2016 Election -- Part II

Followed by

Looks like a Trump win either way with Ohio! :)

Quote: MaxPen

Wow... Just...wow, to imagine that was what was attempting to lead us.

Not "attempting." This is WH staff, before Trump showed up to meet Obama. Not Hillary's.

I had not realized that Trump and Obama had never met face to face before today.

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't think that's what you want. For starters, here's the electoral map when only net-contributor states get electoral votes:

Every gray state on that map receives more federal tax dollars than its citizens pay.

Moreover, the wave of angry, underemployed Trump supporters are, in many cases, net beneficiaries this year. Are you really suggesting that they should have been disenfranchised?

Taking away someone's right to vote because they had a bad crop, a bad injury, or a bad run of business luck is a terrible idea. If you want economic success to determine voting rights, why not go further and make the number of votes you get proportional to your wealth? Then none of us non-billionaires matter and the election is up to who Sheldon Adelson or Mark Cuban want in the White House.

Did you even read my post?

Mexico already backtracking with Trump not even in office yet. Trump right again. Next thing will be them stroking a check for the wall.

http://www.breitbart.com/border/2016/11/10/mexico-backtracks-willing-talk-nafta-trump/

Quote: MaxPen

Did you even read my post?

Did you even think about the ramifications of your post? You imply, apparently without realizing it, that you are willing to punish a child for the misfortune of his parents. A child born into poverty because his coal-miner father or auto-worker mother got laid off and they can't find work should not be disenfranchised, even if the parents are on welfare by the time the child gets old enough to vote. I can't believe you'd even imply that, especially since there are a lot of people who *have* been unemployed for years while trying to raise families.

Quote: MaxPen

Followed by

Definitely NOT high enough.

Note to self: Invest in Mexican pole vaults (or do the Chinese import them?)

It seems they have been practicing.

Quote: MathExtremist

Did you even think about the ramifications of your post? You imply, apparently without realizing it, that you are willing to punish a child for the misfortune of his parents. A child born into poverty because his coal-miner father or auto-worker mother got laid off and they can't find work should not be disenfranchised, even if the parents are on welfare by the time the child gets old enough to vote. I can't believe you'd even imply that, especially since there are a lot of people who *have* been unemployed for years while trying to raise families.

The child can contribute net positive and earn his/her right to vote. If the parents were ever net contributors then they have already been awarded a right to vote. Having dependent breeders telling the country what to do is illogical. That would be like allowing your children to make life choices for you. Sorry, everyone should not get a trophy. That is why we have easily manipulated cupcakes throwing tantrums in the streets right now.

Quote: MaxPen

Mexico already backtracking with Trump not even in office yet. Trump right again. Next thing will be them stroking a check for the wall.

How about you admit your error in saying Trump would win by a landslide before you move on to other completely wrong predictions?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Polls were within normal historical errors (±4 points). RealClearPolitics' finals compared to actual:

Clinton: 46.8, compared to 47.7 actual (she actually *outperformed* the polling estimate)
Trump: 43.6, compared to 47.5 actual (off by 3.9)
Spread: +3.2 Clinton, actual +0.2 Clinton


In other news, MaxPen's prediction of a Trump landslide (≥56% of popular vote and ≥323 electoral votes) was way off the mark. Trump didn't even win the popular vote, much less get an electoral landslide.

MaxPen said he'd own up to his error if he were wrong. "No excuses will be coming from me [on election day, if I'm wrong about a Trump landslide]." Will he? More likely he'll just say Trump won by "a lot" and that's all that matters and sidestep the fact that his claim was ridiculous on its face.

Quote: MaxPen

The child can contribute net positive and earn his/her right to vote. If the parents were ever net contributors then they have already been awarded a right to vote. Having dependent breeders telling the country what to do is illogical. That would be like allowing your children to make life choices for you. Sorry, everyone should not get a trophy. That is why we have easily manipulated cupcakes throwing tantrums in the streets right now.

Well, let's have only the elites vote. Why let the average person vote and ruin things? Then we'll have even better results.

Quote: AZDuffman

Obama WH staff waiting to greet Trump.



Second from the left should try to find a husband I think. Real world not working out for her.

Notice how ethnicity diversified the staff is?

Yes I do notice how diverse they are. Anyway the top guy is black so what do you want him to do, not pick white people?

Quote: MaxPen

Trump 285 Hillary 253......you heard it here first.

For The Bluejay

Quote: rxwine

Well, let's have only the elites vote. Why let the average person vote and ruin things? Then we'll have even better results.

Are you implying the average person is a parasite that has never ever net contributed to society?

Quote: MaxPen

Are you implying the average person is a parasite that has never ever net contributed to society?

No I'm implying, let the smarter people vote for your own good.

Shoot, for example, in a room with 10 dumb people, even dumb people probably know you don't seek out the dumbest of the 10 to consult. They know better than that. Let's hope.

Smarter people aren't right all of time. But probably more of the time. So, it's a statistical advantage.

Quote: rxwine

No I'm implying, let the smarter people vote for your own good.

Shoot, for example, in a room with 10 dumb people, even dumb people probably know you don't seek out the dumbest of the 10 to consult. They know better than that. Let's hope.

Smarter people aren't right all of time. But probably more of the time. So, it's a statistical advantage.

I'm pretty sure smart people are net contributors to society. Some might say the above post is bigoted. A great team is made up of people with differing ability, provided they net contribute, to the team irregardless of difference of opinion. I have many people who I lead at work. I certainly don't expect them not to have a voice in positive procedural contributions.

By the way, I had to take a test when I was in the military. I scored in the 98.7 percentile. Should the 1 out of a 100 in intelligence above me make all my life decisions " for my own good"?

I like statistical edges when I understand them.

Quote: MaxPen

I'm pretty sure smart people are net contributors to society. Some might say the above post is bigoted. A great team is made up of people with differing ability, provided they net contribute, to the team irregardless of difference of opinion. I have many people who I lead at work. I certainly don't expect them not to have a voice in positive procedural contributions.

Well, you're suggesting reasons to stop people voting.

example

Quote:

Having dependent breeders telling the country what to do is illogical.

I'm just helping out.

Quote: MaxPen

I'm pretty sure smart people are net contributors to society. Some might say the above post is bigoted.

How is it bigoted to point out that everyone else is smarter than the dumbest person in the room? That's a tautology.

Quote: rxwine

Well, you're suggesting reasons to stop people voting.

example


I'm just helping out.

Yes, people that have contributed nothing other than being dependent, like a child. They can have an opinion and throw tantrums all they want but they should not have a voice of authority. When they grow up and net contribute they can.

Quote: MathExtremist

How is it bigoted to point out that everyone else is smarter than the dumbest person in the room? That's a tautology.

Where is your cut off point? Is everyone that doesn't share your opinion inferior to your intelligence? Should they go sit in a corner and bow to your superior intelligence then let you make life changing decisions for them when they are net contributors to the team?

I don't mind the accusation, because it gives me a chance to point out the difference between "bigot" and "BIGOT!" (it's capital letters and an exclamation point)

You may be a bigot once in awhile. You make a mistake. You sometimes come up with something clueless and thoughtless. But a "BIGOT" is someone who says, I'm a bigot and I'm proud, or I don't care if I am, and demeans other people and doesn't intend to be a better person. Just a lowly bigot.

~

IMO. of course. Of course I like to parody bigots once in awhile, and that seems to confuse some people.

Interesting that a Hillary fan just closed the Hillary Clinton thread. But considering those Democrats protesting the election, it is not surprising.

I like turtles.

Quote: rxwine

I don't mind the accusation, because it gives me a chance to point out the difference between "bigot" and "BIGOT!" (it's capital letters and an exclamation point)

You may be a bigot once in awhile. You make a mistake. You sometimes come up with something clueless and thoughtless. But a "BIGOT" is someone who says, I'm a bigot and I'm proud, or I don't care if I am, and demeans other people and doesn't intend to be a better person. Just a lowly bigot.

~

IMO. of course. Of course I like to parody bigots once in awhile, and that seems to confuse some people.

OY VEY!

Quote: FDEAD3709

Interesting that a Hillary fan just closed the Hillary Clinton thread. But considering those Democrats protesting the election, it is not surprising.

It was a good decision. Websites are put in precarious circumstance when members imply violence against government.

Quote: MaxPen

It was a good decision. Websites are put in precarious circumstance when members imply violence against government.

What if we imply that she should be in prison like the lifelong criminal she is? Is that ok, or will the Mods drop the ban hammer on me too?

Quote: MaxPen

Where is your cut off point? Is everyone that doesn't share your opinion inferior to your intelligence? Should they go sit in a corner and bow to your superior intelligence then let you make life changing decisions for them when they are net contributors to the team?

Do you make every life-changing decision all by yourself? Do you know everything about everything? If so, you also know that nobody else does. When I need to make a life-changing decision and I don't have the experience, I talk to people who do. I would have assumed everyone else does too, but apparently some people think asking questions is a sign of weakness and stupidity. It's not.

There are lots of ways formal decision-making processes can work. There's an entire academic discipline around how to make good decisions in the face of uncertainty (which you always face; otherwise decisions aren't hard). Your notion of a "cut off point" is troubling, though. You appear to suggest that someone is only qualified to make a decision if they are a "net contributor" to society, but how do you measure that? In money? In time? In labor? If you can't measure "net contributor" then you can't judge who's who.

And why is it necessarily the case that only people who "contribute" should be considered stakeholders? Not everybody is a profit center. If you're a parent, you know that firsthand. My kids are hardly net contributors to my household -- they're a huge time and money sink. Yet they still have a say in deciding where to go for vacation or what movie to watch. I invest in my children because I know it's best for my family in the long run, and vesting them with decision-making responsibilities is part of that investment. Not only is that consistent with our economy, it's consistent with our biology. We're a K-selected species -- we invest huge resources in our offspring, rather than r-selected species who have lots of kids and let them fend for themselves.

I submit that our society should follow our biology. We are better off investing in our citizens and pushing them along the path to success (and social contribution) than just leave a bunch of them to fend for themselves and fail. We haven't done a very good job of that but we should.

Quote: FDEAD3709

Interesting that a Hillary fan just closed the Hillary Clinton thread. But considering those Democrats protesting the election, it is not surprising.

What a buzzkill.

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you make every life-changing decision all by yourself? Do you know everything about everything? If so, you also know that nobody else does. When I need to make a life-changing decision and I don't have the experience, I talk to people who do. I would have assumed everyone else does too, but apparently some people think asking questions is a sign of weakness and stupidity. It's not.

There are lots of ways formal decision-making processes can work. There's an entire academic discipline around how to make good decisions in the face of uncertainty (which you always face; otherwise decisions aren't hard). Your notion of a "cut off point" is troubling, though. You appear to suggest that someone is only qualified to make a decision if they are a "net contributor" to society, but how do you measure that? In money? In time? In labor? If you can't measure "net contributor" then you can't judge who's who.

And why is it necessarily the case that only people who "contribute" should be considered stakeholders? Not everybody is a profit center. If you're a parent, you know that firsthand. My kids are hardly net contributors to my household -- they're a huge time and money sink. Yet they still have a say in deciding where to go for vacation or what movie to watch. I invest in my children because I know it's best for my family in the long run, and vesting them with decision-making responsibilities is part of that investment. Not only is that consistent with our economy, it's consistent with our biology. We're a K-selected species -- we invest huge resources in our offspring, rather than r-selected species who have lots of kids and let them fend for themselves.

I submit that our society should follow our biology. We are better off investing in our citizens and pushing them along the path to success (and social contribution) than just leave a bunch of them to fend for themselves and fail. We haven't done a very good job of that but we should.

Then why were you defending a person stating that only those of superior intellect should choose the president?

My cutoff point is based in my belief that Benjamin Franklin was a man who knew of what he spoke.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the Republic."

Kudos for you investing in your children and providing guidance, under responsible supervision, until they come of age to seek success in their endeavors. Fresh thinking is essential for progress, and progress is essential.

You still have not stated your cutoff point. Should an illegal immigrant help appoint your countries president? Should a heinous criminal?

Quote: MaxPen

You still have not stated your cutoff point. Should an illegal immigrant help appoint your countries president? Should a heinous criminal?

An illegal immigrant could very well be more of a contributor than an American on welfare.

I don't think you can get a perfectly clear line, just a fuzzy one. Sort of like picking when it's legal to drive or drink,.

Quote: FDEAD3709

Interesting that a Hillary fan just closed the Hillary Clinton thread. But considering those Democrats protesting the election, it is not surprising.

I'm not sure what that's going to accomplish, people will just bring it here.

Quote: Boz

I like turtles.

http://i.imgur.com/N2yFX45.jpg

Any one metric, such as federal income tax, would be an arbitrary and fallacious cutoff anyway. Workers pay unemployment and Medicare tax from a very low rate. Part of their rent pays property taxes, or if they own their home, they pay it directly. Sales taxes on nearly every purchase. Federal taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Gas tax on every gallon. State taxes in most states.

Virtually everyone pays these. They contribute to the larger good; roads, schools, police, firefighting, public health, safety net. Yet you would suggest that people pay these without being heard at the ballot box, just because they're too poor to pay income tax under our current tax structure, which they didn't write or enact.

There was some kind of uprising about this round about 1774, wasn't there? Trying to recall how that all came out. Oh, yeah, they called it America. Later expanded to include blacks and women.

Reform the tax code if you like. But don't screw with voting rights. Thanks.

Quote: rxwine

An illegal immigrant could very well be more of a contributor than an American on welfare.

I don't think you can get a perfectly clear line, just a fuzzy one. Sort of like picking when it's legal to drive or drink,.

What part of illegal is not understood here? I agree that some on welfare should be able to vote. If they were a net contributor for at least one year of their existence.

There is never a clear line in the sand, especially when talking to a lawyer, which most politicians are. At some point a stand has to be taken and positions defender unless of course, one wishes to bury their head in said sand. Just as their is a defined legal limit on blood alcohol content while operating a vehicle.

You could also argue that people who contribute the most, get the most votes. Isn't that even fairer.
It's not fair that people who contribute more don't get more votes.

Or we could just leave it as is. I'm with BBB..

Quote: MaxPen

Trump 285 Hillary 253......you heard it here first.

Quote: MaxPen

For The Bluejay

So, when you posted your updated numbers, was that an admission that your *earlier* claim of a landslide win for Trump was wrong?

The only thing worse than being consistently wrong is not owning up to it.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Any one metric, such as federal income tax, would be an arbitrary and fallacious cutoff anyway. Workers pay unemployment and Medicare tax from a very low rate. Part of their rent pays property taxes, or if they own their home, they pay it directly. Sales taxes on nearly every purchase. Federal taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Gas tax on every gallon. State taxes in most states.

Virtually everyone pays these. They contribute to the larger good; roads, schools, police, firefighting, public health, safety net. Yet you would suggest that people pay these without being heard at the ballot box, just because they're too poor to pay income tax under our current tax structure, which they didn't write or enact.

There was some kind of uprising about this round about 1774, wasn't there? Trying to recall how that all came out. Oh, yeah, they called it America. Later expanded to include blacks and women.

Reform the tax code if you like. But don't screw with voting rights. Thanks.

Therefore most everyone is eligible with verifiable credentials. I don't disagree with a thing you stated nor did I ever imply that I did. It would be easy to initiate qualifiers. How is that screwing with voting rights? You have to show verification and substantiate yourself for most everything of official importance in your life.
At least you don't pontificate that one must be of supreme intelligence to make life decisions that affect you.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

So, when you posted your updated numbers, was that an admission that your *earlier* claim of a landslide win for Trump was wrong?

The only thing worse than being consistently wrong is not owning up to it.

Are you still caught up on this? Really?
Get out from under the mud and net contribute to the discussion.

Hint- It's called hyperbole.

Quote: MaxPen

Therefore most everyone is eligible with verifiable credentials. I don't disagree with a thing you stated nor did I ever imply that I did. It would be easy to initiate qualifiers. How is that screwing with voting rights? You have to show verification and substantiate yourself for most everything of official importance in your life.
At least you don't pontificate that one must be of supreme intelligence to make life decisions that affect you.

Well, you made me read back. What the hell is a net contributor? It appears to me that your argument is against those who for whatever reason do not or have not yet paid income taxes. If that's not what you meant, then I'd appreciate you clarifying your term.

Listen to this chick. @ 3:52

Quote: rxwine

You could also argue that people who contribute the most, get the most votes. Isn't that even fairer.
It's not fair that people who contribute more don't get more votes.

Or we could just leave it as is. I'm with BBB..

You are far from portraying yourself to be in alignment with BBB.

Quote: MaxPen

Then why were you defending a person stating that only those of superior intellect should choose the president?

My cutoff point is based in my belief that Benjamin Franklin was a man who knew of what he spoke.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the Republic."

Kudos for you investing in your children and providing guidance, under responsible supervision, until they come of age to seek success in their endeavors. Fresh thinking is essential for progress, and progress is essential.

You still have not stated your cutoff point. Should an illegal immigrant help appoint your countries president? Should a heinous criminal?

First, I dispute the validity of the concept of a cutoff point. Second, the answer to the next two questions is, obviously, "it depends." No hard-and-fast rule will ever be correct. On the immigrant question, http://www.wbaltv.com/article/illegal-immigrant-becomes-world-renowned-brain-surgeon/7053833

On the heinous crime question, the definition of heinous is often in the eye of the beholder. A lot of people think homosexuality is a heinous crime and that homosexuals are inherently evil. But there are also millions of American homosexuals and many in politics, and the judiciary does not hold the view (generally) that homosexuality is heinous. The Oregon governor and state house speaker are both homosexual -- should they get to help appoint the president? Obviously yes.

Don't lose track of the fact that Franklin and his peers were designing a government for people who lived over 250 years ago. He did know of what he spoke:
"Our new Constitution is now established, everything seems to promise it will be durable; but, in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes."

We live in a world with a level of technology and prosperity that was unimaginable when the Constitution was drafted. According to Wikipedia, the richest man in the country in 1785 was, coincidentally, Benjamin Franklin. The wealth gap has varied over the years but right now there is very clearly a too-large gulf between the haves and the have-nots.
http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/index
That inequality is compounded by the fact that health insurance comes with jobs so the unemployed -- who in blue collar cases often become so as a result of injury -- often find themselves both hurt and broke at the same time. That's terrible.
One good step is to adjust the tax code so corporations don't get a big deduction on health insurance expenses. Instead, they divert those benefit funds into a national single-payer health system. Medicine itself is still private but there are no more profit-seeking insurance companies taking a rake between you and your health care providers. That immediately divorces the question of employment from the question of medical coverage, removes the negative compounding financial effects of losing your job, and gives rise to a vibrant entrepreneurial class who can afford to take more risks because they don't have to worry about medical care for themselves or their families.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

Quote:

The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

And single-payer isn't the people "voting themselves money", to use Franklin's phrase -- it's taking the resources that are currently being wastefully spent by corporations and redirecting them more efficiently, increasing coverage to 100% while reducing costs through eliminating administrative inefficiencies. That just sounded like the soundbite from a CEO touting an M&A opportunity, so why are so many fiscal conservatives against it?
http://www.pnhp.org/resources/introduction-how-much-would-a-single-payer-system-cost

Trump has supported single-payer in the past. He vacillated during the campaign but I hope if he replaces Obamacare, it's with a national health plan that just gets it done. The current mishmash of health insurance is a mess. My premiums are going up by over $200/month unless I switch to a different plan.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

Quote: beachbumbabs

Well, you made me read back. What the hell is a net contributor? It appears to me that your argument is against those who for whatever reason do not or have not yet paid income taxes. If that's not what you meant, then I'd appreciate you clarifying your term.

A net contributor is anyone putting forth effort to contribute to the team effort. You have or have had a job you contributed. You maintain responsibility for your existence you are a net contributor. You conduct your lifestyle within the bounds of the law, minor infractions accepted you are a net contributor. You are an officially accepted citizen of this country you are eligible.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Hillary may get the popular vote by default. People that voted for Trump(God to you) actually wanted him to win and become president. Many people voted for Hillary not because they liked or wanted Hillary to win, they just didn't want Trump to win.

Even with all the star power and media backing Hillary she still couldn't pull it off.

Quote: MaxPen

You are far from portraying yourself to be in alignment with BBB.

Well, I may very well comment on an internet meme of the day, but every point I make does not represent my own personal view, though it may represent my problem or agreement with what someone else has stated. Although it might also represent my personal view, or it may not.

I don't have any personal views about some things at all, and I might even comment on them.

Quote: MaxPen

A net contributor is anyone putting forth effort to contribute to the team effort. You have or have had a job you contributed. You maintain responsibility for your existence you are a net contributor. You conduct your lifestyle within the bounds of the law, minor infractions accepted you are a net contributor. You are an officially accepted citizen of this country you are eligible.

Still indefinite. Is a former child movie star a net contributor if he fell into drugs and, 20 years later, is now broke and living on the streets? Does it matter how well the movie did?

Is a single mother who has a part-time job, pays $0 in taxes, and needs SNAP to take care of her kids and aging grandmother a net contributor? Is a mafia crime lord who pays millions in taxes a net contributor?

I thought we had cutoff points for eligibility, like, you know, age and citizenship.

Would a casino manager or the CEO of Philip Morris be considered net contributors? Due to the nature of their "contribution," in my mind they are not. Slippery slope, very slippery.

Quote: MathExtremist

First, I dispute the validity of the concept of a cutoff point. Second, the answer to the next two questions is, obviously, "it depends." No hard-and-fast rule will ever be correct. On the immigrant question, http://www.wbaltv.com/article/illegal-immigrant-becomes-world-renowned-brain-surgeon/7053833

On the heinous crime question, the definition of heinous is often in the eye of the beholder. A lot of people think homosexuality is a heinous crime and that homosexuals are inherently evil. But there are also millions of American homosexuals and many in politics, and the judiciary does not hold the view (generally) that homosexuality is heinous. The Oregon governor and state house speaker are both homosexual -- should they get to help appoint the president? Obviously yes.

Don't lose track of the fact that Franklin and his peers were designing a government for people who lived over 250 years ago. He did know of what he spoke:
"Our new Constitution is now established, everything seems to promise it will be durable; but, in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes."

We live in a world with a level of technology and prosperity that was unimaginable when the Constitution was drafted. According to Wikipedia, the richest man in the country in 1785 was, coincidentally, Benjamin Franklin. The wealth gap has varied over the years but right now there is very clearly a too-large gulf between the haves and the have-nots.
http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/index
That inequality is compounded by the fact that health insurance comes with jobs so the unemployed -- who in blue collar cases often become so as a result of injury -- often find themselves both hurt and broke at the same time. That's terrible.
One good step is to adjust the tax code so corporations don't get a big deduction on health insurance expenses. Instead, they divert those benefit funds into a national single-payer health system. Medicine itself is still private but there are no more profit-seeking insurance companies taking a rake between you and your health care providers. That immediately divorces the question of employment from the question of medical coverage, removes the negative compounding financial effects of losing your job, and gives rise to a vibrant entrepreneurial class who can afford to take more risks because they don't have to worry about medical care for themselves or their families.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer


And single-payer isn't the people "voting themselves money", to use Franklin's phrase -- it's taking the resources that are currently being wastefully spent by corporations and redirecting them more efficiently, increasing coverage to 100% while reducing costs through eliminating administrative inefficiencies. That just sounded like the soundbite from a CEO touting an M&A opportunity, so why are so many fiscal conservatives against it?
http://www.pnhp.org/resources/introduction-how-much-would-a-single-payer-system-cost

Trump has supported single-payer in the past. He vacillated during the campaign but I hope if he replaces Obamacare, it's with a national health plan that just gets it done. The current mishmash of health insurance is a mess. My premiums are going up by over $200/month unless I switch to a different plan.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

When governing and regulating there has to be a cutoff point. To shy away from it is to shirk responsibility. What is an acceptable BAC when operating a motor vehicle? Who is eligible to vote? What would be the purpose to not verify eligibility? I contend that the answer to the latter is absolutely none.

A felony is a felony. Rules regarding circumstance are and should be subject to change. I know of no felons that are labeled such strictly due to homosexuality.

It is highly dangerous to toy with the idea of replacing the foundation upon which the house is built. The Constitution is not just a piece of paper. Franklin never said it was a living breathing document. It is what it is and we owe everything we have to it.

I am not disputing the validity of single payer. I am also smart enough to to see Trump is a man of empathy.

For people to get caught up in left vs. right BS is sad. It was created to promote divisiveness and it works well.

I fail to understand how a person of intelligence cannot see that Donald Trump used the Republican Party in order to get to the White House. Campaigns are dirty and he is an adept mudslinger. Take a breather and watch what he does because I have a feeling it is going to be epic.

Quote: AxelWolf

Hillary may get the popular vote by default. People that voted for Trump(God to you) actually wanted him to win and become president. Many people voted for Hillary not because they liked or wanted Hillary to win, they just didn't want Trump to win.

Even with all the star power and media backing Hillary she still couldn't pull it off.

I am still trying to get action on Trump winning the popular vote. ;-)

Any takers?

Quote: rxwine

Well, I may very well comment on an internet meme of the day, but every point I make does not represent my own personal view, though it may represent my problem or agreement with what someone else has stated. Although it might also represent my personal view, or it may not.

I don't have any personal views about some things at all, and I might even comment on them.

Must have been a lot of rocks in the landslide.