Politics Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

[Denny Crane]

What an awful choice between the two parties. An out and out racist vs. a career white collar criminal. I do not believe the country would be better off with Hiliar as president. And I would really hate to see Trump get elected and get any of his horrible social proposals passed.

In the 1970s (and earlier), Trump owned properties refused to rent to black people. Whether that kind of thing should be allowed or not, it speaks to how he really views black people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it

 

[MarAzul]

What an awful choice between the two parties. An out and out racist vs. a career white collar criminal. I do not believe the country would be better off with Hiliar as president. And I would really hate to see Trump get elected and get any of his horrible social proposals passed.

In the 1970s (and earlier), Trump owned properties refused to rent to black people. Whether that kind of thing should be allowed or not, it speaks to how he really views black people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it

Geez! Denny needs to learn, when you smear shit around, the trick is not to get any on you.

"In the end the government couldn’t prove its case"

 

[Denny Crane]

Geez! Denny needs to learn, when you smear shit around, the trick is not to get any on you.

"In the end the government couldn’t prove its case"

Trump's a liar. About that, too. You quoted HIM, not the author of the article.

This is the reality of it:

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.”

Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

Goldweber, the Justice lawyer who originally argued the case, said it was a clear government victory.

The government “had the [racial] coding, they had the testers , and had the testimony of people who worked there,” said Goldweber, now a private practice lawyer in New York. “It was an important, significant step for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. It was a big deal.”

 

[MarAzul]

Trump's a liar. About that, too. You quoted HIM, not the author of the article.

Did the government settle? They don't settle cases they can prove.

 

[MarAzul]

Our government is flaw as hell the way it can bagger people and businesses with threats of action and even law suits even when they can not prove the charges. They have stables of lawyers and no person or company can stand up to this harassment for long. They force people into these
"Consent Decrees" and tell you what you can not do even when you may never have done the alleged. It may not be unconstitutional but it surely is not within keeping to the spirit of the Constitution. Yes, I do have experience with the process.

To see them claim an important victory as a result of this sort of process is disgusting.

 

[Denny Crane]

Did the government settle? They don't settle cases they can prove.

Yes they do.

In criminal cases, it's called a plea bargain.

They do similar things in civil cases.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ralph Nader on Trump, Hiliar:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...good-hillary-clintons-winning-by-dictatorship

The liberal activist says Trump has brought some important issues to the fore.

"He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street – I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important," Nader says. "But he's lowered the level of political debate to unheard-of depths of salacious, slanderous and vacuousness, garnished with massive self-boosterism and repetition."

"And that's not good, because that brought a lot of money into the media and that's the kind of debates they're going to want to goad."

When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat" who would have been defeated by Sanders if every state held an open primary.

"She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote," he says.

To date, Clinton has captured 3 million moretotal votes than Sanders, but Nader argues the results would be different if independents were allowed to participate in each state.

 

[jlprk]

And yet, when I say that Bernie keeps winning primaries, your answer to me is to criticize Bernie. But in posts like this new one, you want to have it both ways, by using him as a foil to club Clinton. You don't like Nader, either.

Conservatives often use liberal criticism, without attributing it to liberals, and infer that the source is conservatives. For example, Fox News has repeated that most Americans think the country is on the wrong path, without saying that at least half of them are liberals saying that, with perpetual war in mind.

 

[Denny Crane]

And yet, when I say that Bernie keeps winning primaries, your answer to me is to criticize Bernie. But in posts like this new one, you want to have it both ways, by using him as a foil to club Clinton. You don't like Nader, either.

Conservatives often use liberal criticism, without attributing it to liberals, and infer that the source is conservatives. For example, Fox News has repeated that most Americans think the country is on the wrong path, without saying that at least half of them are liberals saying that, with perpetual war in mind.

I say Bernie keeps winning primaries. Just that it's not winner take all and Hiliar gets 10 delegates to his 7 each time.

As for right path/wrong path, you kind of guy has been in charge for almost 8 years, with a veto proof congress at the beginning. He had the power and failed to please all those who say wrong track.

 

[jlprk]

You didn't defend your hypocrisy of using politicians you oppose, Nader and Sanders, to club the real threat to Republicans, Clinton, in your Foxy transparent effort to divide and conquer Democrats on the board. (Actually, since only a couple of Democrats have time to read your posts, your writing motive is probably self-therapy. This board is your blog.)

 

[Denny Crane]

You didn't defend your hypocrisy of using politicians you oppose, Nader and Sanders, to club the real threat to Republicans, Clinton, in your Foxy transparent effort to divide and conquer Democrats on the board. (Actually, since only a couple of Democrats have time to read your posts, your writing motive is probably self-therapy. This board is your blog.)

If I used Breitbart or Washington Times, it would start from an opposite bias.

Why do a huge majority of Americans think Hiliar is criminal, untrustworthy, etc.?

Sanders' economics are nutso, but nobody says he's untrustworthy. Except Hiliar, of course.

 

[Denny Crane]

What an awful choice between the two parties. An out and out racist vs. a career white collar criminal. I do not believe the country would be better off with Hiliar as president. And I would really hate to see Trump get elected and get any of his horrible social proposals passed.

In the 1970s (and earlier), Trump owned properties refused to rent to black people. Whether that kind of thing should be allowed or not, it speaks to how he really views black people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it

I use a left wing source here, too.

 

[Road Ratt]

Let's talk about Sanders then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...onfirmed-sanders-is-selling-a-fantasy-agenda/

Confirmed: Sanders is selling a fantasy agenda

The Urban Institute’s president, Sarah Rosen Wartell, worked in the Bill Clinton White House and co-founded the Center for American Progress in 2003 with Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and Hillary Clinton’s current campaign chair, John Podesta. The State Department, while under Clinton’s charge, donated millions to the Institute (as it did before and after her tenure).

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...-sanders-stories-out-one-tax-study-over-seven



Surprise, surprise. The Urban Institute's current president, The Urban Institute being the author of the analysis in the article against Sanders, worked for Bill Clinton and has ties to Hillary's current campaign chair.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...-sanders-stories-out-one-tax-study-over-seven



Surprise, surprise. The Urban Institute's current president, The Urban Institute being the author of the analysis in the article against Sanders, worked for Bill Clinton and has ties to Hillary's current campaign chair.

That's not the author of the study.

AP, Reuters, NPR, CNBC, Bloomberg, UPI, vox.com, Chicago Tribune, CNN, the NYTimes, and too numerous to list others have reported all along about the ridiculous costs of Sanders' plan. More than one study, too. So the Clinton connection thing doesn't ring true.

CFRB also found $13T+ in deficits from Sanders' plan in their separate analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...stion-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0


Refutes the Clinton relationship deflection. Have a read and look for new spin.

 

[Denny Crane]

A week ago, WaPost published this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anders-has-the-right-approach-to-health-care/

2000 doctors say Bernie Sanders has the right approach to health care

 

[MarAzul]

A week ago, WaPost published this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anders-has-the-right-approach-to-health-care/

2000 doctors say Bernie Sanders has the right approach to health care

Gee 2000! I wonder what the other 848,000 and a few have to say about the issue?
Most of them don't like MediCare so I wouldn't think they would be enthralled with more of the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

My father was a doctor. 30% of his patients pro bono, and most of the rest Medicare/Medicaid. A good chunk of his staff was dedicated to getting paid by the government. He used to bitch about that a lot, mainly it took a long time to get paid and a fraction of what he billed.

That's single payer.

Medicare is bankrupting the government sooner than later. Medicare for all is just as unprofitable, but in more volume.

There aren't anywhere near enough administrative costs to cut. Sanders' far too optimistic assumptions are what analysts keep pointing to. To make the program fiscally sound, doctors and hospitals would have to take huge pay cuts, and services limited.

Sanders' taxes basically max out what the economy could bear before economic growth suffers severely. We've already seen Obama's tax level kill normal growth by as much as 2/3.

I would love the same quality of health care we have now for not even a copayment, but I am a realist.

What government should do is build its own public healthcare system. Like the VA. Build hospitals, buy equipment, hire doctors and nurses, buy drugs in volume. Treat people who show up, for cost.

If it's so good, the insurance companies and private hospitals and doctors will have to cut costs and prices to compete. Subsidies for those that can't afford the whole bill.

I don't at all see any handouts or mandates involved.

I'm not really a fan of big government programs, but this one is funded mostly as the post office is. People buy stamps - they'll buy flu shots, too.

It won't bankrupt us or kill our standard of living.

When Medicare first passed, the politicians promised costs would be $6B in 1990. The reality was $75B. That's how government programs work: miss promises and projections by a mile, and massive cost increases over time.

 

[jlprk]

My father was a doctor. 30% of his patients pro bono, and most of the rest Medicare/Medicaid. A good chunk of his staff was dedicated to getting paid by the government. He used to bitch about that a lot, mainly it took a long time to get paid and a fraction of what he billed...Sanders' far too optimistic assumptions are what analysts keep pointing to.

Reagan cut welfare and Medicare by making recipients jump through interminable paperwork hoops. Now, to get disability, it is standard to hire a lawyer and wait a year. Your father's administrative expenses were high because the government resists paying doctors by forcing them to rebill more than once.

Sanders keeps asking, how do all other countries afford it? His critics never answer, because they would have to admit that their cost assumptions are false, not his.

 

[Denny Crane]

Reagan cut welfare and Medicare by making recipients jump through interminable paperwork hoops. Now, to get disability, it is standard to hire a lawyer and wait a year. Your father's administrative expenses were high because the government resists paying doctors by forcing them to rebill more than once.

Sanders keeps asking, how do all other countries afford it? His critics never answer, because they would have to admit that their cost assumptions are false, not his.

Cool story, bro. So you want people to have to get a lawyer an wait a year for treatment? That's how government works.

It wasn't during the 80s when my father's complaints started. 1970s.

Other countries? I just watched a documentary on cancer last night. One woman had it, her sister had it, her mother had it. All at the same time. When her sister got it, they flew to Florida to get treatment because the waiting line in Canada was so long. Once the surgery and treatment plan was set here, they went home to CANADA and got the rest of the chemotherapy there.

In addition, long waiting lines and not so great care discourages people from going to the doctor or clinic.

The moral of the story is they don't afford it anywhere near what Bernie promises. We don't afford Medicare even.

Reagan saved Social Security. The big lug.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://khn.org/ama-physician-medicare-pay/

AMA Head Predicts ‘Catastrophe’ If Physician Medicare Pay Isn’t Fixed

If Congress doesn’t block the looming payment cuts, “this will be a catastrophe,” Wilson said, with more and more doctors leaving the program and seniors having a harder time getting in to see doctors.

...

Q: But your efforts so far haven’t worked and now we’re in a very severe fiscal situation. Maybe the AMA doesn’t have the clout it used to have in Congress?

A: Well, this is not about the AMA; this is about senior citizens who need care. I can just tell you from my own [experience in] Winter Park, Fla., the conversation in the grocery store lines [or] at the shopping mart is, “Do you know any physician who is still taking new Medicare patients?” And the answer is no.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150202/NEWS/302029967

Obama's 2016 budget cuts Medicare but eliminates sequestration

 

[Road Ratt]

That's not the author of the study.

Your very own quote refutes you...

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

TPC provides timely, accessible analysis and facts about tax policy to policymakers, journalists, citizens, and researchers.

Beyond that. If I checked all of these sites you quote: AP, Reuters, NPR, CNBC, Bloomberg, UPI, vox.com, Chicago Tribune, CNN, the NYTimes, I'm sure I would find that many are direct donors to Hillary Clinton.

Here is a list of corporate media donors to Hillary, CNN (owned by Time Warner and Bloomberg being at least two you listed are top Hillary donors): http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

One word of warning. I will play nice but, never ever tell me what to do.

Have a read and look for new spin.

I don't tolerate crap like this well. You have been warned.

 

[MarAzul]

Man this looks like a great new process. I hope the VA implements it right now, they have me scheduled for scoping in September.
Bad process and I suspect less than half the people actually needed it if the DNA test holds true.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/stool-dna-testing-for-colon-cancer

Has to be a money saver.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your very own quote refutes you...



Beyond that. If I checked all of these sites you quote: AP, Reuters, NPR, CNBC, Bloomberg, UPI, vox.com, Chicago Tribune, CNN, the NYTimes, I'm sure I would find that many are direct donors to Hillary Clinton.

Here is a list of corporate media donors to Hillary, CNN (owned by Time Warner and Bloomberg being at least two you listed are top Hillary donors): http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

One word of warning. I will play nice but, never ever tell me what to do. I don't tolerate crap like this well. You have been warned.

Doubtful.

You expect the economists and news media to sprinkle fairy dust on a turd of a plan and bless it? They're not exactly backing Hiliar's proposals, either. It's just halfway bananas is "closer to realistic."

 

[Road Ratt]

Doubtful.

Only to those in total denial. I showed proof of the biased story and you refute it with nothing.

It's not the only time the media has used flawed, or fully made up, data from a think tank study. This study had to retract an earlier flawed study:

TPC in March estimated that Sanders’s tax plan would raise $15.3 trillion over 10 years. Everyone would pay more taxes under his plan, and most of the new revenue would come from the wealthy.

The Sanders campaign complained that TPC’s tax analysis was “inaccurate and one-sided” because it did not look at the benefits people would receive from the candidate’s spending proposals.

TPC Director Len Burman told reporters that the center “thought the Sanders campaign had a point.”

The center’s latest analysis looks at who wins and who loses once Sanders’s new government benefits are taken into account as well.

TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders’s proposals, TPC said.

Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

“We have never seen a proposal as progressive” as Sanders’s, Burman said.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals

Of course now that they have shown their incompetence neither study should be used with confidence.

You expect the economists and news media to sprinkle fairy dust on a turd of a plan and bless it? They're not exactly backing Hiliar's proposals, either. It's just halfway bananas is "closer to realistic."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01...e-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

Sure, 170 economists are a drop in the bucket. But, I don't see any economists coming out in favor of the other candidates proposals.

I'm not sure where you got the turd from but, break out the shoe polish. The job is yours!

 

[MarAzul]

I don't know if Sanders actually said this but I certainly think it is what should be done.

"that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted."

 

[Road Ratt]

I don't know if Sanders actually said this but I certainly think it is what should be done.

"that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted."

Straight from Bernie's website:

Bernie Sanders wants to implement a new version of the Act, which was repealed in 1999 after having been in effect for more than 75 years.

It seems like a good plan to me. The oligarchs have been taking down a lot of legislation they don't like by legally bribing our politicians. It is only a matter of time before they cause another financial crisis.

 

[Denny Crane]

Only to those in total denial. I showed proof of the biased story and you refute it with nothing.

It's not the only time the media has used flawed, or fully made up, data from a think tank study. This study had to retract an earlier flawed study:



http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals

Of course now that they have shown their incompetence neither study should be used with confidence.



http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01...e-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

Sure, 170 economists are a drop in the bucket. But, I don't see any economists coming out in favor of the other candidates proposals.

I'm not sure where you got the turd from but, break out the shoe polish. The job is yours!

You showed no proof other than those that study politics on a daily basis think Sanders' plans are economic suicide. Reason to support anyone but him.

The math doesn't add up to the promise. Where single payer is tried, wait times are outrageous, research is greatly diminished, treatment is denied or drastically delayed, medical equipment per capita is a fraction of ours, medical professionals are squeezed, etc.

Whoever believes we can save money, add 10s of millions of people to the burden on the system, and maintain a similar quality of care is believing in fantasy.

In the UK, they have an 18 week referral to treatment requirement. People die waiting for treatment.
http://www.uclh.nhs.uk/pandv/choosingourservices/18weeks/Pages/Home.aspx

Wait times in Canada:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/profile/bacchus-barua

Before national health care, Euopean nations produced ~60% of medical breakthroughs. Since, they produce 12%.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v14/n2/full/nm0208-107.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

All sorts of good stuff from NBER (I look forward to your attack on NBER). Includes equipment per capita, wait times, and more.
http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html

Canadian doctors make dramatically less than their U.S. Counterparts
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...dramatically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study

 

[Denny Crane]

Mmmmm... Socialism!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-usa-idUSKCN0Y42MT

 

[Road Ratt]

You showed no proof other than those that study politics on a daily basis think Sanders' plans are economic suicide.

Straight up B.S. . A lot of hand waving and hot air but lacking on facts.

The math doesn't add up to the promise. Where single payer is tried, wait times are outrageous, research is greatly diminished, treatment is denied or drastically delayed, medical equipment per capita is a fraction of ours, medical professionals are squeezed, etc.

The math adds up just fine for those who know what Sanders plan is. Taking away the tax loopholes and off shore tax dodging the elite get away with, which is what Sanders wants to do, would easily pay for single payer here in America.

Of course the U.S. can do a single payer system better than those other countries. Supposedly we are the greatest country on earth. At least that's what they keep trying to blow up our butts.

http://www.thenation.com/article/to...utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow&nc=1

The rich don't pay their fare share, which leaves the 99% carrying the tax burden. Enough for two wars that have stretched over a decade now and costs the U.S. 2-6 trillion dollars and counting, depending on the website you look at. Enough money to have setup a single payer system here in the U.S. plus make Social Security solvent for 100 years with money left over. Yet both the Democrats and Republicans have squandered America's future while the masses blame the other party for their failures. Sheep can't even see that it's both party's ****ing us over.

Whoever believes we can save money, add 10s of millions of people to the burden on the system, and maintain a similar quality of care is believing in fantasy.

Like an ape in a zoo you seem to like to fling your crap. Jabs like these aren't really needed in adult debate...

 

[Road Ratt]

Mmmmm... Socialism!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-usa-idUSKCN0Y42MT

They are America's enemy. The U.S. is very good at screwing over our enemies economy. I've seen videos that show that the U.S. is putting pressure on our Arab buddies to hurt Russia over Crimea as well as Venezuela. After all that I have seen I wouldn't doubt them one bit.

This article shows who is currently being hurt by low oil prices. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29643612