ChrisWeigant.com

Health Bill's Score Still Breathtakingly Bad

[ Posted Wednesday, May 24th, 2017 – 15:23 UTC ]

The new Congressional Budget Office numbers are in for the House healthcare bill, and they're almost as breathtakingly bad as the first version's score. Instead of 24 million Americans losing health insurance in the next ten years, now "only" 23 million will lose health insurance. The number of people who will lose health insurance next year alone stayed the same, at 14 million. Medicaid funding will be cut by $834 billion, instead of $880 billion. This would save a paltry $12 billion a year, instead of the $15 billion a year the original bill would have saved. That's a lot of pain for not very much money saved. Which Democrats are going to be pointing out soon, in midterm ads.

This legislation had two major goals. The first was to provide a whopping tax cut for wealthy people. The second was for Republicans to be able to claim "we repealed Obamacare." Measured on those metrics, the bill is a success. Measured by any other metric, it is a complete disaster.

The top-line numbers do not tell this story adequately. A $12 billion change in the federal budget is peanuts, after all. But when you dig into the numbers, the intent of the legislation becomes more obvious. Here are a few crucial paragraphs from the C.B.O. report (emphasis added):

CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017-2026 period, enacting H.R. 1628 would reduce direct spending by $1,111 billion and reduce revenues by $992 billion, for a net reduction of $119 billion in the deficit over that period. The provisions dealing with health insurance coverage would reduce the deficit, on net, by $783 billion; the noncoverage provisions would increase the deficit by $664 billion, mostly by reducing revenues.

The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid and from the replacement of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) subsidies for nongroup health insurance with new tax credits for nongroup health insurance (see figure below). Those savings would be partially offset by other changes in coverage provisions -- spending for a new Patient and State Stability Fund, designed to reduce premiums, and a reduction in revenues from repealing penalties on employers who do not offer insurance and on people who do not purchase insurance. The largest increases in the deficit would come from repealing or modifying tax provisions in the ACA that are not directly related to health insurance coverage -- such as repealing a surtax on net investment income, repealing annual fees imposed on health insurers, and reducing the income threshold for determining the tax deduction for medical expenses.

Below this is a chart, breaking down the impact of various parts of the bill. Medicaid is slashed a jaw-dropping $834 billion, and tax credits for people to buy insurance gets hit by $276 billion. Where does all this money go? Mostly to "noncoverage provisions," to the tune of $664 billion. What are "noncoverage provisions"? Here's the explanation (emphasis added):

Repeal or delay of taxes on high-income people, fees imposed on manufacturers, and excise taxes enacted under the ACA. Modification of various tax preferences for medical care.

Got that? We've got to slash Medicaid to give a huge tax break to "high-income people." And 23 million of our fellow Americans can crawl off into the woods and die, because this entire exercise was nothing more than a way to cut taxes on the ultra-wealthy. As I said, Democrats should already be drafting their campaign ads around this basic fact.

By magnanimously allowing an extra million people to keep their health insurance, the Republicans did fix one glaring problem with their first attempt. Now the number of uninsured will be exactly what it would have been if Obamacare had never happened. Incredibly, the first draft of this bill somehow denied health insurance to a million more people than a flat Obamacare repeal would have done. So at least now Republicans can't be accused of making things even worse than they would have been if Obama had failed to pass his law.

Still, "things won't be worse than the status quo before Obamacare" isn't really a rousing campaign slogan for the GOP. Democrats will be pointing out that this bill is in no way real deficit reduction, since after slashing Medicaid by $834 billion it only saves the government $119 billion in the end -- because of the $664 billion tax windfall.

Republican senators have all but announced they're tossing the House bill out and starting with a blank sheet of paper. They may come up with their own bill, or they may be incapable of reaching agreement among themselves (if only three Republican senators decide not to vote for a bill, it will die -- a pretty thin margin). If the Senate acts and produces a slightly-less-breathtakingly-bad bill, then the focus may shift before the election cycle really gets underway. But whether the Senate acts or not, the House votes are already on the record. They voted for this Draconian bill, and their Democratic opponents should take every opportunity to point it out to their constituents.

The House Republicans congratulated themselves for throwing 23 million people off their health insurance. They slashed Medicaid by over $800 billion. They handed most of this money out to the wealthiest Americans, for no reason whatsoever. By doing so, they are saving a grand total of $12 billion a year in a $4 trillion budget -- a deficit reduction of roughly one-third of one percent. The numbers are in, and they're bad. Spectacularly bad. Breathtakingly bad. Whatever else happens, House GOP members won't be able to run away from them.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

110 Comments on “Health Bill's Score Still Breathtakingly Bad”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    The numbers are in, and they're bad. Spectacularly bad. Breathtakingly bad. Whatever else happens, House GOP members won't be able to run away from them.

    Yep.

  2. [2] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    By magnanimously allowing an extra million people to keep their health insurance, the Republicans did fix one glaring problem with their first attempt.

    Anchor effect. (1) general public will have been anchored to the original 24M number, (2) House will tout they improved it through their hard work (Spkr. Ryan has already said as much. Ergo, it's a good bill.

    It's like when you have sticker shock at first and then offered a somewhat lower price, somehow it's more acceptable even if far higher than you originally pictured.

  3. [3] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    [closing parenthesis after "as much"] *sigh*

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    The other devastating news points last time were the premium increases for 45-65-year-olds and the impact of existing condition refusal. Those are the aspects, along with increased deductibles and lifetime limits, that I think will be the most powerful messages in 2018.

  5. [5] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Well, it clearly quickly fixes the problem the ACA caused of too many people having insurance:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAnvAHVXYAEeeHi.jpg:large

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    chaszzzbrown
    5

    There you go getting graphic again. Awesome chart, Charlie Brown, and I'll tell you exactly what was running through my head when I saw it:

    The DonTcare House bill, the CBO report, and Charlie Brown's graphic should lay to rest once and for all the ridiculous idea that the GOP and their ilk are the pro-life Party.

    Sad. :^(

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    The new Congressional Budget Office numbers are in for the House healthcare bill, and they're almost as breathtakingly bad as the first version's score. Instead of 24 million Americans losing health insurance in the next ten years, now "only" 23 million will lose health insurance.

    Sorry, people.. Ya'all have absolutely NO MORAL leg to stand on about Americans losing their health insurance.

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....

    No one here said ANYTHING when tens of millions lost their healthcare plans under CrapCare..

    It's clear that NO ONE here really cares if Americans lose their health insurance..

    It's just another pretty shiny club to beat political opponents over the head with..

    So, puuullleeeezzzeeee... Spare me ya'all's crocodile tears... :^/

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    RD

    It's like when you have sticker shock at first and then offered a somewhat lower price, somehow it's more acceptable even if far higher than you originally pictured.

    That would be how the Democrats would argue it if the shoe was on the other foot..

    What's yer point?? :D

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    The numbers are in, and they're bad. Spectacularly bad. Breathtakingly bad. Whatever else happens, House GOP members won't be able to run away from them.

    And it STILL won't get the Democrat Party the House in 2018... :D

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    As regular comment readers know, I've been been contacting congressional reps on an almost daily basis - by phone, email and even a few actual letters with stamps (most of these stamps have pix of pick up trucks).

    In my email yesterday was a very long reply from my very own GOP congressman. My new congressman, because I've been moved into a new, relatively competitive district. I've never had a reply from a politician that went into so much detail. He is clearly searching for some middle ground, or perhaps some high ground in anticipation of a political deluge.

    I've been politely hard on the guy about health care, Trump and the GOP. My rep was tepidly defensive of his party (which I have urged him to ditch) and not exactly happy with DonTCare or The Prez. He went into a great deal of detail about his concerns. He didn't seem very happy. Good, he shouldn't be. His district is going to be hit very hard by Republican sabotage of health care exchanges.

    My own doctor, who is extremely conservative, and very Republican, is also worried about DonTCare.
    His practice includes a lot of Medicaid patients with chronic health care issues. We had a nice chat during my annual wellness physical. I got 90 minutes from my doc....it helps when you've known your practitioner since middle school.

    Reality is beginning to trump ideology. A work in progress.

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Reality is beginning to trump ideology. A work in progress.

    YOUR reality was Trump would never win the Primary..

    YOUR reality was Trump would never be President..

    YOUR reality is nothing but a Party driven fantasy..

    These are the FACTS.. And they are indisputable...

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay, I have an idea...

    Let's follow California's example when it comes to health care...

    California's looming single-payer disaster

    rogressives advocating single-payer health care need to face financial reality.

    Vermont had to abandon its attempts to impose a single-payer health-care system when its greatest champion, Gov. Peter Shumlin, discovered that it would cost far more than he had anticipated. Similarly, last year Colorado voters resoundingly rejected ColoradoCare when a study discovered that even tripling taxes wouldn't be enough to keep up with the costs.

    Now it's California's turn.

    The Golden State's legislature has plowed ahead with a plan to impose single-payer care. But a new analysis from the state Senate on SB562 shows that the annual costs of such a system would exceed the state's current annual budget — even if federal funding continued at the same pace. "California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called 'single-payer' system," the Sacramento Bee reported after the publication of a report by the Senate Appropriations committee. Even that estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state, and federal funding it currently receives to offset half of a $400 billion total price tag.

    $400 billion a year. That's 223 percent of California's total annual expenditures in an already bloated budget.
    http://theweek.com/articles/700800/californias-looming-singlepayer-disaster

    Oh wait... Mebbe not.. :^/

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Once again, FACTS and reality trump Party zealotry....

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    10

    As regular comment readers know, I've been been contacting congressional reps on an almost daily basis - by phone, email and even a few actual letters with stamps (most of these stamps have pix of pick up trucks).

    Nothing says "take me seriously" quite like a Forever Pickup Truck stamp:
    * 1965 Ford F-100
    * 1953 Chevrolet
    * 1948 Ford F-1
    * 1938 International Harvester D-2

    In my email yesterday was a very long reply from my very own GOP congressman.

    Give them polite hell, TS.

    Reality is beginning to trump ideology. A work in progress.

    The whining from the right-wing echo chamber is just getting started. Keep up the good fight, TS. We got your six. :)

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    10

    As regular comment readers know, I've been been contacting congressional reps on an almost daily basis - by phone, email and even a few actual letters with stamps (most of these stamps have pix of pick up trucks).

    Nothing says "take me seriously" quite like a Forever Pickup Truck stamp:
    * 1965 Ford F-100
    * 1953 Chevrolet
    * 1948 Ford F-1
    * 1938 International Harvester D-2

    In my email yesterday was a very long reply from my very own GOP congressman.

    Give them polite hell, TS.

    Reality is beginning to trump ideology. A work in progress.

    The whining from the right-wing echo chamber is just getting started. Keep up the good fight, TS. We got your six. :)

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, the fun is beginning - the Democrats are asking for documents covering 45 and his family's loans from Deutsche Bank (who have been a bit lax in screening out Russian thugs money laundering).

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-24/deutsche-bank-asked-for-documents-on-trump-loans-russian-trades

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Norway just released a new EURO 200 note and the central bank made the best video in history to announce it. I insist you watch this!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2CKHH_KKGE

    :)

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    o, the fun is beginning - the Democrats are asking for documents covering 45 and his family's loans from Deutsche Bank

    OH MY GODS!!!!!! TRUMP GOT LOANS FROM A GERMAN BANK!!!!!! GET A ROPE!!!! LET'S HANG 'IM!!!!

    The hysteria continues.. :^/

    Ya know.. When I asked for FACTS, I was kinda hoping ya'all would come up with RELEVANT facts.. :^/

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Norway just released a new EURO 200 note and the central bank made the best video in history to announce it. I insist you watch this!

    OK, if you INSIST... :D

    Pretty good...

    Wonder how long it will take Left Whinery PETA to get all hysterical at the disrespectful way the fish we're treated... :^D

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    kick -15

    I'm still parsing the e-mail. It shows explicit concern about the Republican health care package, but it's kind of vague about alternatives. I think he's shopping for ideas at this point. Trying to judge the political breeze.

    neilm-17

    It's official, I have now seen everything...Norge rap.

    The fish and fisherman are inspirational...I'm going fishing this weekend...in a much smaller boat, for much smaller fish.

    Norway has very colorful money.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Norway has very colorful money.

    It's Euro... Not Norway... :eyeroll:

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ya know.. When I asked for FACTS, I was kinda hoping ya'all would come up with RELEVANT facts.. :^/

    You can't handle the facts!

    No, seriously, if it makes 45 look bad you can't handle them and go into nitty-gritty denial mode that you never did when e.g. Hillary had "Parkinsons".

    Remember this post:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/13/piercing-trumps-tax-deflection/#comment-84314

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    You can't handle the facts!

    Heh.. Kudos.. :D

    No, seriously, if it makes 45 look bad you can't handle them

    Actually, I can handle it just fine..

    I simply point out that if it makes President Trump look bad, ya'all are ALL IN with it, regardless of whether it's A> factual or not and 2> hurts this country..

    That's my point..

    and go into nitty-gritty denial mode that you never did when e.g. Hillary had "Parkinsons".

    And the *FACTS* were there.. All the symptoms that NOT-45 exhibited were symptoms of Parkinsons...

    This is fact...

    Whether the diagnosis applies to NOT-45 or not is still an open question..

    Which I am sure will be answered when NOT-45 tries for a Trifecta LUSER in 2020... :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm still parsing the e-mail.

    TRANSLATION: I am still trying to spin it so it is much MUCH worse than it really is...

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    23 million more uninsured

    hundreds of billions taken from medicare

    hundreds of billions redistributed to the wealthy

    don't get sick. and if you do get sick, unless you're rich, die quickly.

    on this issue donald had a real opportunity to make a positive impact and prove his detractors wrong. alas, it seems like there will be a very negative impact, and it will prove his detractors right.

    JL

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    on this issue donald had a real opportunity to make a positive impact and prove his detractors wrong. alas, it seems like there will be a very negative impact, and it will prove his detractors right.

    Time will tell..

    TrainWreckCare was supposed to the savior of all saviors that was supposed to make everything good and right about Health Care..

    And it turned into a disaster..

    It's entirely possible that you predicted disaster just might be wrong..

    We'll see...

    However, in the meantime, refer to comment #7 and #12

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in addition to 45,000 more annual deaths due to lack of health insurance, AHCA would also reverse the trend of lower bankruptcy rates. since obamacare was passed, personal bankruptcies have gone down every year, from 1.53 million in 2010 to 770k in 2016.

    that's three quarters of a million americans last year who have avoided going bankrupt.

    http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/#chart

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    [10] TheStig:

    Reality is beginning to trump ideology. A work in progress.

    Wonderful post!

  29. [29] 
    Paula wrote:

    [27] nypoet22: All good points.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    in addition to 45,000 more annual deaths due to lack of health insurance, AHCA would also reverse the trend of lower bankruptcy rates. since obamacare was passed, personal bankruptcies have gone down every year, from 1.53 million in 2010 to 770k in 2016.

    that's three quarters of a million americans last year who have avoided going bankrupt.

    We'll see if it comes to pass...

    If it doesn't, they are nothing but fear-mongering, not valid points...

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    However, in the meantime, refer to comment #7 and #12

    7 is a misleading and fallacious appeal to hypocrisy; all three major fact checking organizations rated it false. most people whose old plans weren't legal bought new plans, and most new plans provided better coverage at a lower cost. recognizing that fact doesn't render anyone unable or unqualified to judge dontcare harshly.

    12 (criticism of single-payer) is completely irrelevant.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We'll see if it comes to pass...
    If it doesn't, they are nothing but fear-mongering, not valid points...

    that's insane. let's see how many people die and go bankrupt before we try to prevent them from dying and going bankrupt?

    JL

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    that's insane. let's see how many people die and go bankrupt before we try to prevent them from dying and going bankrupt?

    No, I mean let's see if your prediction comes to pass or is simply nothing but fear mongering...

    People dieing and going bankrupt will happen or not happen w/o any input from us..

    I was simply referring to the predictions which are, invariably colored by a Party agenda...

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    7 is a misleading and fallacious appeal to hypocrisy;

    But it's factually accurate, which is all I care about..

    12 (criticism of single-payer) is completely irrelevant.

    It's the ONLY relevant point because single-payer is what ya'all aspire to have...

    And, as has been proven time and time again here in the US, is completely unworkable..

    I find it curious that you find this FACT irrelevant. Especially in light of how ya'all hysterically want single-payer..

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    all three major fact checking organizations rated it false. most

    All three Leftist "fact" checking organizations rated it false..

    Big woop... Garbage in, Garbage out...

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    All three Leftist "fact" checking organizations rated it false..

    ah yes, reality and its well-known liberal bias.

    JL

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    ah yes, reality and its well-known liberal bias.

    as has been aptly proven beyond ANY doubt, especially by the denizens of Weigantia, reality and liberal bias are mutually exclusive...

    And the Leftist bent of yer "fact" checkers is well documented..

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    People dieing and going bankrupt will happen or not happen w/o any input from us..

    20k-40k people die every year from lack of health insurance. medical bills are the single most prevalent reason for personal bankruptcy in the US. every year since obamacare was signed, both went down. that's not hypothetical.

    JL

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    20k-40k people die every year from lack of health insurance. medical bills are the single most prevalent reason for personal bankruptcy in the US. every year since obamacare was signed, both went down. that's not hypothetical.

    And also not causal...

    If they go back up again, you will have a logical argument to make..

    Until then, all you have is a prediction... Spin colored by Party loyalty more than facts...

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And also not causal...

    correlation may not always mean causation, but it's not neutral when there's a logical connection, such as the logical connection between having health insurance and not dying.

    JL

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And the Leftist bent of yer "fact" checkers is well documented..

    that's an invalid and circular argument - the fact checkers are leftist because the majority of their findings favor the left. it's not the fact checkers that have a lefty bent, it's the facts. but feel free to use "alternative facts" (also known as fictions)

    JL

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    Until then, all you have is a prediction... Spin colored by Party loyalty more than facts...

    No, there is a New England Journal of Medicine peer reviewed article detailing this:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099

    Net net: for every 455 people who gained medical coverage one life was saved per year. Thus removing coverage for 23 million results in 50,000+ additional American lives lost per year.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and the CBO notes that most of the people who will have their health care eliminated are those most in need - so the numbers are probably higher.

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    correlation may not always mean causation, but it's not neutral when there's a logical connection, such as the logical connection between having health insurance and not dying.

    The problem is that the "logical" connection is invariably based on PARTY loyalty and, as such, is rarely logical..

    that's an invalid and circular argument - the fact checkers are leftist because the majority of their findings favor the left. it's not the fact checkers that have a lefty bent, it's the facts.

    No, it's NOT the facts.. The facts are neutral.. But the "fact" checkers bend the facts to the Left...

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, and the CBO notes that most of the people who will have their health care eliminated are those most in need - so the numbers are probably higher.

    And if the CBO was never wrong, you would have a valid argument. But the CBO has been wrong more than they have been correct, so you don't have a valid argument.

    You have spin...

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The problem is that the "logical" connection is invariably based on PARTY loyalty and, as such, is rarely logical..

    in which alternate reality is the logical connection between having health insurance and not dying based on the political party one belongs to?

    JL

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    in which alternate reality is the logical connection between having health insurance and not dying based on the political party one belongs to?

    The reality where health insurance is NOT a guarantee that one won't die...

    Conversely, NOT having health insurance is NOT a guarantee that one WILL die an early death...

    Ya'all's problem is that ya'all (NEN) are HOPING that Americans will die by the hundreds of thousands so ya'all can say, "See!!!! We were right!!! Our Party was right"

    THAT is an attitude that just irks me to no end..

  48. [48] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump's has a new feud going! With Britain! People who speak the same language as us...OK that may be part of the problem. Or maybe it's all those kopeks that Putin is alleged to have stuffed into Trump's pie hole.

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The reality where health insurance is NOT a guarantee that one won't die...

    the fact that it's not a guarantee doesn't make it unrelated, and doesn't make it partisan. lack of health insurance is a contributing factor to death, not the only factor. for starters, one generally needs to have some sort of medical problem in order for lack of health insurance to result in death.

    Ya'all's problem is that ya'all (NEN) are HOPING that Americans will die by the hundreds of thousands so ya'all can say, "See!!!! We were right!!! Our Party was right"

    that's an awful thing to accuse someone of, especially without facts to back up the accusation. talk about a double standard!

    and furthermore, what shall we do in the meanwhile, wait for death rates to go up again before we do something to prevent them?

    JL

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,

    US leaks following the manchester bombing are a major blow to US-UK relations. the buck stops.... where exactly? donald has thus far been almost completely incompetent as president. bad for the country, great for democrats who are hoping to take back both the presidency and the legislature in 2020.

    president pence would be much worse for democrats, but much better for the country.

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    the fact that it's not a guarantee doesn't make it unrelated, and doesn't make it partisan. lack of health insurance is a contributing factor to death, not the only factor

    Lack of health insurance *COULD* be a contributing factor in SOME deaths..

    The fact that you are going for an unwarranted absolute PROVES that it is partisan..

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    US leaks following the manchester bombing are a major blow to US-UK relations. the buck stops.... where exactly?

    With the assholes who are leaking the information and the Democrats, including all of you, who are aiding and abetting the leakers..

    Cut that shit out!!!

    that's an awful thing to accuse someone of, especially without facts to back up the accusation.

    The facts of over a decade of partisan zealotry is all the facts I need..

    what shall we do in the meanwhile, wait for death rates to go up again before we do something to prevent them?

    *IF* the death rates go up..

    Ya'all had your chance to do health care right, but ya'all felt that Party agenda was more important..

    Now it is the GOP's turn....

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's has a new feud going! With Britain! People who speak the same language as us...OK that may be part of the problem. Or maybe it's all those kopeks that Putin is alleged to have stuffed into Trump's pie hole.

    Blaming President Trump for the leaks is like blaming the girl for her own rape....

    I am not surprised by the accusation..

    Simply saddened...

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Did anyone ever blame Odumbo for the leaks of his administration??

    'nuff said....

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    Giant crowd in Berlin for President Obama -- cue Bumpy to start making disparaging remarks about Germany.

    Separately, this: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/anthony-nevins-roger-stone-stolen-democratic-voter-analyses

    As Josh notes, it's small-scale, but it's the first report of genuine collusion between Russian operatives and a Republican operative, who took stolen DNC data and used it to flip a seat in Florida.

    Drip, drip, drip.

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    As Josh notes, it's small-scale, but it's the first report of genuine collusion between Russian operatives and a Republican operative, who took stolen DNC data and used it to flip a seat in Florida.

    Do you know how many millions of dollars went from the Russians to Democrats????

    Do you care???

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Giant crowd in Berlin for President Obama --

    Yea.. Odumbo said, "We can't hide behind walls" ..

    AS HE WAS BEHIND A WALL!!! :D

    Whatta utter moron... :D

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    president pence would be much worse for democrats, but much better for the country.

    So, what you are saying is that what is GOOD for Democrats is BAD for the country... :D

    Well, I am sure glad I got that on record.. :D

    Because I have been saying the EXACT same thing for years!!!! :D

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Jared Kushner under scrutiny by FBI in Russia Probe.

    Who knew? ;)

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    New column up... read it before MT results come in...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/25/bozeman-beatdown/

    :-)

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Michale - San Francisco instituted a health plan for all it's citizens eight years ago. it insures everyone at a sliding scale from free to a few dollars. It is wildly successful and much loved by everybody. No one has gone bankrupt, neither the City, no any individual. This is actually socialized medicine as the providers are all employees of the City. The costs are manageable and the care is excellent (it saved my life). If this can be done at a city level it can most certainly be done at the state level. I have no doubt that this will in fact happen in the next few years as just as so many other good ideas have come from this state so too California will show the nation how to do health care right.

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale - San Francisco instituted a health plan for all it's citizens eight years ago. it insures everyone at a sliding scale from free to a few dollars. It is wildly successful and much loved by everybody. No one has gone bankrupt, neither the City, no any individual. This is actually socialized medicine as the providers are all employees of the City. The costs are manageable and the care is excellent (it saved my life). If this can be done at a city level it can most certainly be done at the state level.

    And yet, the FACTS clearly show that this is not the case....

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS

    Jared Kushner under scrutiny by FBI in Russia Probe.

    Who knew? ;)

    Of course, we have Victoria's hysterical bullshit....

    And then we have THE FACTS.....

    Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation, multiple U.S. officials told NBC News.

    Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS [20]

    Norway has very colorful money.

    Yes, they do. Their new currency is loaded with security features to thwart counterfeiting. "The cod is coming." You know what they say: Give a man a fish... teach a man to fish! Have fun in your little boat this weekend, TS. :)

    Michale [21]

    It's Euro... Not Norway... :eyeroll:

    Why are you correcting TS when he is absolutely right? Can't you read? It's a Norwegian banknote... 200 kroner to be exact. It says so right on it's face.

    Is Norway part of the EU? I'm not really asking... just encouraging you to crack a book before you correct other people that post FACTS. :)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    63

    Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation, multiple U.S. officials told NBC News.

    Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him.

    Can you prove they don't suspect him of a crime? No, you can't.

    Jared, like so many in the Trump administration, failed to list multiple foreign contacts on his SF-86. Unless he can convince the FBI that this was simply an error on his part, then Jared has indeed committed a crime.

    Try to keep up, Mr. Law Enforcement Occifer. :)

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    48

    Trump's has a new feud going! With Britain! People who speak the same language as us...OK that may be part of the problem. Or maybe it's all those kopeks that Putin is alleged to have stuffed into Trump's pie hole.

    Trump insists to Prime Minister May that he's going to find the leakers. I will give him a hint; check in the mirror... or in the alternative check Putin's pee-pee tapes. ;)

  67. [67] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Michale- What "facts" are you referring to? In eight years I have not seen anyone who did not call Healthy San Francisco a huge success. I know no one who complained about the care and as an employer I can attest to the reasonable cost. On a macro level our economy is booming and we have some of the lowest UN-employment in the country. So whats not to like?

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, what you are saying is that what is GOOD for Democrats is BAD for the country... :D

    just trump as president.

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The facts of over a decade of partisan zealotry is all the facts I need..

    i.e. no facts.

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    *IF* the death rates go up..

    not if, when. the only question is how much. every ER doctor has firsthand experience with individuals who waited too long to be treated because they couldn't afford it, and arrived too late to be saved.

    if dontcare becomes the law of the land, i will not be happy at all to say i told you so.

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Can you prove they don't suspect him of a crime? No, you can't.

    Yes, I can..

    It states so right in the article. Not "anonymous sources" but a direct quote from the investigating agency..

    Jared, like so many in the Trump administration, failed to list multiple foreign contacts on his SF-86. Unless he can convince the FBI that this was simply an error on his part, then Jared has indeed committed a crime.

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

    Ring any bells,

    There is no fact or evidence to support your claim..

    As usual, you are just spewing bullshit..

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    SF Bear,

    Michale- What "facts" are you referring to?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/24/health-bills-score-still-breathtakingly-bad/#comment-100933

    The idea that Single-Payer can work for a state let alone the entire country is ridiculous...

    It's failed time and time again...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    not if, when. the only question is how much. every ER doctor has firsthand experience with individuals who waited too long to be treated because they couldn't afford it, and arrived too late to be saved.

    if dontcare becomes the law of the land, i will not be happy at all to say i told you so.

    Don't worry... You won't have to.. :D

    It's just Party fear-mongering.. Nothing more.. Just like that OHMYGODS THE WORLD IS GOING TO END TOMORROW UNLESS WE GIVE ALL OUR MONEY TO AL GORE fear-mongering..

    Nothing but a Party agenda at work...

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Speaking of Left Wingery fear-mongering....

    As we approach the 2017 hurricane season, we note that it has been almost TWELVE YEARS since we have had a major hurricane strike on the CONUS...

    But... But.... But.... So-called "scientists" had assured us that, if we didn't give all our money to Al Gore, major hurricanes would be a DAILY occurrence!!????

    WTF

    Were the scientists.... WRONG!!!????

    Ya gotta ask yerselves.. Have these scientists ever been RIGHT!???

    No, they haven't..

    So, why should ANYONE trust what they say when it's clear to ANYONE with more than two brain cells to rub together that their entire spiel is based on a Party agenda.. NOT on science...

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

    There's no need for a trial because Kusher's lawyer has admitted that Jared did indeed omit foreign contacts from his SF-86 and has characterized it as an "error." Kushner signed his name to an SF-86 acknowledging:

    My statements on this form, and on any attachments to it, are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. I have carefully read the foregoing instructions to complete this form. I understand that a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or both (18 U.S.C. 1001). I understand that intentionally withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying information may have a negative effect on my security clearance, employment prospects, or job status, up to and including denial or revocation of my security clearance, or my removal and debarment from Federal service.

    He's dealing with the FBI regarding these material omissions. Since his lawyer has already admitted their omission and characterized it as an "error," it will be up to Jared to convince the FBI that the omissions weren't intentional. In other words, he's got some explaining to do, some convincing to do, and it behooves the young lad to correct the form in its entirety and leave nothing out on his second "try."

    There is no fact or evidence to support your claim..

    If an admission is not good enough for you, then clearly nothing will convince you. *LOL*

    As usual, you are just spewing bullshit..

    As usual, your ignorance of the facts doesn't change them. You should DYOFR and stop depending on others to spoon-feed you the facts.

    Calling everyone a "liar" because you don't know the facts is fast becoming your hallmark, your calling card. Your dearth of knowledge doesn't make everyone else a liar; it makes you uninformed yet living happily in your safe space where ignorance is bliss. :)

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    If an admission is not good enough for you, then clearly nothing will convince you. *LOL*

    Where's the charge??

    What part of Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him. do you not understand??

    Here's a thought..

    Why don't you wait until you actually have some FACTS before you open yer fat trap??

    I know, I know.. You'll NEVER post again if you have to post FACTS..

    That's kinda the general idea... :D

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's just Party fear-mongering.. Nothing more.. Just like that OHMYGODS THE WORLD IS GOING TO END TOMORROW UNLESS WE GIVE ALL OUR MONEY TO AL GORE fear-mongering..

    straw man argument, on both counts. hard evidence is not erased by making fun of the political agendas that employ it. the overall heat content of the earth has gone up substantially, that's a fact. people die due to lack of insurance, that's another fact.

    it's reasonable to argue how long it will take for global warming to directly impact human geography. will it take fifty years? a hundred? two hundred? just because it hasn't reached situation critical yet doesn't magically make it all bogus.

    likewise, it's reasonable to argue how many people die due to lack of insurance. is it forty thousand as harvard medical school estimates, or is it closer to the fifteen or twenty thousand that more conservative studies suggest? however, using that uncertainty as a rationale to pretend the phenomenon doesn't exist at all is ludicrous. ask ANY doctor who has worked in an ER if they've had someone uninsured come in with a terminal disease that would have been curable if they could afford care when they first developed symptoms.

    JL

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    straw man argument, on both counts. hard evidence is not erased by making fun of the political agendas that employ it.

    If it WAS hard evidence, you would have a point..

    But the ONLY relevant evidence is that the the hysterical so-called "scientist" have been wrong each and every time..

    it's reasonable to argue how long it will take for global warming to directly impact human geography. will it take fifty years? a hundred? two hundred? just because it hasn't reached situation critical yet doesn't magically make it all bogus.

    No, what makes it all bogus is that the "direct impact" time has been predicted DOZENS of times.. And that direct impact time has passed with NOTHING happening..

    How many times do those "scientists" have to be wrong before you start to realize you are being conned???

    likewise, it's reasonable to argue how many people die due to lack of insurance. is it forty thousand as harvard medical school estimates, or is it closer to the fifteen or twenty thousand that more conservative studies suggest? however, using that uncertainty as a rationale to pretend the phenomenon doesn't exist at all is ludicrous. ask ANY doctor who has worked in an ER if they've had someone uninsured come in with a terminal disease that would have been curable if they could afford care when they first developed symptoms.

    The problem is, those estimates have a Party agenda and, as such, cannot be trusted..

    man dies from toothache, couldn't afford meds

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171

    He COULD afford the meds that would save his life...

    He instead chose the meds that made him feel better...

    His choice, his responsibility..

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If it WAS hard evidence, you would have a point..

    it is, and i do. choosing not to believe it does not make it less factual.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    I would also ask why didn't he have insurance??? Did he decide to use the money to Party instead of buying insurance??

    Did he have insurance under TrainWreckCare, but his deductible was too high and he couldn't afford the out of pocket expenses that TrainWreckCare forced upon him??

    If yer gonna feed me an ideologically based sob story, these questions are relevant...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    NASA has changed it's claims hundreds of times..

    Not a reputable source...

    NASA is a space agency.. It's function as an environmental /climate is totally and completely Partisan...

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NASA has changed it's claims hundreds of times..
    Not a reputable source..

    shoot the messenger if you like, but the facts are unambiguous.

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    shoot the messenger if you like, but the facts are unambiguous.

    In your opinion...

    Making NASA the source for climate info is as moronic as making a train engineer the head of the UNs CLimate Con...

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In your opinion...

    no, not in my opinion, in fact.

    JL

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    It's senseless to debate...

    It's like the flat-earthers who believe that the Church (in ya'all's case, the government) knows best and any dissent is heresy against fanatical Church doctrine..

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    no, not in my opinion, in fact.

    No, it YOUR opinion that it's fact..

    MANY scientists disagree with your opinion and have the peer-reviewed science to back up their disagreement..

  88. [88] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    my suspicion is that you are not really that ignorant, and are just arguing for fun. however, your attempts to impeach some pretty unassailable facts don't hold water.

    either co2 levels are at 400 ppm or they're not.

    either sea levels have risen in the last two decades at double the rate of last century, or they haven't.

    either the uninsured die of heart attack, stroke and pneumonia at double the rates of the insured, or they don't.

    these are facts because they can be, and in this case have been, proven to be incontrovertibly true.

    JL

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, it YOUR opinion that it's fact..

    i may quote this in the future.

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    either co2 levels are at 400 ppm or they're not.

    I am not arguing that..

    I am simply arguing A> the cause and 2> whether it is the end of the world..

    A is up for debate and 2 is blatantly obvious..

    There is no threat of imminent planetary destruction, there is no threat of imminent demise of the human race and the effect that human kind has on the climate is unproven..

    You want to state that the climate is changing??

    You won't get any argument from me.. Only a MORON would think that the climate doesn't change..

    The climate has been changing for billions of years and will likely CONTINUE to change once humans have gone the way of the dodo..

    But you will NEVER convince me that we MUST give all of our money to Al Gore and the UN to prevent then end of the world..

    Because THAT is the story that the Left Wingery puts forth and THAT is complete and unequivocal bullshit..

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    i may quote this in the future.

    Have a ball :D

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:
  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Wanna touch on that?? :D

    no

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    Why am I not surprised.. :D

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:
  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sure

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/25/dr-siegel-truth-about-your-health-care-obamacare-and-cbo-numbers.html

    You see, JL...

    You have your spin...

    And the Right has their spin..

    And the facts are some where in between...

  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that's the middle ground fallacy. facts are not in-between right spin and left spin. spin may offer different explanations for facts, but facts have no respect for political views of any stripe. facts simply are.

    no matter how one wishes to spin the root causes or political remedies, co2 is still at 400 ppm, sea level is still 85.5mm higher than in 1990, the planet is one celsius degree warmer, and the uninsured die of the same illnesses more often than the insured.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

    sure, it's political spin to say that obamacare saved tens of thousands of lives, and removing it will cause tens of thousands to die. however, the factual basis of that spin is solid.

    and the opposite spin - that lack of healthcare doesn't kill anyone - is literally dead wrong.

    halfway between true and false is still false.

    JL

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    that's the middle ground fallacy. facts are not in-between right spin and left spin. spin may offer different explanations for facts, but facts have no respect for political views of any stripe. facts simply are.

    And the FACTS are in between YOUR spin and the Right's spin..

    no matter how one wishes to spin the root causes or political remedies, co2 is still at 400 ppm, sea level is still 85.5mm higher than in 1990, the planet is one celsius degree warmer,

    And water is still wet, ice is still cold, women still have secrets and NONE OF IT MATTERS to the survival of the planet and the human race...

    THAT's the fact that you ignore..

    There is NO PLANETARY emergency...

    Climate is ALWAYS changing...

    Humankind is not in ANY danger of imminent demise due to Climate Change.

    THIS IS FACT.... Whether you acknowledge it or not..

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NONE OF IT MATTERS to the survival of the planet and the human race...
    THAT's the fact that you ignore..

    THAT is an opinion, and not a well supported one. While not necessarily 'imminent' as we measure time, the changes will pose a threat to humans.

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    It states so right in the article. Not "anonymous sources" but a direct quote from the investigating agency..

    Well, isn't this special? You actually do like those newspaper articles when you "think" they share your views.

    You seem blissfully unaware that the definition of "anonymous" is an unnamed source, and you're claiming here that an "investigating agency" gave a direct quote. Surely I don't have to explain direct quotes to you, right? I see no quotes of any person in your newspaper excerpt (no link either). I hate to state the obvious here, but "multiple U.S. officials" telling NBC News are... in fact... anonymous sources because no one person is actually identified.

    Additionally, do you seriously believe the Federal Bureau of Investigation is going to go on record and give a direct quote to a newspaper reporter about whether or not they suspect someone of a crime during a counterintelligence and criminal investigation? Of course, they'll strategically leak information to newspapers... anonymously, of course. ;)

    Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him.

    I got bad news for you Mr. LEO, that also does not mean they don't suspect him of a crime either. This type article is usually followed by a leaked article with more information about what investigators already know because they'll want Mr. Kushner to assume they know everything; that way he'll be more forthcoming. Mr. Kushner's got some explaining to do about why he left multiple contacts with Russians off his SF-86, and they'll want him to assume they've talked to his buddy Mr. Flynn and that they already know the answer. As I said, Mr. Kushner's lawyer has already conceded that Mr. Kushner left off these multiple contacts. Watch this space and stay tuned... should get interesting.

    Like I've said before, it sounds like your LEO credentials came from Trump University. These little insights into your "knowledge" speak volumes; thank you so much for revealing your "expertise."

    Here's a thought..

    Why don't you wait until you actually have some FACTS before you open yer fat trap??

    You forgot to say "nanner nanner boo boo." This is the argument of a 5-year-old child, and I'm quite sure that's not fair to most 5 year olds.

    I know, I know.. You'll NEVER post again if you have to post FACTS..

    Your monotonous rants that split hairs (which even CW busted you for), "correct" other posters like TS above who rightly remarked that Norway has colorful money (newsflash: Norway is not in the EU and has their own currency), and choosing to ignore facts that are actually posted prove without doubt that there is a chasm between what you think you know and what you actually do know. Please keep demonstrating your dearth of knowledge. Your willingness to volunteer the level of your ignorance is a real time saver for the rest of the group. :)

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    I got bad news for you Mr. LEO, that also does not mean they don't suspect him of a crime either.

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I really don't know how to answer such stoopidity other than to laugh my ass off.. :D

    You read ANYTHING you want into an article just to satisfy your Party bigotry...

    PWNED... :D

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    THAT is an opinion, and not a well supported one.

    So, you actually BELIEVE that humankind is in imminent danger of extinction due to the climate changing???

    There is no hope for you on this issue then.. :D

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria...

    You forgot to say "nanner nanner boo boo." This is the argument of a 5-year-old child, and I'm quite sure that's not fair to most 5 year olds.

    I realize that, in your world, asking for FACTS is immature...

    But, you live in the REAL world, sunshine..

    Try and keep up, Victoria...

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    102

    So I see you're not going to explain to the group why you insisted your unnamed source wasn't "anonymous," and while you're busy not explaining that, I guess you're also not going to explain to the group why you insist that one sentence from a newspaper means the FBI definitely does not suspect Jared Kushner of a crime, particularly when his lawyer has already conceded that Mr. Kushner left off multiple foreign contacts from his SF-86, which if done intentionally in order to conceal it actually is a federal crime (as noted on the SF-86 to which he signed his name). Newsflash: There could be a rational explanation for why Jared Kushner failed to list numerous foreign contacts on his SF-86, and if there is, the FBI is going to want to know what that is. It's no big secret that they're in a spy hunt at the FBI in the middle of a counterintelligence and criminal investigation.

    You read ANYTHING you want into an article just to satisfy your Party bigotry...

    Wow... It takes a special kind of stupid for you to post 3 sentences and no link, and then assume I read something into those 3 sentences you're calling an "article." Obviously, I didn't read anything into the article you didn't post. *LOL*

    Those who worked on the Trump campaign and then became part of the Trump administration each have failed to report multiple meetings with foreign contacts from Russia: Flynn, Kushner, Sessions. If you actually believe that one sentence from a newspaper proves that the FBI doesn't suspect Mr. Kushner of a crime, particularly after his lawyer has already conceded that he omitted multiple foreign contacts from his SF-86, which if omitted in order to conceal them actually is a felony, then your special kind of stupid is off the charts.

    I really don't know how to answer such stoopidity other than to laugh my ass off.. :D

    Since the majority of the time, your head seems to be planted firmly up your "ass," careful that you don't laugh off what little of your tiny brain that you've got left. :)

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    104

    You came back almost an hour later to add more stupid stuff? Yes, your posts do make you sound stupid, and yes you just confirmed that fact by coming back to add more to the same post.

    But, you live in the REAL world, sunshine..

    Yes, I do live in the REAL world... as opposed to the ALTERNATE UNIVERSE you're obviously living in; you'll get no argument from me there, snowflake. :)

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You came back almost an hour later to add more stupid stuff? Yes, your posts do make you sound stupid, and yes you just confirmed that fact by coming back to add more to the same post.

    WOW.. You really ARE tracking me tight, aren't ya??

    I must have REALLY gotten under yer skin.. :D

    Yes, I do live in the REAL world... as opposed to the ALTERNATE UNIVERSE you're obviously living in; you'll get no argument from me there, snowflake. :)

    Ahhhh the old "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" argument..

    What are you?? Like 7???

    BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "You can't win!! I've got GOD on my side!!!"
    -Max von Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    107

    WOW.. You really ARE tracking me tight, aren't ya??

    I read your post the same way I read them all. Reading an entire post comes from decades of training and paying attention to details, but naturally you wouldn't understand that since you're a product of Trump University. *LOL*

    I must have REALLY gotten under yer skin.. :D

    I'm not the one who answered a post and then came back almost an hour later to answer the same post again. You sure stewed a long time on that one... except you still didn't explain how an unnamed source isn't an anonymous source. You really should pay more attention to detail. :p

    Ahhhh the old "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" argument..

    No, it's the "I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE AND YOU SHOULD GIVE IT A TRY" argument. You said I lived in the REAL world, and I agreed with you... you really should try living in REALITY every so often.

    Let the voice of reason shine,
    Let the pious vanish for all times,
    God's face is, hidden, all unseen,
    You can't ask him what it all means
    He was never on your side,
    God was never on your side
    Let right or wrong, alone decide,
    God was never on your side.
    ~ Motörhead

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria

    I read your post the same way I read them all.

    So, you read ALL my posts...

    I have you hooked... :D

    you really should try living in REALITY every so often.

    Says the girl who thought that Candidate Trump would NEVER have the GOP nomination..

    Says the girl who thought that President Trump would NEVER win Pennsylvania..

    Says the girl who thought that President Trump would NEVER win Florida...

    Says the girl who thought that President Trump would NEVER be President. :D

    The *FACTS* clearly show who is living in reality and who is living in a dream world.. :D

    I know, I know. You don't like *FACTS* that totally decimates any argument you make..

    But that's the great thing about *FACTS*... They are there whether you agree with them or not.. :D

    PWNED.....

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    109

    I read your post the same way I read them all.

    So, you read ALL my posts...

    *LOL* You prove over and over that you're more interested in discussing posters versus having any real discussion about issues. No, I don't read ALL your posts, but the ones I do read, like everything on the Internet, I read the whole post and notice the details including the date and time stamp... comes from years of training and recent developments. No, you claiming I read ALL your posts just proves yet again your problem with reading comprehension, and you really needn't keep posting to prove that. I'm skipping over the majority of your posts lately because... seriously... anyone who has read 10 of your posts, they've pretty much read them all. Your cut-and-paste prattling doesn't change much over time, although it's quite obvious you're entertaining to yourself... but few others. It is comical to watch your tedious redundancy like you wake up every day with your tiny mind wiped clean and every day is like Groundhog Day where you start over. The only difference is, Bill Murray's character got better and better while you repeat the same shit and learn absolutely nothing.

    I have you hooked... :D

    Yes, I am hooked on skipping the majority of your redundant shit. Troll harder, learn something.

    Says the girl who thought that Candidate Trump would NEVER have the GOP nomination..

    Oh, your lies again. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else yet again... not at all a big surprise considering your dearth of intellect and reading disability.

    Says the girl who thought that President Trump would NEVER win Pennsylvania..

    President Trump didn't win Pennsylvania, you moron. President Trump would have to run for reelection in 2020 in order for that to happen, but you'll always have 2016 to entertain yourself with and prattle on and on about as if it's new every day.

    The question is, will you learn something from 2016 or continue to be a useful idiot?

    https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/how-the-trump-russia-data-machine-games-google-to.html
    ^^^^^ CLICK, CLICK -- Learn Something ^^^^^

    Says the girl who thought that President Trump would NEVER win Florida...

    President Trump didn't win Florida. Again, President Trump can't win any state unless he runs for reelection.

    Says the girl who thought that President Trump would NEVER be President. :D

    If he's President Trump, he was already President. It ain't rocket science.

    The *FACTS* clearly show who is living in reality and who is living in a dream world.. :D

    The *FACTS* clearly show you're obsessed with focusing on other posters and trolling versus anything resembling a fact. The facts clearly show that you're the kind of guy who enjoys reaching deep into the toilet and fishing out your own excrement and showing it regularly to anybody who'll look... you can go potty all by yourself, we know, we've all seen the waving shit in your hands ad nauseam.

    But that's the great thing about *FACTS*... They are there whether you agree with them or not.. :D

    Your shit is not facts, and neither is Trump's. Benedict Donald knew who would be susceptible to his con by following their waving hands full of shit. The Birther nonsense was a giant clue; Trump never believed that lying spew, but he knew your ilk would eat that shit up and spew it back and become useful idiots.

    The sad fact is, if you really loved America like you claim you do, at some point you'll stop being their useful idiot and buying into/posting/waving their spoon-fed shit and realize that you've been played and are still being played by propaganda. They're spoon-feeding you new shit that is fake shit and telling you it's old news, and you're eating it up and spewing it back here like a trained monkey. They think you're stupid, and you can either prove them right and keep spewing their propaganda or you can at least learn to check the date and time stamps of the shit you're being spoon-fed and spare the rest of us who already know shit when we see it. :)

Comments for this article are closed.