Juror#8

You know what would be cool, if I could read a !@#$ing topic about Trump without reading something about Obama. I didn't like it with w and Obama nor with Clinton and w. It's just a bunch of false equivalence and non sequiturs and weird parallelisms that scream louder than !@#$ that most of you have no earthly clue what you're talking about or how to construct a cogent argument. Focus !@#$ers. What would also be cool is if you dicklicks would stop acting as if racism didn't exist. It does. Is it a seething undercurrent of divisive cultural sentiment that predicates every aspect of society? Of course not. Is it part of the architecture of our mainstream American ethos? !@#$ no. But does it exist and are their ball-washing racist scoundrels who make **** tough for !@#$s? Yup. It's a thing !@#$ers. If you deny it, then you're a dolt. Maybe you're a racist "dolt" which, incidentally, is marginally better than just being a standard issue "dolt" because at least your doltishness is driven by a sense of purpose. That's all I got. I'm thinking about going to get laid, or at least enjoying a spirited episode of intense maturbation with "getting laid" as the primary mental focal point. Peace niggas(ers).

Here is a video of someone dancing that should make your eyes and ears happy. Elle Joslyn and that beat will never, ever get old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c97O2_FXCGE

That's exactly what I'm asking for and it is such a difficult question for folks to answer. I'm not a fan of the aca as much as I'm a fan of something. What was happening before was people were using the emergency room as their primary care physician and then absconding on the bill. That was causing annual increases in costs because medical providers would just pass those unpaid bills along through the costs of their services to everyone else. Then insurance companies would just amortize the hit by passing along the costs to the premium paying population. So we were seeing the costs of a profoundly inefficient system, only just incrementally - almost as a tax every year or every few years. And then there were regular threats of a big increase in medical costs coming to offset that above-mentioned pattern of inefficiency and the unsustainability of a shadow system that reluctantly provided medical care services to the underemployed and the millions who had just enough at the end of the month to make ends meet and those "ends" didn't include health care coverage. Congress and most others were just ok going full on ostrich mode and not doing anything substantively to fix what has been the systemic and institutional equivalent of a functional alcoholic even though lip service had been paid to restructuring the medical care/cost dilemma since around the same time that Nixon and Haldeman were recording themselves conspiring to defraud the United States. So my question again to everyone else ... You hate the aca? ok. Good. Righty o then. I'm fine with that. It's not without its significant issues and problems. So let's talk about what you do like as a credible alternative? The dysfunctional system as it existed before? It's easy to just tear **** down and step away when the discussion of building it up is underway.

Ok while I agree in part, what are the alternatives (if not tax subsidies, increasing premiums amongst some segments, and governmental involvement) that could also accomplish extending general healthcare accessibility to a wider segment of the population? I haven't heard of an open competition interstate model that sounds anything other than idealistic. So what is the alternative as you see it?

I will absolutely play if there is an open spot. Would love to actually.

This is ultimately where I'm at. I believe that he is friends with Krauthhammer or George Will or one of those other ultra conservatives who hate Trump and they put him up to it. He will pull support from Utah and probably some other western states. The effort to tank Trump's candidacy within his own party is like nothing I've ever seen short of when George Herbert Walker Bush rightly said that he would vote for the democrat over David Duke in Louisana back in like 92. That was the right thing to do and it took stones.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-evan-mcmullin-donald-trump-alternative-launch-independent-presidential-campaign-2398647

I know there is some huge unnavigable affordable care act thread but I didn't want this to get lost in the mix there. Interested to know your thoughts on this study snd what you feel the merits are, etc. it would be really interesting if someone were able to target article based on the data or maybe the methodology to make their point of dissaproval instead of leaning on grotesque Obama memes, the politics of the New York Times, personal testimonials about your friend's friend's friend's small fabric business with two employees, etc. That is, of course, if substantive criticism exists. I'm on board as a fan of the aca for some of the reasons mentioned in this article. But I know that it's not without its issues and financial 'growing pains.' So what say you? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/upshot/obamacare-appears-to-be-making-people-healthier.html?_r=0

^^Responsible for my absence. Kidnapped me and locked me in a locked basement with just a pen, some paper, and avocado dip. My family financed the ransom cost for my freedom at 12 months same as cash. He fell for it.

Good info; thank you. I didn't know any of that. I know that the channel is only a few months old on the traditional television medium. I just became enthralled with the "Black Market" show one evening. And found that I seldom changed the channel because the overall content is pretty damn good. Hopefully it has staying power and doesn't sell out programming for ad revenue.

Name is really close to "gugly," or "fugly," but not and that's all that matters.

I knew a linguist who would always talk about epenthetics. He is convinced that "hamster" will be officially spelled "hampster" in about twenty years because that pronunciation is so ubiquitous and phonetic pronunciation eventually admits itself through official dictionary changes. He would wear a "save the hamster" shirt.

The channel completely defies convention. The programming defies conventions. A lot are documentary based and cultural exposes. Their only commercials are for their own channel. I'm not exactly sure how they generate revenue because it's not from advertisement. They have a hilarious commercial where they ask a handful of black and white women how they feel in a store when someone asks "can I help you?" The juxtaposition is priceless. And they play voicemails of what people call in to say about the channel. "Black market" is a really good show. "Vice does America," and "Vice Essentials" are too. I need programming like this especially since all the previously respectable channels have sold out to scripted reality tv and social-media driven drivel (looking at you History channel). Anyway, just passing this along.

She is hitting all the talking point marks and attempting to reach disaffected republicans. She only flubbed one word (said "pan" instead of "plan"). She started out, appropriately, by being conciliatory towards Bernie Sanders folks. Paused for the applause lines. No high pitched yelling. You can tell that someone worked on the tone in her voice and her cadence. The feminist "deal me in" line was conspicuously present. I think that's so cheesy and contrived but it probably plays to some demographic (gay black men and white suburban women) so why not. Sounds like a Podesta thing. She has made 5-6 references to women but hasn't reached out to blacks or Hispanics yet. Minorities are her biggest constituent but she gets minority women by just talking about women so she can double dip in that regard. She has hit Trump only strategically. She is digging into his business record as a type this. Talking about his absconding on bills and Trump merchandise being made overseas. The "don't 'boo', vote" line was well placed. Juxtaposed "make America great" with "why don't you start making things actually in America" with regard to his clothing line. The crowd is enthusiastic. Chanted "Hillary" four or five times by my count. Talking about foreign policy now. Very hollow and generic. Superficially hawkish. But she threw in a "no Donald, you don't" line to hit him on his foreign policy knowledge base. Effective. Tied it in to her Secretary of State bona fides. Now just tied everything into a fairly weak pandering effort. Now she is hitting Trump directly head on. "A man that you can bait with a tweet is not a man that you can trust with nuclear weapons." That was tough. Her speech writer is getting a lot of lines that will circulate tomorrow. It's not a stretch to say that her speech writer(s) are better than Trumps. Completely extemporaneous impressions ... dont think it's a bad speech. Actually, it's replete with soundbytes hat will read well to independents. Caveat, her speech says nothing of her overall bad candidacy and demonstrated levels of ineptitude since ithe speech happens in a vacuum whereas she is who she is. So that said, it's an "effective" speech. "I'm not here to take away your guns, I'm not here to repeal the second amendment; I'm here to make sure that you don't get shot by someone who shouldn't have one." Alright, I'm not play-by-playing this anymore. And she just brought up bruhs and brown folks. So checked a box there. My score - 7.5/10 for style and effectiveness. Night.

With the volume of Trump statements, I just forgot about the debt comment. But it fits with his sleazy m.o. He has a documented history of receiving good or services and then absconding, leaving people to hold the bag. It's just really ultra sleezy dirt ball stuff. I saw that as "you don't do that."

Not in the slightest. There is nothing about what she did that I'm ok with. Again, as I've said numerous times in this thread, what she did was feckless and irresponsible and potentially jeopardized national security. I'm just saying that what Trump has done has its own share of irresponsibilities, and stupidity, and I have an issue with the fact that he is communicating with the Russians to say what he said. You just don't use the pre-presidential pulpit (he and Hillary have one foot in the door and their media coverage, because of the campaigns, is ubiquitous) to make statements like that. That was like a "black Bush" skit from the Chappelle show. Seriously, you can't invite the Russians to commit espionage and then laugh it off. People just don't do that ****. It's not funny. It's not a joke. Its not cool. It's not "hindsight sarcasm." And if a Hillary would have done that, it would be ww3. And you know it.

I'm more concerned about what that portends for our foreign policy over the next 4-8 years. If our consideration around not doing stupid stuff started and stopped with "did any foreign actor care and did it end up ultimately causing a problem," then we would not keep lambasting Hilly about the email stuff.

I'm of the opinion that you don't tell Russia "access potential State Department communications for me; just dig around and see what you can find in there. She said that about 30,000 emails were deleted because they were personal but see if you can rummage those up and determine for yourself." That's my issue. It's someone who wants to be president. So telling a foreign country, that is a nuclear nation, and that's been flying warplanes in aggressive maneuvers within feet of our battleships in international waters as recently as two months ago, that they should access emails - some of which could be of profoundly sensitive national security moment - is a really really really bad idea. Clinton claims to have done a word search to separate the personal from professional. And wholesale deleted the the ones that fell into that "personal" category. That means then there is a margin of error there that even a handful of those emails could have been work related and therefore sensitive. Even if only .00001 of those emails were work-related, which would be incredibly accurate and a reasonable margin of error to assume based on the same person not re-reading everyone to be sure of their classification, that's still 3 emails that you're encouraging he Russians to read. You're comfortable with that? Russians were circling a war plane 20 feet from the Uss Donald Cook in April/May. You're comfortable with that? You think it's ok for a candidate for president to tell an aggressive nuclear nation, who is no friend of the United States, to basically "just see what you can find." You think that that's "making America great" to take that risk? You think that's presidential? Prudent? Worthy of your vote? No, it's at best reckless and profoundly stupid and at worst treasonous. Neither of those has any business getting your vote or mine for an office that demands competency, foresight, and intelligence. And it violates the Logan Act.

This is 100% true and I agree. It's her feckless actions which put the scenario in place initially. So I'm basically like, this is a comedy of errors. One person put us into this sensitive national security situation and the other asks a volatile nation to exploit the situation and potentially cause us harm. Wtf!?! How did we end up with these candidates? Like really, how? How can anyone support either of them? Where are the normal people to vet? Where is Kasich, Biden, and Romney. What happened to the days when talking about Bill Richardson's campy commercials or Kusinich's alien sightings or Giuliani's political paradigm consisting of a noun, a verb, and some 9/11 mention were the highlights of the campaign season? Those used to be the detours from actual serious political conversations. What happened to that? **** I would take John Edwards over both Clinton and Trump. Yea so he got some trim on the side a few years back ... that to me is mild compare to these bumble heads.

I'll give it to you bro, we've had our disagreements before, but I can't ever say that you're a blind puppet for the party or will simply "fall in line," candidate notwithstanding. I'll add Gg into that mix with you and jsp. I completely respect that. This is true and I 100% agree. It's her feckless actions which put the scenario in place initially. So I'm basically like, this is a comedy of errors. One person puts us in this sensitive national security situation and the other asks a volatile nation to exploit it and potentially cause us harm. How did we end up with these candidates? Like really, how? How can anyone support either of them? Where are the normal people to vet? Where is Kasich, Biden, and Romney. What happened to the days when talking about Bill Richardson's campy commercials or Kusinich's alien sightings or Giuliani's political paradigm consisting of a noun, a verb, and some 9/11 mention were the highlights of the campaign season? Those used to be the detours from actual serious political conversations. What happened to that? **** I would take John Edwards over both Clinton and Trump. Yea so he got some trim on the side a few years back ... that to me is mild compare to these bumble heads.

Emails are never really "deleted." Fairly certain they can be "grave dug up" by enterprising hackers. And either way, whether he is saying "see if you can resurrect them" or "check to see if there actually deleted because I don't believe her claim," the effectuation and accomplishment of either option would be an action against our (read: United States) interests. And even the attempt to do so could potentially involve finding or discovering things that is sensitive in nature. It's treasonous. Very treasonous.

No I didn't. And I amended my initial post. My bad if I said something to suggest you were supporting him. I'm saying why I think that what Trump said was treasonous. Don't make what Hilly did better or worse. I've said what I've had to say on her. His comments though were treasonous and unAmerican.

Dude I called Hilly exactly what she is in multiple posts in this thread, a pompous conniving scumbag. I shouldn't need to repeat it to fuel anyone's right wing appetite or demonstrate that I'm giving equal time to criticizing one candidate or another. They're both bad for their own reasons. She tried to usurp best practices and jeopardized national security towards the goal of her own convenience. Trump called on Russia to hack government ****. His words were borderline treasonous. Step back and call a spade a spade, irrespective of politics. What he said, in my estimation, was treasonous. And I believe that arguably it violated the Logan Act.

True. I'm pretty sure that there is no law mandating the release of tax returns but it's absolutely a tradition dating back 50 years. Every major candidate has. Bush went after Reagan to release his fully during the primary in 1980 to highlight the money that he made in acting a decade earlier. It just demonstrates transparency. Of course, the treasonous scum, Donald Trump, who I'm beginning to realize is fundamentally unfit to seek the office, hasn't released his tax returns. But that's just one thing in a long line of things that he has done to put the country last and his own self first. And I believe that it's because his returns show interests and dealings with countries that, let's just say, don't comport with his "America first" slogan that some idiots here are eating up like candy. Just like when I went to a Trump rally a few months back. "What the !@#$ is going on here; I came to see a political rally and I'm in the middle of a fucccccing monkey orgy at the zoo and it's feeding time." I thought at one point. That experience and the the idiot Trump supporters here remind me of that great Reck-Malleczewen quote that's often mentioned on the History channel: "I witnessed the festivities [Hitlers 50th birthday 1939]. I heard the clamour. I saw the enraptured faces of the women. Through it all this moronic roar of Heil! Hysterical females. Adolescents in a trance. An entire people in the spiritual state of whirling dervishes. These people are insane."

I think that we agree on this more than you realize. I'm not questioning the "big deal" of what she did or didn't do. Nor am I questioning your background or your capacity to know the significance of her actions. I'm on record as saying that it's a big deal and her feckless handling of the email server is an issue of national security. What I am saying is that it's gotten very good spin in the national media and was a staple of cable news for months. Even pundits who are traditionally left-leaning called what she did bone-headed over and over again while the issue was getting spins in the media cycle. Back to your original point, you're saying that she is "beautified" in the media. I'm saying that it's anything else but. She was pilloried around the server stuff and every cable news program after 6pm included some segment around Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness. It's been a theme. There is nothing "doll baby" about that kind of image or querying in the national media. Unfortunately I think that the the right of center dolt factions (not you included but you may be an audience to it) are so obsessed with this idea of the "national liberal media" that they've convinced themselves that it's always at work res ipsa loquitur. The only person who is getting a pass is Donald Trump. He hasn't been vetted in any way to the level that Hillary has. He has more skeletons in his closet that the media won't touch. Arguably, he ran afoul of the Logan Act with his comments on Russia but you see the apologists here in full force already explaining his comments as "trolling." This even though using trendy social media language isn't a pass or a defense to communicating with Russian State actors around actions that could be detrimental in any manner to United States interests (I guess if it could be proven that he knew Russia was behind the initial hack which there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were). If that were Hillary who had made those comments, unbellieveable, doc, boyst, and a host of others on this board would know Francis Flournoy's name and be calling for Hillary's indictment. Trump gets entertainer treatment in the media. Hillary gets dissected down to the cackle in her laugh. Nope. The media bias is against Hillary, not in her favor this go round. No. He still hasn't released them. By my count he has said four separate times that he would release them. I heard him say it to Hugh Hewitt last year. Then he said a few months later that he would release them during the summer. Then before the convention. Then after the election but as soon as practicable. I honestly believe that it shows his connections and dealings with a lot of unsavory foreign governments. Where are the junior investigators here and research into that? And why is the media giving him a pass. Where are the returns Donald? If this were Obama or Hillary, it would be a 55 page thread on just that subject with all kinds of innuendo and salaciousness around why they hadn't been released. It's seriously the worst type of double standard and shows that there is more interest here in denigrating politically than sincerely having some principal basis around what we expect from our political leaders.