I'd like to see the facts behind that statement.
 

You think "widespread disaffection is limited to the "American hinterland", given that "There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot"? You think that is limited to the middle class and rural areas? Please explain. How is there disaffection in one place yet misery and fear - lots? Aren't they both country-wide?

Trump has WAY more than Hillary's propensity to play the femme card, anyone has - he just hasn't used any of it yet. Clinton IS the war on women, but there is so much more negative to her, defeating her should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jason Fuller:
 

*My comment
 

So, you're not an addict, you can quit anytime you want to.

Is that your position?

Harry, where is your source on the above? Are you the party insider or the billionaire funder?

 

Well-connected didn't seem to serve her well as SOS. How will it translate to a higher position? Tell me: What did she accomplish as SOS that makes her more qualified than anyone else to be POTUS? What world leader will listen to her based on her accomplishments?

Here's one canuckian pundit who thinks Trump could win general election:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/28/its-now-clinton-versus-trump-and-trump-could-win-walkom.html

Trump is, quite frankly, a bloviating buffoon. But is he saying anything different from obama, or clintoon - perhaps what she wants to say, even? Well, except for the femme card bit, but even the most staunch Democrat would have to truthfully admit she plays the femme card, a lot.

It is too soon to say anything is in the can, except for American politics. I'd like to see our campaigns not start two years in advance; 90 days should be enough for anybody to get a political platform out and for the voters (Electoral College) to decide the outcome.

 

"But is he saying anything different from obama, or clintoon"

They never said the kind of scary things he's saying, and I very much doubt Hillary would even think, let alone say. I don't like Hillary, but I like Trump and for that matter Cruz a whole lot less.

obamacare isn't scary? "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" - that wasn't scary? He's a liar. For that matter, Hillary Clinton is a liar. You don't find her keeping classified Emails scary, and the fact she lied about it? You don't find the fact that she refused to protect "her good friend" in Benghazi scary, and that she lied about it?

I think some things are true: You don't understand what the word "scary" means, or scary is radically different to you than what many other people think; you support left-leaning politics in all forms no matter what, or possibly don't really pay much attention to what political candidates say unless it it differs from what you want to hear.

Didn't you lot in Canada recently vote for a political outsider, a non-connected, unproven guy?

 

No.
 

No.

Obamacare didn't go nearly far enough, but it's a vast improvement over the rapidly deteriorating 'status quo'. So you and people like you already had health insurance and access to health care. Bully for you. Millions of Americans who didn't now do. That's the whole point of Obamacare. Got a better idea? Let's hear it.
 

No. Keeping emails 'off the record' has become standard m-o for politicians everywhere who dislike accountability. That would be all politicians, everywhere. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make Hillary the scapegoat, either.

Remember Snowden? All your classified shit's public knowledge anyway.

Stop doing crazy stupid stuff in secret and think nobody will ever find out, is all the advice I can provide.
 

She didn't refuse to protect anybody. Hindsight is 20 20.

Overthrowing Ghadaffi was a castrophic mistake. The drone war is an ongoing, catastophic mistake. Failing to close Gitmo is an ongoing, catastrophic mistake. Hello ISIS!

Anyone with a lick of sense can see that, and all Americans have paid and will continue to pay a heavy, heavy price for it. Not to mention a lot of folks around the world, but clearly they don't count (and you can call that the mother of all mistakes).

Putting Trump in the White House would be a mistake on a whole other level of magnitude.

It is failing miserably, more so every couple of months. Paying attention to the insurance companies pulling out, watching premiums rise? But I get it. You want the government teat.
 

Up yours, asswipe. I paid for healthcare out of my own pocket because my employer didn't offer it. The millions of people who didn't have heathcare didn't want it. They also didn't want jobs, preferring to suck the government teat. I paid for healthcare for me and my son because that is what a responsible parent does. A responsible parent also gets a job and works. A responsible parent finds a way. The percentage of people who didn't have insurance before does not match up with the people who signed up, nor does it coincide with the people still paying. A large percentage never paid the first premium, or they only paid one premium - or their plan was canceled. You are a fool if you think obamacare was about insurance, or was anything other than trying to stimulate buying through forced taxation. How naive.

You on obamacare, by the way, since you know how good it is and all?
 

People who really know will not agree at all with your statement. Some of 'em write for the Daily Mail.  ;)








 

>>The percentage of people who didn't have insurance before does not match up with the people who signed up, nor does it coincide with the people still paying. A large percentage never paid the first premium, or they only paid one premium - or their plan was canceled.

Got any sources to back those claims up? Genuinely interested.

There are lots. I actually have a problem with the statistics and sources though, because they are so many ways the data have been compiled it makes for quite a confusing read. I went through several sources to try to find good, raw data for ACA enrollment viability; the temptation for many is to write a search string such as, "obamacare sucks and here's why", but that is only confirmation bias. Finding a reliable source for information is tough, so I will leave it to you to find a source.

About the best I could find is this: Prior to obamacare, there were some 43 million (an argued number) uninsured, for a variety of reasons. After forcing people to buy insurance - and here is where it gets tough: somewhere between 9 million and 16 million people bought insurance. Or tried to. Or signed up. Or they signed up and paid for one month. Or they signed up and promised to pay and never did. Sigh.

Others, like me, had their policy canceled because it was ACA non-compliant. Some of those bought insurance for one month or longer, or took the penalty and didn't buy insurance. It is a difficult slog to figure out what the numbers are because there are so many variables. Incidentally, one of the reasons my policy was canceled (covering me and my son) was because it did not cover maternity care, for two males. The policy was 2.35 times more expensive than my previous policy, had a $12,000.00 deductible and less coverage.

Anyway, guessing at the end result is a challenge. It appears to me that of the 43 million uninsured ( a number given to help "sell" obamacare), perhaps 6% obtained and kept insurance - but even that is a disputed number.

All I can say is, according to people who have obamacare and use it, it is a mixed bag. Maybe half say it works, the other half say the coverage sucks. I do a lot of medical transport, so I hear a lot of comments. Most of my clients are on fixed or limited incomes. There are a number of insurance companies who have already canceled their coverage and no longer sell ACA insurance because it was not profitable for them. Next up: Insurance company bailout.

Insurance and hmo lobbyists, corrupt congress and chump citizens what vote for 'em, and Republican obstructionists get to own this sorry mess.

Me, I'm on the Gold Standard, thanks for axing.

Good luck!

And everything is just peachy-keen in the Land of The Great White North. All Lovey-Dovey up there, what with your rising unemployment and immigration putting the squeeze on health and other services.

Ain't life grand when the gummint provides free shit (especially for immigrants)? But then, the Libs will have many more voters available to continue voting for free shit.  ;)

Was a time when immigrants came here, they worked hard, raised their families, started businesses... earned their way. Now they come over and hold their hands out to Democrats in exchange for votes.  (fail)

Don't bother Smiffy, 'e's not werf it. Like arguing with a brick.  A bigoted brick.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/donald-trump-proves-racial-nationalism-is-alive-and-well/article29805755/

Et tu, Brute?

This discourse serves to say that no matter what political system one lives under, one becomes inured to it. Those who are free cannot understand those who are repressed, those who have become accustomed to being taxed into oblivion cannot understand those who question taxation. Or giving up rights.

It is important to note that as far as bricks and bigots go, you two would do well to look in the mirror; that is, if you can get your asses and noses lowered.

Medicare is under pressure here, as it is in most industrialized northern countries, not least because we did not have enough immigration.

I'll leave you work out the math on that.

Name one thing that Steve or Dan have said which is bigoted...

And name one time that Manthorp has had his ass in the air...

Oh.

Yep.

  (manthorp)

They're bigoted against bigots?

 :O)