That was early - when the Republican crash and Katrina was still fresh. The eventual winning side in blaming the Crash on Clinton (among other moves in that gambit, including the switch to blaming the Crash on Obama after a while) - the Nameless Faction - is comprised of adults, and they took a longer view than two years. They still do. And you are not attending to details: if you do, you will - first - count only actual Democrats as Democrats, rather than folding in Independents. That's just bookkeeping. Second, you will pay attention to the actual tenure and power division, starting with the length of time Congress was in session with those wonderful majorities (about three months - just long enough, for example, to get central aspects of the ACA through under "reconciliation", but not long enough to clean it up after the Republican vandalism), and including the existence of rightwing, corporate, authoritarian, Nameless Faction allied politicians who happened to be Democrats (Blue Dogs, etc, whose counterbalancing numbers among the bloc-organized Republicans did not exist), and finally, quit getting your talking points (these "facts" of yours) from wingnut and co-opted media: they really are liars, you know, and if you refuse to evaluate what they present in comparison with physical and historical reality you will never know what's going on or who is doing it.
oh yeah I forget you live in an lefty version of Alex Jone's reality. There are moments when I feel I can discuss with you like a rational person and then there are moments when I read a few fragments and conclude that there is no reason to read more as you are clearly insane, this is the latter.
In the middle of all that insanity and crazy talk, there were a half a dozen claims of fact. Do you have any objection to them - is there any claim of fact in there that you regard as a falsehood, and if so can you quote and contradict it? Here's another one: there is no lefty equivalent of Alex Jones. Is that something you keep in mind, when you download Fox News and CNN newsmemes and post them here as generalizations of actual political history?
Springboard | Abyss Well ... y'know. About 18 million people would lose or drop their health insurance in the first year after Obamacare is repealed, the Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday. The nonpartisan federal agency also found that health insurance premiums would spike another 20 to 25 percent, according to the new report. Within 10 years, 32 million more people would be without health insurance, the CBO projects. Without a replacement, health care costs overall would continue to rise every year, as would the number of people going without health insurance. Premiums would continue to go up, as well. The report's projections are based on the repeal law passed in the House of Representatives last year. (Fox↱) The current round of news is based on a four-page report↱ issued by the Congressional Budget Office. One key projection is that the House Republican course would see premiums double within ten years. Your summary, then, sounds about right. This takes place, of course, in a strange moment when many Trump voters fret about their Obamacare↱ in a way strangely reminiscent of the former right-wing anti-ACA line about no government takeover of health care but keep your damn hands off Medicare. It will be interesting to see what comes, but Republicans aren't taking the latest news very well. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA01)↱ argued, "CBO misses the point. Obamacare will be replaced with lower costs and more choices." A spokesman for House Speaker Paul Ryan similarly complains: "CBO report takes into account no measures to replace the law nor actions that the incoming administration will take", according to correspondent Billy House↱ The retort is pretty straightforward. Simon Maloy↱ of Salon notes: If there were an actual replacement plan that the budget office could have factored in, it might have produced different numbers. But Republicans have been resistant to producing such a plan precisely because the office would almost certainly find that it will cover fewer people than the Affordable Care Act. Steve Benen↱ summarizes: CBO officials weren’t just imagining a hypothetical Republican bill; the budget office relied on a 2015 bill that the House GOP actually passed. And the results would be dreadful: premium prices would soar, tens of millions of Americans would lose their coverage, and private insurers would run for cover as the individual market collapsed. Or put another way, the Republican legislation would lead to systemic disaster – which would start bad and get progressively worse going forward. The Huffington Post quoted House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) office saying the CBO report is “meaningless” because it “takes into account no measures to replace the law.” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) added that the Congressional Budget Office “misses the point” because, he said, the ACA “will be replaced with lower costs and more choices.” This is half-right. The CBO analysis did not factor in the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act when compiling the data. There is, however, a very good reason for that: there is no Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act. And that's the thing about the GOP's latest "Repeal and―You Know―Whatever" plan; they think the repeal part is easy. To the one, it isn't. To the other, some congressional Republicans are projecting a two to four year wait↱ while Republicans come up with "measures to replace" the ACA with "lower costs and more choices". Measures they haven't come up with in nearly seven years. They only need another couple. Or several. And we should probably note that between "lower costs" and "more choices", conservatives aren't talking much about care and service quality. (Superstitious me: I start to wonder about that ad campaign from some online service about "pest monitor" or "dental monitor" compared to "credit monitor", and setting aside the point that nothing about those spots do anything to grow confidence in the firm, we might also wonder about "health insurance" and then "care insurance". The GOP can certainly put together universal coverage to make sure we all get to the doctor for our checkups. But what will the plan be when people actually need care? I know, I know, it sounds far too stupid. Like I said, superstitious me.) At any rate, Maggie Fox↱ of NBC News closes her report noting: It's not entirely clear how repeal will proceed. Neither President-elect Trump nor the GOP leaders in Congress have released details about how they plan to move forward, or what might replace the 2010 law.____________________ Notes: Caldwell, Leigh Ann. "Replacing Obamacare Will Be Difficult, Repealing It Could Be Just As Hard". NBC News. 4 January 2017. NBCNews.com 17 January 2017. http://nbcnews.to/2hQfjx9 Fox, Maggie. "Obamacare Repeal Would Leave 18 Million Uninsured, Send Premiums Soaring: Report". NBC News. 17 January 2017. NBCNews.com. 17 January 2017. http://nbcnews.to/2jt6XeU Fritzsche, Kate and Sarah Masi. "How Repealing Portion sof the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums". Congressional Budget Office. 17 January 2017. CBO.gov. 17 January 2017. http://bit.ly/2k2i7rA House, Billy. "Adds Ryan spox Strong". Twitter. 17 January 2017. Twitter.com. 17 January 2017. http://bit.ly/2jul17Q Maloy, Simon. "GOP’s new Obamacare-repeal debacle: Congress’ budget office suggests 32 million Americans will lose health insurance". Salon. 17 January 2017. Salon.com. 17 January 2017. http://bit.ly/2iFp1Ot Scalise, Steve. "CBO misses the point". Twitter. 17 January 2017. Twitter.com. 17 January 2017. http://bit.ly/2izldD6
I'd be very surprised if premiums did not double under the ACA in that time, barring major modifications. That's only a 7% rate of increase, and there are no real cost controls in this setup. As far as the Republicans coming up with an alternative to the ACA, the ACA is the alternative. It's their damn plan - the ACA was the Republican alternative to socialized medicine in the first place.
Reptiles are cold blooded, cold blooded is associated with Machiavellian behavior in politicians, Clinton is Machiavellian, therefor a reptile. There are several claims of facts here, do you regard them as falsehoods? The Young Turks
What contrived bullshit it was not.... wait a minute... Heritage Foundation... Mitt Romney.... oh fuck! Of course we all knew that for years now. I'm fine with the ACA being repealed (as long as I don't get cancer), the damage it will do will cause the pendulum to swing back in our favor, maybe this time we will finally get universal healthcare! Slim hope (for those that will die without the ACA) exist only in Trump demanding a "replacement" before repeal, which would likely be only a modification called "TrumpCare". Trumpcare will suck but no more than ACA, thus holding off the collapse of the healthcare industry for later. *woosh* joke goes over your head.
That was the joke Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I should've included a [/s] tag?
s'aight - was probably one of those ones that didn't make sense without audible and/or non-verbal queues
Yep. Reptilian "cold blood" (a misnomer - a rattlesnake in the sun has warm blood) is not associated with anything in politicians - they don't have it, regardless of their behavior. That claim of fact is false. Now back to the question - what falsehoods do you find in my post, the one you labeled insane and crazy? A type specimen of a naive Machiavellian tactic (Machiavelli himself was more subtle). The only possible justification is that it will work - for sure. That seems naive - I don't see any such built in pendulum, and I don't see how making a disaster of health care in the US would reliably lead to any such response. No such "pendulum" operated in the wake of the banking regulation failure of 2008, for example. Is that what you think Clinton is or was doing - creating disasters which only her preferred outcomes will survive? And why, in your opinion, did your hypothesized "pendulum" fail to swing already in the health care field? Health care in the US has been a disaster of that type for fifty years now without bringing about any such pendulum swing, after all. Instead, the rightwing authoritarian policy formulated by the American Heritage Foundation - the ACA - was the response. Mistaking the Young Turks - who do not deal in debunked conspiracies and repeat outright falsehoods, have a consistent and coordinating ideology, etc - for sources like Alex Jones, is wingnut bubbleworld "bothsides" framing. It's exactly what one finds on Fox, or talk radio, or 4chan, or Breitbart, or nowdays CNN. Simply being on the Left, at any extreme, does not automatically create a mirror image of something on the Right, at any extreme - for example, a key attribute of somebody like Alex Jones is their relationship with reality, their employment of physical fact. The relationship of the Young Turks with reality is quite different from that of Alex Jones. Do you really not see that - or are you (as seems parsimonious) not actually comparing the two, but instead getting all this bothsides crap from the sources I have named as likely? Because that kind of "both sides" nonsense is a much better candidate for major factor in Trump's win than anything anyone on the left did, or anything the entire left did together. With blame assignable accordingly.
Nonsense. First of all, I have not even claimed that the US needs not defense at all. But it needs much less than what it actually spends. LOL, the US taxpayers pay much more than the taxpayers elsewhere, not because they need it themselves, but to help, completely selfless, many many other countries. Which, after US-paid regime change, ask for US support. Yes, and the bases in Germany and Japan are there, of course, only because the Germans and Japanese could not defend themselves without the US and ask for US help all the time. To ensure that it remains irrelevant, instead of becoming an instrument of starting wars. There has been the example of the Korea war, where the US used the fact that the Soviets have left the UNSC discussion to make a UNSC resolution to start a war. I'm not a comrade of NATO propagandists. And I have not made any claims about how much criticism I have. I have simply clarified that I would not, for moral reasons, do this criticism here, in a forum full of Russian-haters. Nonsense. I have a lot of sources which are in no way Russian state propaganda, and are also in no way Western propaganda. The internet is full of interesting places. Of course, some military is necessary in the actual world. But it would be cheap and easy enough for the US, given that it has nuclear weapons, to prevent everybody else from attacking the US. No. I'm very happy that it is irrelevant. I would like to have it even more irrelevant. A world government would be the worst thing imaginable in the future. Because it would immediately and shortly degenerate into a totalitarian world government. You have decided to discredit yourself by supporting joepistole's nonsense I have disposed? Ok, your choice. But, ok, given that I have answered several authors in the same post, I should have clarified that this remark was only directed against joepistole's nonsense, not against you.
You have demonstrated here an inability to recognize US fascist propaganda (the silly stuff you swallowed about Clinton, US racial matters, Trump, etc) and your presumptions about government control of the press in America (you thought somebody like Assad being interviewed by a Western journalist was remarkable and unique, somehow escaping government censure) - if your skills are no better in recognizing Russian propaganda, your confidence in your evaluation of sources is unwarranted. We have, for example, your posted take on Russian annexation of Crimea, and Russian military behavior in Syria, both of which seem naive about Putin's motives, behavior, and goals. Accurate evaluations of some US military needs and deployments does not excuse you for falling victim to propaganda sources, and other people being taken in does not mean you aren't as well.
The Democrats do their best work, when then are able to lie and spin, without any organized resistance. They cannot compete, fair and square, in the arena of rational ideas. Very little of what they believe can be logically derived or supported without appeal to emotions. The need to add emotions, to compensate for bad policy. This is why they expend so much energy trying to induce emotions, using claims of phobias and isms, or appeals to anger, guilt and fear. The idea is to add an irrational wild card, so they can neutralize calm reason, and move the discussion to their forte, which is spin and illusion. ObamaCare was a good example. They put together a health care law, leading to a disaster that is imploding. The strength of Obamacare was in the up front spin and lying, via appeal to emotions, not its implementation. The implementation needed the power of reason and not just spin and emotions. They are lacking where it counts. The promotion of Donna Brazile to the head of the DNC, shows how the Democrats think. She was rewarded for cheating and getting away with the cheating. She has the right stuff to be a Democrat leader. Another example is the worse places for the blacks are in Democratic controlled cities like Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago. The Democrats talk a good talk and appeal to the irrational; we are your friends, but they can't seem to implement policies to make things as good as their sale pitch, since irrationality does not lead to useful results. It is better for entertainment, manipulation and sales. But once they have their audience, they are doomed to diminishing returns. The Russian hack of the DNA, which has been known for over year, was never addressed before Trump won. It was not addressed since they assumed they could lie and deceive, with the help of the media, using a rigged system, where they felt they could control the outcome. But the white blue color worker woke up, becoming rational, again. The hacked emails revealed too much truth and not enough spin. The white working male had been placed in state of suspended animation, due to a guilt trip strategy of the Democrats, who made the white male the scapegoat. Trump offered an escape from the manipulation, and once reason returned, based on email data, that proved their suspicions, they saw the Democrats for what they were; con artists and thieves. If the Democrats were nice people, who were misguided, Trump would show mercy. But they are mean, manipulative, deceptive and angry all the time. They are out of touch with reality and this is causing an unconscious backlash. Too help them see the light of reason, Trump will condemn their party;s policies and then bulldoze it over. The spell will be broken for many, and they will awaken to a new day, where reasonable things mean more than gossip, games and sales pitches. If you consider college aged men and women needing quiet zones to protect them from reality, you can see the end game of the Democrats. The idea was to make their base so unable to cope with feelings, they can never reason their way out of the rabbit hole. If they start to think, induce fear. They ended up with an army of intelligent morons, who cannot deviate away from the dogma, less powerful emotions cripple them. The head of the snake needs to be severed. They lost the election because Trump was not disabled by their normal games and scams. Mitt Romney was taken out but a simple scam about cheating on taxes and willing to hurt pets and old ladies. Any career politicians would have been toast. Trump, by a billionaire, who made money in construction and real estate in NYC, had a lot of exposure to the ways of the Democrats. He was trained, in the school of hard knocks, to know his enemy and how to get around their tactics. One of the first things Trump did was challenge PC word games which are designed to cripple reason with emotions. If buzz words can end the discussion, there is no room for reason. Trump make it OK to say the buzz words allowing discussions. Reason was the beginning of the end for the Democrats. No matter how much Democrats,media and even Republicans tried to put emotion first again, Trump did not bite. In my opinion, the modern method for the election of high level public officials is a money game. Therefore, the best yield for the donors class, will come from candidates who are closer to actors than statesmen. A good actor can do better at winning an election, if money becomes the main criteria. They can best create an illusion, based on scripts derived from focus groups. An honest person will try to be themselves, and may not be as effective sticking to a script and acting a role. The result is the leadership that gets elected is not that bright, since their skill set is con artist and actor. This is more true of the Democrats, but the Republicans were also heading down this path. Trump was a successful entrepreneurs first and became an actor second. He had both skill sets and could compete with the actors who were being propped up by the donors.
What nitpickary! It seems the concept of general and multiple meanings for words and euphemisms is not simply beyond you, but rather you specific pick definitions such as to claim a statement is incorrect. For example reptiles are exotherms (I'm sure you will pull up an example like giant tortoise or something to claim "not all") this is equal to the euphemism "cold blooded", but you call this a misnomer because a rattlesnake in the sun has warm blood... IRRELEVANT! This is strategy on your part muddy the water and prevent any fair discussion that progresses to anywhere. So I see no pointing in arguing with you. My point above. Well this is because you live in a leftwing hug box where you don't notice them spouting debunked conspiracy and repeats of outright falsehoods.
That would be politicians in general, wellwisher... as has been repeatedly explained to you. Or do you forget just how many of the claims Trump made on the campaign trail that he has already reneged on since becoming president elect...
First of all, no one said you claimed the US needs no defense at all...oops. Facts matter comrade. You wrote: To which I wrote: As is your custom, you aren't being honest comrade. And where is the credible evidence to back this up comrade? Just what states are you referring to exactly? The fact his you beloved Russia, i.e. Soviet Union, had to put up walls to keep people from fleeing to the West. Where is you evidence? You don't have any credible evidence. You never do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't think the Germans and Japanese are as weak as you have made them out to be. Each has their own military, and they don't ask the US for help all the time. But you know what comrade? That's what friends do. They help each other. The US needs help from Germany and Japan too. It's not a one way street. You Russians haven't figured that out yet. You are still operating in Ivan the Terrible mode. Unfortunately for you comrade the world isn't as dumb as you need them to be. The Korean War with Russian and Chinese support began when North Korea, a Soviet (i.e Russian) satellite state, invaded South Korea. The UN Security Council resolution which you referred to was invoked after North Korea had invaded South Korea in a surprise attack. Facts matter comrade, this isn't your beloved Mother Russia. "Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the closing days of World War II. In August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, as a result of an agreement with the United States, and liberated Korea north of the 38th parallel. U.S. forces subsequently moved into the south. By 1948, as a product of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, Korea was split into two regions, with separate governments. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of Korea, and neither side accepted the border as permanent. The conflict escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces—supported by the Soviet Union and China—moved to the south to unite the country on 25 June 1950.[40]On that day, the United Nations Security Council recognized this North Korean act as invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire.[41] On 27 June, the Security Council adopted S/RES/83: Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea and decided the formation and dispatch of the UN Forces in Korea. Twenty-one countries of the United Nations eventually contributed to the defense of South Korea, with the United States providing 88% of the UN's military personnel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Well, there is the thing comrade, you haven't been able to prove NATO has propaganda...oops. This forum isn't full of "Russian haters". This forum is full of people who like truth and reason. Russia could be a responsible members of society, but it has chosen a darker path. It has returned to its roots. It has returned to fascism and militarism. And that troubles people in this forum and elsewhere. We aren't exited about the reemergence of another Hitler in Europe. Unfortunately comrade, it isn't nonsense. You don't use credible sources. You exclusively use Russian propaganda. Again, if you want any degree of credibility, you need to be honest. Yes, the internet is full of "interesting" places. But that doesn't mean those "interesting" places are credible or truthful, especially when they can be easily disproved. Again, the same is true of your beloved Mother Russia. So why is it you continue to ignore Russian military aggression directed against its smaller neighbors? Why is it you zealously defend Russia's repeated invasions, occupations, and annexations of the lands of its smaller neighbors? Are you suggesting that every time the US feels threatened it uses its nuclear arsenal? If so, that's pretty damn stupid even for you comrade? When pirates attack a US commercial vessel are you suggesting we nuke them? Are you suggesting the US should have nuked Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack? That's more than a little overkill comrade. If what you assert were true, there would be a lot of nuclear detonations in the world and a lot of nuclear fallout. Think comrade, think!. Unfortunately for you and your beloved Mother Putina, the world is not yet as insane as you would have them be. As I asked you before, if it is so irrelevant as you have repeatedly asserted, then why is it your beloved Mother Russia maintains a United Nations membership? Instead of wasting your precious money participating in the United Nations, why not use it to feed Russians? You keep avoiding those questions. The unfortunate fact for you is that the United Nations does exist, and has existed for some time, and plays an important role. And it hasn't "immediately and shortly degenerated into a totalitarian world government". I just find it so ironic that you of all people complain about totalitarian government when you live in and support a tyrannical government where speech is not free, and is strictly controlled by government. Frankly, I find it dishonest.
And Republicans wonder why people think they are dumb. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-did-the-democrats-lose-the-election.158630/page-6#post-3430584 An honest person would use facts and reason to draw conclusions rather than mindlessly repeat partisan nonsense.
