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election might turn out to be real! AAAAHHHHHHHH!


Then you have Nunes.... Trump's administration is making Dubya's look like Reagan 2.0.

Why you bringing up the greatest president of all time? He's been out of office for over 8 years!!1

[SHAFT]

Ugh, I just realized I've fallen into the PC political vortex! Tyrant, pull me out! I need help!

[Tgo01]

I changed my mind. Your penalty for buying a conmans BS is to look it up yourself. Trust me, there are similarities between Trump and dictators.

Let me guess; both chose a "target" (Jews, Muslims) to blame everything on. Both were very xenophobic. Both told the population they were being wronged and they were the only ones who could fix it. Am I pretty close?


If you think saying the former president wire tapped you, while have not a shred of evidence, is compatible to Obama's thing about doctors, we're just on different levels.

So you're okay with some lies but not others. What is the threshold exactly?


Also, why are we bringing up obama? In the same way Hillary lost, obama is no longer president. Trying to argue for trump while bringing up people like Hillary or obama doesn't make sense and validates zero points.

I can bring up the times Bush failed too if you want. Obama's failures are just more fresh in my memory to make a point.


How about this novelty idea: defend trump only by mentioning trump, his family, and his administration. Oh, and Russia and Putin. They belong in the same sentence at this point.

Sure I'll give it a go. What specific complaint do you have about Trump that does not include the words Russia or Putin? And please explain your complaint and don't just say "Well Trump lied so..."

[SHAFT]

I'm so worried that this trumped up fake news about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election might turn out to be real! AAAAHHHHHHHH!



Why you bringing up the greatest president of all time? He's been out of office for over 8 years!!1

Last one and I'm done. You do realize those 4 are actually being investigated right? When you say that something which is actually true is fake news, you're just as crazy as the Orangutan in Chief. Those 4 will be speaking with investigators. Manafort, Stone, and Page will be public. Cheers, that's real.

[Tgo01]

Last one and I'm done. You do realize those 4 are actually being investigated right?

And Hillary was investigated and even though there was plenty of evidence to show she broke the law she still walked away a free woman. Uh-oh! I mentioned Hillary again!

[tyrant-201]

And Hillary was investigated and even though there was plenty of evidence to show she broke the law she still walked away a free woman. Uh-oh! I mentioned Hillary again!

I'm starting to think you have a thing for her. Pantsuit and all.

[Tgo01]

I'm starting to think you have a thing for her. Pantsuit and all.

Liberals don't like it when you point out their inconvenient truth.

[tyrant-201]

Liberals don't like it when you point out their inconvenient truth.

I'm a liberal, I couldn't give two shits about Hillary. Glad she didn't win, not glad we have Trump and I don't understand why anyone would defend him.

[Tgo01]

Glad she didn't win, not glad we have Trump

You're just not gonna be happy no matter what. One of them was gonna win. Trump > Hillary any day.


and I don't understand why anyone would defend him.

What has he done that has been so egregious? Said Obama wire tapped him? Invoked his authority to crack down on illegal immigration more and issue a temporary travel ban. Oh my bad, a MOOSLEM BAN!

[Trump]

You Libtards are so fucking dumb. Listen, let me explain this shit to you like you're twelve. Conservatives aren't dumb, we know Trump is a spoiled moron who's got everything handed to him on a silver platter and bravado'd and BS'd his way through life. We also know that everything he's going to do is toward benefiting the bajillionaire buddies of his as can be seen how he's surrounded himself with the billionaire con men of the country (not even legit "I invented some shit" billionaires but Manhattan Wall Street bloodsucker billionaires). But he was the computer virus we needed to download into Washington so that these fucking lifer politicians will finally wake the fuck up.

Hillary? She invented DC grind politics. It would've been the same mess. The more Trump blows shit up in DC, the more the Repubs will get to work, and the Dems try something new. Heck, I even see Trump closing the partisan divide in order for both parties to ban together to stop Trump. And guess what you liberal shits? us racist, homophobic, redneck,misogynists were the people who were smart enough to vote for him and finally get the country out of the matrix-like political prison that is currently sucking the lifeforce of the country.

[Androidpk]

It's sad and pathetic. I keep saying it; she's old news.

Ookay guys, we better stop talking about Hillary cause Shaft said so.

:jerkit:

[Methais]

I mean just watch the video you dumb fucks. Keep supporting the guy... keep trying to justify your once-every-4-year vote you got conned out of. How fucking stupid do you have to be to not only vote for Trump, but to actually come out and ADMIT it? Stupid fucking people.

I get you don't like Hillary, I do. But stop, just stop.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN0nLgd46Gg

[Methais]

Are liberals such as yourself such gigantic pussies that you can't even make it 100 days without breaking down and crying?

Quit with the fake news.

They began crying the second they realized Hillary lost. Literally.

Not like literally Hitler, but just literally.

http://www.fury.news/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CRYING-COVER.jpg

[Whirlin]

Quit with the fake news.

They began crying the second they realized Hillary lost. Literally.

Not like literally Hitler, but just literally.



Why do you have Fury news bookmarked?

[Methais]

When you say that something which is actually true is fake news, you're just as crazy as the Orangutan in Chief

I thought we already established that Obama isn't president anymore?

[ClydeR]

When will Obamacare implode? Will it be 2017? 2018? If it's either of those years, then it will be a big issue in the 2018 midterm elections. Will it stretch into 2019 or 2020, when we're having Trump's reelection campaign?






http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump-tweet-everything_is_fine_zps9hfsu69m.jpg
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846543183223963649 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846543183223963649)

[Methais]

Why do you have Fury news bookmarked?

There's this thing called Google where you can search and then if you click the image tab it will display only images, with lots to choose from.

It's totally rad!

PS: That isn't a bookmark.

http://i.imgur.com/PXlu1CG.png

[time4fun]

When will Obamacare implode? Will it be 2017? 2018? If it's either of those years, then it will be a big issue in the 2018 midterm elections. Will it stretch into 2019 or 2020, when we're having Trump's reelection campaign?






http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump-tweet-everything_is_fine_zps9hfsu69m.jpg
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846543183223963649 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846543183223963649)













Waiting for the individual market to crash is a risky proposition for the GOP. Remember- they were the last ones with the ball. And they blew it. People want the ACA fixed, not repealed. If it crashes while the GOP is in power, it may turn into a Democratic windfall as people vote for people they believe will make things better without kicking them off of their insurance.

Not the people who threw their hands in the air and said "I can't wait for this to fail on you".

[Parkbandit]

It's been weird watching Tgo's descent into madness. But thoroughly entertaining.

Irony

[Parkbandit]

Ugh, I just realized I've fallen into the PC political vortex! Tyrant, pull me out! I need help!

It's not a PC political vortex.. it's you still being so salty.

Get over it and yourself Shaft... you'll be happier.

Just sit back and let your President Make America Great Again.

[Tgo01]

Waiting for the individual market to crash is a risky proposition for the GOP. Remember- they were the last ones with the ball. And they blew it. People want the ACA fixed, not repealed. If it crashes while the GOP is in power, it may turn into a Democratic windfall as people vote for people they believe will make things better without kicking them off of their insurance.

Not the people who threw their hands in the air and said "I can't wait for this to fail on you".

You have got to be fucking me.

Not a single Republican supported Obamacare.

Not a single Democrat wanted to help with the recent bill to replace Obamacare.

But if Obamacare fails it will be the fault of Republicans?

I guess this makes sense in the land of Democrats, where facts and logic aren't welcome!

[Parkbandit]

I'm a liberal, I couldn't give two shits about Hillary. Glad she didn't win, not glad we have Trump and I don't understand why anyone would defend him.

Maybe you should stop living in some alternate universe where there was more than 2 choices.

It was either Hillary or Trump.

Sorry.. sometimes you can't have it your way. Life isn't fair.

I know.. you've never been told that before.

Thus the anger and tears.

[Methais]

It's not a PC political vortex.. it's you still being so salty.

Get over it and yourself Shaft... you'll be happier.

Just sit back and let your President Make America Great Again.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/73038954/trump-car-gun-get-in-pussy-were-making-america-great-again.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Last one and I'm done.

That's unlikely, given your spike in posts since your girl lost. It's a tough time for you.. we get it.

[Parkbandit]

Waiting for the individual market to crash is a risky proposition for the GOP. Remember- they were the last ones with the ball. And they blew it. People want the ACA fixed, not repealed. If it crashes while the GOP is in power, it may turn into a Democratic windfall as people vote for people they believe will make things better without kicking them off of their insurance.

Not the people who threw their hands in the air and said "I can't wait for this to fail on you".

From the one that claimed Hillary would get almost 400 electorial votes and that it was "over" a month before the election.

Thank you!

[Tgo01]

From the one that claimed Hillary would get almost 400 electorial votes and that it was "over" a month before the election.

Thank you!

But Hillary has a shot at winning Texas!

[Androidpk]

Just sit back and let your President Make America Great Again.

If you actually think Trump is going to "Make America Great Again" then you're just as naive as Back/Time4Fun.

[Kembal]

You have got to be fucking me.

Not a single Republican supported Obamacare.

Not a single Democrat wanted to help with the recent bill to replace Obamacare.

But if Obamacare fails it will be the fault of Republicans?

I guess this makes sense in the land of Democrats, where facts and logic aren't welcome!

Yeah, uh, when you're in unified control of the government, generally, voters expect you not to let things blow up, regardless of party.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, uh, when you're in unified control of the government, generally, voters expect you not to let things blow up, regardless of party.

I would just LOVE to see Democrats go on national TV and on debates and say "Why didn't Republican fix Obamacare before it fell apart?! You need to vote us back in office so we can fix it!"

I have no doubt it would work in rallying Democrats to support them, but I give the American voters a little bit of credit in this regard.

[Kembal]

I would just LOVE to see Democrats go on national TV and on debates and say "Why didn't Republican fix Obamacare before it fell apart?! You need to vote us back in office so we can fix it!"

I have no doubt it would work in rallying Democrats to support them, but I give the American voters a little bit of credit in this regard.

The thing is, the market isn't going to blow up on its own in the next year. The administration will have to take active measures to damage the markets to any significant degree. (easiest one is not advertise during the open enrollment period this year)

And of course, the administration not negotiating with Democrats on their current second go-around (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/us/politics/health-care-obamacare-freedom-caucus.html) still doesn't make it seem like they want Democratic help. First bill was explicitly designed to not require Democratic votes in the Senate.

[Tgo01]

The administration will have to take active measures to damage the markets to any significant degree. (easiest one is not advertise during the open enrollment period this year)

Oh so conspiracy theory bullshit. Hey the Russian hacking thing isn't working let's move on towards Russian/Trump collusion. Hey the Russian/Trump collusion thing isn't working, let's find a way to blame the collapse of Obamacare on Republicans.

Like I said the Democrats aren't even a party anymore with actual goals and policies. They are just a party that relies on identity politics and being the anti-Republican party.

Look at the whole bathroom bullshit. It all started because a couple of kids in school wanted to use the "other" bathroom but school officials were worried about the privacy and safety of both the student in question and other students, so they said how about you use the nurse's bathroom or the teacher's bathroom.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

NOPE! That's sexist! Homophobic! Transphobic! Somehow racist! Let's make this a national issue and demand little boys and girls can use either bathroom! Then let's take it one step further and allow grown men and women to use any bathroom, locker room, or shower room they want! If you dare say anything about it you are a homophobe!

[Ashliana]

Like I said the Democrats aren't even a party anymore with actual goals and policies. They are just a party that relies on identity politics and being the anti-Republican party.



The level of willful ignorance, cognitive dissonance and size of your ideological blinders it would take to actually make this statement unironically - especially compared to the GOP -- is astounding. It's a wonder of nature that you're an ostensibly functional human being capable of conversing, holding a job, putting pants on, etc. Impressive.


Hey the Russian hacking thing isn't working let's move on towards Russian/Trump collusion.

Cheney, the GOP's last VP:

"There's no question that there was a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin and his government, his organization, to interfere in major ways with our basic fundamental democratic processes," "In some quarters, that could be considered an act of war." "I would not underestimate the weight that we as Americans assign to Russian attempts to interfere with our process."

Similarly, McCain agrees (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/325330-mccain-congress-doesnt-have-credibility-to-handle-russia-probes) that Nunes doesn't have the credibility to investigate the Trump/Russia connection.

But, yeah. Good luck with your flaming dumpster of a president.

http://i.imgur.com/hzwzfic.png

[Trump]

I wonder if or when the Repubs will turn on him? Once his approval ratings hit the teens?

[tyrant-201]

Maybe you should stop living in some alternate universe where there was more than 2 choices.

It was either Hillary or Trump.

Sorry.. sometimes you can't have it your way. Life isn't fair.

I know.. you've never been told that before.

Thus the anger and tears.

I'm not resigned to two choices being good enough, particularly when neither are good enough. I'll continue to criticize a system that provides shitty candidates, fuck you very much.

[Methais]

I'm not resigned to two choices being good enough, particularly when neither are good enough. I'll continue to criticize a system that provides shitty candidates, fuck you very much.

That sounds great and all but what are you going to actually do about it to change that, besides maybe vote 3rd party and then complain that the person you really really didn't want got in over the one you also didn't want but disliked less?

[tyrant-201]

That sounds great and all but what are you going to actually do about it to change that, besides maybe vote 3rd party and then complain that the person you really really didn't want got in over the one you also didn't want but disliked less?

I'll vote for whoever most accurately represents my views, regardless of party affiliation.

[Methais]

I'll vote for whoever most accurately represents my views, regardless of party affiliation.

http://justsomething.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/guns-replaced-thumbs-up-5.jpg

[Tgo01]

The level of willful ignorance, cognitive dissonance and size of your ideological blinders it would take to actually make this statement unironically - especially compared to the GOP -- is astounding. It's a wonder of nature that you're an ostensibly functional human being capable of conversing, holding a job, putting pants on, etc. Impressive.

Thanks. So do you have a point to make or just an endless string of insults? Because your insults are kind of boring. I have the best insults.


Cheney, the GOP's last VP:

"There's no question that there was a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin and his government, his organization, to interfere in major ways with our basic fundamental democratic processes," "In some quarters, that could be considered an act of war." "I would not underestimate the weight that we as Americans assign to Russian attempts to interfere with our process."

Similarly, McCain agrees (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/325330-mccain-congress-doesnt-have-credibility-to-handle-russia-probes) that Nunes doesn't have the credibility to investigate the Trump/Russia connection.

But, yeah. Good luck with your flaming dumpster of a president.

Well as long as McCain, the guy going after Trump as hard as Democrats have been, is on board with this shit then I guess it must be true!!11

Also Cheney? Really? Democrats have reached such an all time low they are now holding up Cheney as someone we should all listen to? Most Republicans didn't even like Cheney.

[Whirlin]

Thanks. So do you have a point to make or just an endless string of insults? Because your insults are kind of boring.


Your face is kind of boring.

[Tgo01]

Your face is kind of boring.

This is how you hurt someone :(

[Ashliana]

Thanks. So do you have a point to make or just an endless string of insults? Because your insults are kind of boring. I have the best insults.

It's just incredible that that's what you believe. Lack of agreement with, dislike for, even contempt for Democrats or liberals? Sure, I get it -- I don't agree, but I get it. Even the GOP's regular kind of cynicism -- the kind that actively denies climate change and claims to believe in a shadow conspiracy of greedy environmental scientists -- all while taking untold fortunes from oil companies -- I understand.

But your kind of totally delusional bullshit that falls apart the second it's examined? That, I don't get. You must live in a proverbial glass house of a mental state that requires you to discount everything that disagrees with you, in order to maintain that epic level of willful ignorance.


Well as long as McCain, the guy going after Trump as hard as Democrats have been, is on board with this shit then I guess it must be true!!11

Also Cheney? Really? Democrats have reached such an all time low they are now holding up Cheney as someone we should all listen to? Most Republicans didn't even like Cheney.

The point being, people who obviously aren't "liberals seeking to damage conservatives," and people for whom millions of conservatives voted for, see the serious problem with Trump -- your casual, totally reckless dismissal of their concerns, purely for partisan reasons, rises to the level of absurd, and speaks to my former point: Your support for Trump is apparently so fragile and imperiled that you're dismissing the people that you, as a conservative, should be at the very least listening to.

[tyrant-201]

This is how you hurt someone :(

Your scripts suck

[time4fun]

The point being, people who obviously aren't "liberals seeking to damage conservatives," and people for whom millions of conservatives voted for, see the serious problem with Trump -- your casual, totally reckless dismissal of their concerns, purely for partisan reasons, rises to the level of absurd, and speaks to my former point: Your support for Trump is apparently so fragile and imperiled that you're dismissing the people that you, as a conservative, should be at the very least listening to.

I love how he just discounts McCain because he's been critical of Trump. So by that logic, we should only believe people who actively support Trump. Because that makes tons of sense if you're looking for objectivity. Nunes thanks you for your breathtaking logic Tgo.

[Tgo01]

But your kind of totally delusional bullshit that falls apart the second it's examined? That, I don't get. You must live in a proverbial glass house of a mental state that requires you to discount everything that disagrees with you, in order to maintain that epic level of willful ignorance.

"It falls apart when examined! You provided an argument and provided examples to make your case! Me on the other hand? I'm just saying you're a dumb shit because I say so and I win! LOL"

Yes, this is the exact shit I'm talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table anymore. You and time4fun are just "But Russia!", "But racism!", "But sexism!"

I even gave SHAFT a lengthy reply yesterday and he came with something like yeah but you're stupid. I asked him to detail his problem with Trump without mentioning Russia/Putin, all I got in return were crickets.


The point being, people who obviously aren't "liberals seeking to damage conservatives,"

Why did you put that in quotes? I never said that. Learn what quotes are. Ask time4fun, I hear she used to teach English.

[SHAFT]

Tgo, I can't fall into the vortex. I can't argue for the sake of arguing. You're not trapping me.

Abandon ship! Abort, abort, abort!

[Tgo01]

Your scripts suck

Well that's just nonsense, no one would believe this.


I love how he just discounts McCain because he's been critical of Trump. So by that logic, we should only believe people who actively support Trump.

No, "by that logic" I'll believe actual proof. Even you yourself have admitted there is ZERO prove linking any of this shit together. So if all we are doing is relying on bullshit conspiracy theories from people who have been gunning for Trump since day 1 then "by that logic" isn't it more likely they are just furthering these bullshit theories because they oppose Trump?

LOGIC! How does it work?

[Tgo01]

Tgo, I can't fall into the vortex. I can't argue for the sake of arguing. You're not trapping me.

Abandon ship! Abort, abort, abort!

I graciously accept your defeat.

[Parkbandit]

If you actually think Trump is going to "Make America Great Again" then you're just as naive as Back/Time4Fun.

It's not difficult to improve what we've been through for the past 9 years.

Yes, yes.. Bush's fault.

And I use that phrase because I know how it triggers some of the most sensitive people here.

[Donquix]

"It falls apart when examined! You provided an argument and provided examples to make your case! Me on the other hand? I'm just saying you're a dumb shit because I say so and I win! LOL"

Yes, this is the exact shit I'm talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table anymore. You and time4fun are just "But Russia!", "But racism!", "But sexism!"

I even gave SHAFT a lengthy reply yesterday and he came with something like yeah but you're stupid. I asked him to detail his problem with Trump without mentioning Russia/Putin, all I got in return were crickets.



Why did you put that in quotes? I never said that. Learn what quotes are. Ask time4fun, I hear she used to teach English.

Your entire argument is "Please make a valid point on why Trump is bad. But please don't use this list of valid points because it counters my world view."

You say people can't make a point without insulting you but you are literally the most consistently aggressive and insulting person in this thread. 90% of your posts are "but that doesn't count because I don't like it, and you're dumb. Like vishra is dumb. hey guys, did i mention i don't like vishra?"

Fucking get over it, jesus.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not resigned to two choices being good enough, particularly when neither are good enough. I'll continue to criticize a system that provides shitty candidates, fuck you very much.

We're talking about the 2016 election. Not the future or some alternate universe.

In 2016, you had 2 choices for President: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Or.. you can continue to live in your "special" reality where we could have elected more than those 2.

Are you a loser in that reality as well?

[Parkbandit]

I love how he just discounts McCain because he's been critical of Trump. So by that logic, we should only believe people who actively support Trump. Because that makes tons of sense if you're looking for objectivity. Nunes thanks you for your breathtaking logic Tgo.

You honestly should stop using the word "logic", you know nothing about it.

McCain has been a loser since 1999. He wasn't a loser in 1999 because he would be critical of President Trump 18 years later.

[Kembal]

Oh so conspiracy theory bullshit. Hey the Russian hacking thing isn't working let's move on towards Russian/Trump collusion. Hey the Russian/Trump collusion thing isn't working, let's find a way to blame the collapse of Obamacare on Republicans.

Like I said the Democrats aren't even a party anymore with actual goals and policies. They are just a party that relies on identity politics and being the anti-Republican party.

Look at the whole bathroom bullshit. It all started because a couple of kids in school wanted to use the "other" bathroom but school officials were worried about the privacy and safety of both the student in question and other students, so they said how about you use the nurse's bathroom or the teacher's bathroom.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

NOPE! That's sexist! Homophobic! Transphobic! Somehow racist! Let's make this a national issue and demand little boys and girls can use either bathroom! Then let's take it one step further and allow grown men and women to use any bathroom, locker room, or shower room they want! If you dare say anything about it you are a homophobe!

Impressive going off-course here.

It's all up to HHS Sec. Price and Trump. Price has the ability to derail the markets through administrative actions. Hell, Trump could decide to stop paying the subsidies by stopping the defense against the House lawsuit against the subsidies.

All of this has been detailed out by multiple news sources as to ways they could imperil the ACA administratively. This isn't conspiracy theory - this is being closely watched. No one thinks it would be politically advantageous for the administration, so they don't expect Trump to do so.

But if Trump wants the market to explode in order to make a deal, his administration has a lot of levers to pull that can make that happen.

[Parkbandit]

Your entire argument is "Please make a valid point on why Trump is bad. But please don't use this list of valid points because it counters my world view."

You say people can't make a point without insulting you but you are literally the most consistently aggressive and insulting person in this thread. 90% of your posts are "but that doesn't count because I don't like it, and you're dumb. Like vishra is dumb. hey guys, did i mention i don't like vishra?"

Fucking get over it, jesus.

I'm 10x more aggressive and insulting that tgo01.. you stupid dumb fuck.

Take it back or else.

[Methais]

McCain has been a loser since 1999. He wasn't a loser in 1999 because he would be critical of President Trump 18 years later.

NEED SOURCE TO PROVE THIS PLZ I HAVE A PHD IN SOURCES AND I THINK YOU'RE LYING

[Tgo01]

Your entire argument is "Please make a valid point on why Trump is bad. But please don't use this list of valid points because it counters my world view."

If your only reason for hating Trump is because of these unsubstantiated Russia rumors then how can I possibly make a counter argument? It would be like trying to have an argument with someone who believes in healing crystals.

Healing crystals work! Look at all of this 'proof'!


You say people can't make a point without insulting you

I didn't say that. I don't give a shit if people want to insult me. If they are going to say I'm dumb because of my opinions then I want to see a counter argument strewn in there somewhere between the insults.


90% of your posts are "but that doesn't count because I don't like it, and you're dumb. Like vishra is dumb. hey guys, did i mention i don't like vishra?"

Well time4fun is a dipshit. You're bitching about me being oh so insulting yet all time4fun does is bring up stupid shit and doesn't even attempt to make arguments. Where was all of your bitching when time4fun was busy calling everyone a sexist and a racist all the while making overtly racist and sexist comments?

Shit, I even very politely and nicely asked time4fun to make her case about the whole gender pay gap narrative and she came back and made a sexist comment about men commenting on the gender gap, like she doesn't even have to bother explaining her position because as I man I just automatically lose.

Poor time4fun is just being so unjustly mistreated! Fucking bullshit.


Fucking get over it, jesus.

Get over what? time4fun being a dipshit? Naww.

[Candor]

In 2016, you had 2 choices for President: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Strange...because I didn't vote for either one of them.

As for any anyone who thinks I "threw away" my vote, well I voted for who I thought was the best choice for President. Did you?

[Tgo01]

It's all up to HHS Sec. Price and Trump. Price has the ability to derail the markets through administrative actions. Hell, Trump could decide to stop paying the subsidies by stopping the defense against the House lawsuit against the subsidies.

So clearly if Obamacare does fail it will be because Trump and his administration made it happen!!11

Shit, we're talking about something that probably won't even happen and you're already here making excuses for Democrats as to why Trump is to blame for Obamacare failing.

[Tgo01]

As for any anyone who thinks I "threw away" my vote, well I voted for who I thought was the best choice for President. Did you?

I don't think you "threw away" your vote. But let's be honest even before the election everyone knew either Trump or Hillary was going to win. Now that the election is over we know for sure these two are the only ones who had a chance of winning. The person in third place didn't even get a single electoral vote. Ironically enough people who did receive an electoral vote (the Hillary people who threw their votes away) weren't even running.

[Kembal]

So clearly if Obamacare does fail it will be because Trump and his administration made it happen!!11

Shit, we're talking about something that probably won't even happen and you're already here making excuses for Democrats as to why Trump is to blame for Obamacare failing.

Ok, you're conceding it probably won't happen - which was my original point. The exchanges aren't likely to fail in the next year if current regulations stay in place. (the changes that were made already - shortening the open enrollment period, for example - won't hurt if everything else stays as previous years.)

That's what most voters percieve too. That's why I find it strange to think that if market failure does happen, voters would buy Trump's argument that it's somehow the Dems fault, especially when the GOP has unified control of government and yet couldn't even pass a bill that required no Dem votes to pass.

[Ashliana]

So clearly if Obamacare does fail it will be because Trump and his administration made it happen!!11

Shit, we're talking about something that probably won't even happen and you're already here making excuses for Democrats as to why Trump is to blame for Obamacare failing.

On the flip side, it seems pretty clear you're making an excuse for why, if the healthcare system -- a core pillar of American life and the US economy -- fails while the GOP has control both houses of Congress, and a president in office, it's somehow the fault of the other party in the minority, while the GOP couldn't get their act together and sat there going ¯\_(ツ)_/¯?

Either way, your stance here is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ACA did. "Obamacare" isn't an entity distinct from the healthcare system -- if you're referring, specifically, to the healthcare exchanges, which were established by the ACA, they're a small part of the healthcare system - this year, about 6 and half million people were insured by the exchange, out of the 293 million or so people in the US with health insurance. Most get it through their employer, Medicare or Medicaid.

The healthcare exchanges -- what many Republicans colloquially refer to as "Obamacare" -- was deliberately weakened (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html) by Republicans. Marco Rubio proudly asserted that fact. Even if they eventually need retuning, they're not the only social program that will eventually implode.

Ever heard of a little program called Social Security? Same thing, buddy -- and if a Republican is in office, they're not going to get away unscathed by saying "Not my problem -- FDR should've thought about that in 1935. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

I know, I know. Republicans are allergic to actually governing, and it shows, from the way Trump is behaving like he's still campaigning for the GOP nomination.

[Tgo01]

Ok, you're conceding it probably won't happen - which was my original point. The exchanges aren't likely to fail in the next year if current regulations stay in place. (the changes that were made already - shortening the open enrollment period, for example - won't hurt if everything else stays as previous years.)

I am conceding Obamacare likely won't fail (at least not in the foreseeable future), but I don't buy into the narrative that if it fails it will be because of meanie head Trump.

And by "fail" I mean the plans get to be so expensive that it becomes unsustainable. I can see more markets getting to the point where people only have one plan to "choose" from, which has already happened before meanie head Trump was sworn in. Maybe some of these markets might have no plans at all.


That's what most voters percieve too.

Voters perceive that Obamacare is fine and running smoothly and if it fails someday it will be because meanie head Trump sabotaged it? Source?

[Tgo01]

On the flip side, it seems pretty clear you're making an excuse for why, if the healthcare system -- a core pillar of American life and the US economy -- fails while the GOP has control both houses of Congress, and a president in office, it's somehow the fault of the other party in the minority, while the GOP couldn't get their act together and sat there going ¯\_(ツ)_/¯?

Well, I mean, yeah. Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. Not a single Democrat wanted to vote on a new plan to replace Obamacare. How is it the fault of Republicans if it fails? Sure if you buy into the bullshit narrative that Trump is a moustache twirling cartoon villain who is going to sabotage Obamacare to make it fail then sure. I love this narrative though. Trump is so inept and stupid that he can't get his own healthcare plan passed, but he's smart enough to sabotage Obamacare to make it fail in a year. Make up your minds.


Either way, your stance here is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ACA did. "Obamacare" isn't an entity distinct from the healthcare system -- if you're referring, specifically, to the healthcare exchanges, which were established by the ACA

I mean yeah, I figured it was obvious that's what we were all referring to. You deserve a cookie for cracking the case, Ashliana!

[Ashliana]

Well, I mean, yeah. Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. Not a single Democrat wanted to vote on a new plan to replace Obamacare. How is it the fault of Republicans if it fails? I mean yeah, if you buy into the bullshit narrative that Trump is a moustache twirling cartoon villain who is going to sabotage Obamacare to make it fail then sure. I love this narrative though. Trump is so inept and stupid that he can't get his own healthcare plan passed, but he's smart enough to sabotage Obamacare to make it fail in a year. Make up your minds.

And here comes the incredibly tired, predictable conservative spin. All of the nonsensical, hysterical GOP claims about Obamacare weren't only not true, but were true of the AHCA (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-tanden-aca-gop-health-care-bill-20170315-story.html).

The ACA was modeled after Romney's conservative plan, modified by the healthcare industry lobby, with tons of input from Republicans--including the individual mandate, the invention of the Heritage Foundation, probably the most influential conservative thinktank, and incorporated dozens upon dozens of Republican amendments. Republicans turned around and refused to vote for it purely out of a desire not to give Obama a "win" -- which he got, anyway. Republicans sure did get an effective talking point, though, apparently capable of making a fool out of you 7+ years later.

If the healthcare system is supposedly broken, and Republicans control both houses and the executive, do nothing but point fingers while proving incapable of fixing so-called problems, then yes, voters are going to blame them/Trump if they oversee an implosion while twiddling their thumbs.

The notion that people blame whatever current administration or party which is in power for the problems currently facing America shouldn't be particularly contentious. I mean, I obviously hold your opinion in no high esteem, but yet again I'm forced to lower my expectations of you just a tad further.

And FYI, that Trump and the GOP already deliberately sabotaged the healthcare exchanges isn't "a bullshit narrative" -- they intentionally pulled the yearly advertising for enrollment, and I already pointed out Rubio's actions, which you ignored. That's a fact.


make it fail in a year

That, my deluded friend, is just silly.



I mean yeah, I figured it was obvious that's what we were all referring to. You deserve a cookie for cracking the case, Ashliana!

Once again, the point goes sailing over your head -- the ACA was a tremendously complex alteration of the healthcare system, very little of which had to do with the healthcare exchanges. In trying to talk about one but not the other, you're either being intentionally or inadvertently dishonest -- and have no idea what you're talking about.

Instead, you're left revealed as the emperor with no clothes, just like Trump, who the other day said (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-nobody-knew-that-health-care-could-be-so-complicated-235436):
"Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated"


Yes, GOP. Everybody, except you, apparently, knew that the healthcare system was complicated.

[Parkbandit]

Strange...because I didn't vote for either one of them.

As for any anyone who thinks I "threw away" my vote, well I voted for who I thought was the best choice for President. Did you?

Yes.

And grats on thowing your vote away.

[Tgo01]

And here comes the incredibly tired, predictable conservative spin. All of the nonsensical, hysterical GOP claims about Obamacare weren't only not true, but were true of the AHCA (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-tanden-aca-gop-health-care-bill-20170315-story.html).

Who gives a flying fuck what was in Trumpcare? It didn't even get a vote! Your side won! If Obamacare fails it's all on Democrats.


That, my deluded friend, is just silly.

It's silly that Trump is going to make Obamacare fail within a year? Hey we agree on something!


the ACA was a tremendously complex alteration of the healthcare system, very little of which had to do with the healthcare exchanges.

No fucking shit. Obviously what we are referring to is the exchanges here. How can you be this obtuse?

You think anyone is saying the entire ACA legislation is going to just magically disappear? You honestly think anyone, even Trump, is making this argument?

Take all of your bold, underlined, and italicized words and see if you can exchange those for a clue.

[Kembal]

I am conceding Obamacare likely won't fail (at least not in the foreseeable future), but I don't buy into the narrative that if it fails it will be because of meanie head Trump.

And by "fail" I mean the plans get to be so expensive that it becomes unsustainable. I can see more markets getting to the point where people only have one plan to "choose" from, which has already happened before meanie head Trump was sworn in. Maybe some of these markets might have no plans at all.

Trump controls the administrative state. He has it within his power to enact regulatory changes that'll bring insurers back into the market. He also has it within his power to negotiate a bill with Dem support to proactively head off any issues, such as restoring the risk corridor payments. In other words, everyone knows he can stop problems from happening. Nothing is unforeseen.

Remember Truman having "the buck stops here" on his desk? Same thing applies to Trump, esp. now that the GOP tried to pass a bill and failed.


Voters perceive that Obamacare is fine and running smoothly and if it fails someday it will be because meanie head Trump sabotaged it? Source?

You're changing the goalposts. I said voters perceive the markets aren't currently in a position to fail within a year.

[Tgo01]

Trump controls the administrative state. He has it within his power to enact regulatory changes that'll bring insurers back into the market.

What?


He also has it within his power to negotiate a bill with Dem support to proactively head off any issues, such as restoring the risk corridor payments.

He absolutely can. Do you think Democrats will actually work with him on anything? And if those meanie head Democrats won't work with Trump is it still Trump's fault for everything?


In other words, everyone knows he can stop problems from happening. Nothing is unforeseen.

This is bogus. Obama was president while premiums shot up in the exchanges and some providers pulled out of markets altogether. So I guess Obama just doesn't care about those people huh? He could have stopped it!


You're changing the goalposts. I said voters perceive the markets aren't currently in a position to fail within a year.

I'm not doing anything other than following along with your post. Be more clear in your posts if you're not explaining yourself properly.

This is what you said:

"The exchanges aren't likely to fail in the next year if current regulations stay in place."

"That's what most voters percieve too."

So yes, that's exactly what you said. If the exchanges do end up failing it will be because of meanie head Trump. After all if "current regulations" stay in place it won't fail, so if it does fail it means Trump made it happen. This is what you said! Be more clear next time if this is not what you meant.

[Androidpk]

It's not difficult to improve what we've been through for the past 9 years.

Yes, yes.. Bush's fault.

And I use that phrase because I know how it triggers some of the most sensitive people here.


Is this your idea of making America great again?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html

Fuck Congress, especially that people like Blackburn that get paid hundreds of thousands of $$$ by the telecommunication companies.

[Tgo01]

Is this your idea of making America great again?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology/house-internet-privacy-repeal/index.html

Fuck Congress, especially that people like Blackburn that get paid hundreds of thousands of $$$ by the telecommunication companies.

That's my idea of "Make America Meh Again."


Michael Capuano, a Democratic Representative, took it one step further. "Just last week, I bought underwear on the internet," he said. "Why should you know what size I take, or the color, or any of that information?

What a dipshit. They don't gather up information that states "Michael Capuano, who resides at <enter address here>, bought size 10 yellow underwear today."

[Androidpk]

"Let's make corporations more important than people."

[Tgo01]

"Let's make corporations more important than people."

Exactly. Corporations are people too!

I just don't think this ranks up there as that big of a deal. People already have the option of opting out. Just about every website tracks your online browsing, is one more company really going to take it from "Whew! I feel fine with this" to "END OF THE WORLD!"

[Androidpk]

You may not think its a big deal but there lots of people that do. Telecoms have been screwing Americans over for decades and with Trump's pick for FCC it's only going to get worse. Where do we draw the line with privacy? How about car companies having tracking technology in their vehicles that they can use to track your driving habits/locations and use that to sell to other companies?

[Tgo01]

Where do we draw the line with privacy? How about car companies having tracking technology in their vehicles that they can use to track your driving habits/locations and use that to sell to other companies?

I think that's a slightly different story in the sense that you own the car, you're not paying to use a service. I suppose rental car companies could do this then give you the option to opt out of the service, this would be more akin to the situation with ISPs. Well, assuming the rental place didn't share your personal information like your name and shit.

[Back]

What a dipshit. They don't gather up information that states "Michael Capuano, who resides at <enter address here>, bought size 10 yellow underwear today."

Proof?

[drauz]

What a dipshit. They don't gather up information that states "Michael Capuano, who resides at <enter address here>, bought size 10 yellow underwear today."

That is exactly what they do.

[Androidpk]

I think that's a slightly different story in the sense that you own the car, you're not paying to use a service. I suppose rental car companies could do this then give you the option to opt out of the service, this would be more akin to the situation with ISPs. Well, assuming the rental place didn't share your personal information like your name and shit.

Okay, what if you're leasing the car? Also, look up the case regarding Lexmark and ownership of toner cartridges. Companies would love it if THEY controlled the product even after you buy it.

http://fortune.com/2017/03/21/supreme-court-lexmark-printers/

[Tgo01]

Proof?

From my understanding of this the only information they share is a general area of your physical location. Like when you look up your IP address on the internet and it lists which city this IP address is located in, which may not even be the city you live in? Yeah basically the information they share would be something generic like 1000 people in <insert that city here> looked up show times for the latest Batman movie, or 1000 people bought Michael Capuano's underwear.

They don't share your name, IP address, physical address, or anything like that.

If you have sources showing otherwise I would like to read them.

[Tgo01]

That is exactly what they do.

Source?

[Back]

From my understanding of this the only information they share is a general area of your physical location. Like when you look up your IP address on the internet and it lists which city this IP address is located in, which may not even be the city you live in? Yeah basically the information they share would be something generic like 1000 people in <insert that city here> looked up show times for the latest Batman movie, or 1000 people bought Michael Capuano's underwear.

They don't share your name, IP address, physical address, or anything like that.

If you have sources showing otherwise I would like to read them.

You claim they don't. When asked for proof you ask for proof to refute your non-proofed claim. Nice.

[Tgo01]

You claim they don't. When asked for proof you ask for proof to refute your non-proofed claim. Nice.

Yes, this is my understanding based on the articles I have read in regards to this story.

Even from pk's link:


The providers have data on your web browsing history, app usage and geo-location.

Notice it says "geo-location", and doesn't say "they sell your full name and address to everyone."

There is also this Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/congress-just-gave-internet-providers-the-green-light-t-1793698939


The House of Representatives voted today repeal rules preventing internet service providers from selling their customers’ web browsing and app usage data without explicit consent.

Again this same language is repeated over and over again in every story I have read on this. And again, as far as I understand, that's because so far this is pretty much all ISPs have even attempted to do so far. The worry here is that without this law (that doesn't even take place until the end of the year) ISPs will suddenly decide to start selling people's SSNs, private medical information, names, addresses, and other shit. In other words it's fear mongering.


Your ISP still has to allow you to opt out of having your data sold, so you can call them or go online to find out how to do that.

Problem solved.

Here's some information in case you want "extra" protection.


It might also mean getting a VPN—a private network that routes all traffic through its servers—though you’d have to pick one you trust not to sell your data, too.

Oh wait, that's right. Because these rules were never going to apply to websites.

[Back]

The company you get internet from knows your address. In this case I am leaning towards a congressman knowing a bit more about this than you do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-are-about-to-kill-rules-banning-internet-providers-from-sharing-your-web-history-without-your-consent_us_58d9a4cbe4b00f68a5ca2c7c?ps5iww8u1mhuay vi&


Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) pointed to a patent application from an ISP for a cable box that would detect whether people were cuddling on the couch through a thermal camera, then show them TV commercials for a romantic getaway or contraceptives. “That’s what this bill will allow, and you can’t turn it off,” he said, calling it “terrible.”

[Parkbandit]

The company you get internet from knows your address. In this case I am leaning towards a congressman knowing a bit more about this than you do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-are-about-to-kill-rules-banning-internet-providers-from-sharing-your-web-history-without-your-consent_us_58d9a4cbe4b00f68a5ca2c7c?ps5iww8u1mhuay vi&

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Is it the same Congressman that thought Guam would capsize if too many people got on it?

There are many, many Congressmen that are downright retarded.

[Androidpk]

I don't like it but if you're allowed to opt out then okay.

[drauz]

Source?

https://consumerist.com/2017/03/28/house-votes-to-allow-internet-service-providers-to-sell-share-your-personal-information/


The rules, finalized in October by the FCC, effectively divide the data that your ISP has about you and your browsing habits into two categories.

The first category is sensitive data. ISPs would have been prevented from using the following information without your permission:
• Geographic location
• Children’s information
• Health information
• Financial information
• Social Security numbers
• Web browsing history
• App usage history
• The content of communications

The second category includes less-sensitive, but still personal data. ISPs would have been allowed to use this information, but would have been required to allow users the opportunity to opt out of having the following shared:

• Your name
• Your address
• Your IP address
• Your current subscription level
• Anything else not in the “opt in” bucket.


Basically they get to share whatever they want now, with or without your consent.

[Androidpk]

Basically they get to share whatever they want now, with or without your consent.

Unless you opt out?

[Tgo01]

The company you get internet from knows your address.

NOWAI!


In this case I am leaning towards a congressman knowing a bit more about this than you do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-are-about-to-kill-rules-banning-internet-providers-from-sharing-your-web-history-without-your-consent_us_58d9a4cbe4b00f68a5ca2c7c?ps5iww8u1mhuay vi&

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Again, fear mongering bullshit.

I Googled this patent in and each and every story about it it's this same dipshit (MUH UNDEARWEARZ!) talking about this. He's been talking about this since at least 2013 apparently.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/17/big-brother-alert-cameras-cable-box-monitor-tv-vie/
www.adweek.com/digital/cameras-your-cable-box-150374/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/17/big-brother-alert-cameras-cable-box-monitor-tv-vie/


While such Big Brother TV monitoring hasn't yet been deployed, Verizon last year filed a patent for monitoring technology that would use infrared cameras and microphones to track and collect consumer behavior in the vicinity of a TV or mobile device. According to the patent application, the technology could detect ambient action, like people eating, exercising, reading, sleeping and more.

"This may sound preposterous but it's neither a joke nor an exaggeration," Capuano said in a statement. "These DVRs would essentially observe consumers as they watch television as a way to super-target ads. It is an incredible invasion of privacy."

Notice the patent doesn't state anything about DVRs looking for people cuddling on the couch and serving up ads for condoms and vibrators, it just says it tracks ambient action near the cable box. There are a lot of valid reasons for this that doesn't have to be sinister in nature. My Alexa records what I say, my thermostat has motion detectors and heat sensors on it. Nor do we have any indication the cameras on these DVRs will be installed on ALL cable boxes from Verizon or if it will be some sort optional service similar to Comcast's voice activated cable box, which I'm assuming also records voice.


Microsoft's new Kinect also uses sophisticated tracking to detect body positions, but the sensor can be turned off and the consumer is in control of their own personal data, the company explained in a blog post.

So it's okay for Microsoft to do this because they have a sensor that can be turned off, but we have no idea what's going on with this yet to be announced cable box so we better lose our shit.


"I think it's important to begin this conversation before we get too far down the road," Capuano told The Boston Globe.

In other words; fear mongering.

[drauz]

Unless you opt out?

From Tgo's link

http://gizmodo.com/congress-just-gave-internet-providers-the-green-light-t-1793698939


Under the current statute, customers must be allowed to opt out of letting their ISP sell their data, but without a rule to interpret that statute, it’s much harder to enforce. And the 2-1 Republican majority at the FCC is hardly desperate to enforce that rule. Eric Null, the policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute, told Gizmodo it’s “highly unlikely” that we’d see any enforcement by the FCC if a provider doesn’t provide reasonable measures to opt out.

[Tgo01]

https://consumerist.com/2017/03/28/house-votes-to-allow-internet-service-providers-to-sell-share-your-personal-information/




Basically they get to share whatever they want now, with or without your consent.

Yes, these rules were a preemptive measure to make sure ISPs weren't going to start selling customer social security numbers and banking information. ISPs haven't done any of that stuff. Like I said, it's fear mongering.

Even with the new rules they would have been allowed to sell your name, address, and IP address even without you opting in.

[Back]

Yes, these rules were a preemptive measure to make sure ISPs weren't going to start selling customer social security numbers and banking information. ISPs haven't done any of that stuff. Like I said, it's fear mongering.

Even with the new rules they would have been allowed to sell your name, address, and IP address even without you opting in.

Are you saying you don't mind an internet provider selling all your information including your address, browsing and purchase history, cable history, and anything else of your they may have like your social security number? Because you seem to be defending the practice at this point.

[Tgo01]

Well looks like I'm all set with Comcast:


For what purposes may Comcast collect personally identifiable information and CPNI?

The Cable Act authorizes Comcast as a cable operator to use the cable system to collect personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for the following purposes:

to obtain information necessary to render our cable service or other services to our subscribers; and
to detect unauthorized reception of cable communications.

The Cable Act prohibits us from using the cable system to collect personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for any purposes other than those listed above without the subscriber’s prior written or electronic consent.


Comcast considers the personally identifiable information contained in our business records to be confidential. The Cable Act authorizes Comcast as a cable operator to disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber if the disclosure is:

necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, the cable service or other services provided to the subscriber;
required by law or legal process (described below under “When is Comcast required by law to disclose personally identifiable information and CPNI by law?”); or
of the names and addresses of subscribers for “mailing list” or other purposes (subject to each subscriber’s right to prohibit or limit this disclosure and the CPNI Policy described below under “How do I place myself on Comcast’s ‘do not call’ and ‘do not mail’ lists?”).

The Cable Act prohibits us as a cable operator from disclosing personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for any purposes other than those listed above without the subscriber’s prior written or electronic consent.

[Geijon Khyree]

Off topic much?

[Tgo01]

Are you saying you don't mind an internet provider selling all your information including your address, browsing and purchase history, cable history, and anything else of your they may have like your social security number? Because you seem to be defending the practice at this point.

Of course I would mind if someone was selling my name and social security number. First of all though, I'm sure that would be highly illegal even outside of these rules. Second of all I can't imagine any company doing so because that would be a quick way to lose every customer you have.

I would very much mind if they sold my information that specifically said "Tgo01, living on Player's Corner, just bought a giant dildo on Amazon."

But again, to my knowledge, they don't sell specific information like that. Apparently Comcast doesn't sell any information.

[Tgo01]

Off topic much?

There's only so much we can whine about the now defunct Trumpcare.

[drauz]

Yes, these rules were a preemptive measure to make sure ISPs weren't going to start selling customer social security numbers and banking information. ISPs haven't done any of that stuff. Like I said, it's fear mongering.

Even with the new rules they would have been allowed to sell your name, address, and IP address even without you opting in.

No, you would have had to opt in for that with those rules. With them gone, that is no longer necessary.

[drauz]

Well looks like I'm all set with Comcast:


For what purposes may Comcast collect personally identifiable information and CPNI?

The Cable Act authorizes Comcast as a cable operator to use the cable system to collect personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for the following purposes:

to obtain information necessary to render our cable service or other services to our subscribers; and
to detect unauthorized reception of cable communications.

The Cable Act prohibits us from using the cable system to collect personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for any purposes other than those listed above without the subscriber’s prior written or electronic consent.

The wording on that bolded bit reads like they could sell your information to provide you with better service.

[Tgo01]

No, you would have had to opt in for that with those rules. With them gone, that is no longer necessary.

The new rules had two sets of private information. The first set, with your social security number and medical information, required you to opt in. The second set, with your address and name, would have been an opt out.

[Tgo01]

The wording on that bolded bit reads like they could sell your information to provide you with better service.

The way it reads to me is they can collect information (such as your address) in order to get their service to you.

[drauz]

The new rules had two sets of private information. The first set, with your social security number and medical information, required you to opt in. The second set, with your address and name, would have been an opt out.

Well, I was just showing you that they do indeed have access to your name and address to put with all the juicy data they collect. You've now seen that they can. My work here is done.

[Tgo01]

Well, I was just showing you that they do indeed have access to your name and address to put with all the juicy data they collect. You've now seen that they can. My work here is done.

drauz won :(

[drauz]

drauz won :(

First time for everything, amirite!

[Back]

Of course I would mind if someone was selling my name and social security number. First of all though, I'm sure that would be highly illegal even outside of these rules. Second of all I can't imagine any company doing so because that would be a quick way to lose every customer you have.

I would very much mind if they sold my information that specifically said "Tgo01, living on Player's Corner, just bought a giant dildo on Amazon."

But again, to my knowledge, they don't sell specific information like that. Apparently Comcast doesn't sell any information.

Too funny. They can't sell it if you tell everyone! Brilliant!

But I have to point out... you can thank your republican overlords for allowing this to happen.