George Will: Young people consider GOP "the dumb party"

[RiverDog]

This is what I worry about with the Trump presidency. IMO Trump is driving the Republican party so far to the right that he's alienating younger people that have always had the tendency to think more liberally than their preceding generations. It's important to note that Will is a long time conservative columnist that has covered politics for nearly 50 years.

Conservative columnist and author George Will told CNBC on Thursday that young people consider the Republican Party "the dumb party" while warning that the GOP is "doing its very best to drive them away permanently"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4483 ... dumb-party

Will goes on to note just how naïve the younger generation is:

These are the same young people who say they have warm feelings about socialism, but all they mean by that is that socialism means everyone being sociable and nice to one another. They haven’t thought it through," Will said. "Because the same people who are suspicious, who like socialism, are suspicious of government, so I think that they’re uninformed at this point. But the Republican Party is doing its very best to drive them away permanently.”

I'm afraid that this is what Trump is going to leave as his legacy: A nation heading towards socialism who's voting population hasn't fully thought the matter through.

[burrrton]

I'm afraid that this is what Trump is going to leave as his legacy: A nation heading towards socialism who's voting population hasn't fully thought the matter through.

This may be entirely correct. Scary.

Love George Will.

[RiverDog]

I'm afraid that this is what Trump is going to leave as his legacy: A nation heading towards socialism who's voting population hasn't fully thought the matter through.

This may be entirely correct. Scary.

Love George Will.

Glad we agree. I've worked 40 years and was able to retire quite comfortably, but the one thing that could screw it up would be if the liberal wing of the Democratic party ever take power, they could completely change the health care system and with it, screw with my retirement plan. Younger people still working have time to adjust their strategies to new realities. I don't.

I've always liked George Will, especially on television. He's an articulate conservative, but not a bomb thrower like Limbaugh or Hannity, always respectful of the opposing point of view. If you read some of his other recent pieces, he's no fan of DJT.

[Hawktawk]

This right here^^^^. But you’re not describing the party correctly . It’s no longer the Republican Party at all. It’s the trump party.

Guys like George Will , Bill Krystal , Joe Scarbarough have no place in it nor do I.


The prospect of runaway liberalism/socialism is a nauseating concept to they and I and I’m certainly not alone but the party’s Neanderthal positions on most every issue and the baring of every negative stereotype the party has tried to shake for decades will drive this nation to a whipsaw reaction.

I think we saw it in the midterms where the trump base turned out in force and was still overwhelmed by almost 9 points and 6 million votes in the national popular vote.

Polls show Trump losing to not just Biden but socialist sanders and far left liberals like warren , gay mayor Buttigieg, Harris etc. Honestly he would likely be losing to Daffy Duck or dirt clod if it were in the poll. This following the naked emperor is going to have dreadful permanent ramifications for the party I’ve supported my whole life.

[burrrton]

If you read some of his other recent pieces, he's no fan of DJT.

Understatement.

[RiverDog]

This right here^^^^. But you’re not describing the party correctly . It’s no longer the Republican Party at all. It’s the trump party.

Yea, pretty much.

The prospect of runaway liberalism/socialism is a nauseating concept to they and I and I’m certainly not alone but the party’s Neanderthal positions on most every issue and the baring of every negative stereotype the party has tried to shake for decades will drive this nation to a whipsaw reaction.

My wife has been on Medicare for two years and it's not as bad as we'd heard. But the problem is that doctors and hospitals don't make a lot of money off Medicare patients and even less off Medicaid patients so most doctors have a limit on how many of those patients they'll take. They can absorb the lower revenue they get from Medicare when there's a relatively limited number of people on it, but if they ever go to this "Medicare for All" and embark on a major expansion of the program, there's going to be doctors and hospitals cutting back on services. You'll have months long waits or long trips to get things like MRI's.

Same with drugs. If drug companies aren't allowed to make a profit, and in some cases, a large profit, there will be no motivation for them to dump a bunch of money into R&D, so we'll end up with a lot of cheap Ibuprofen and aspirin but no new drugs for preventing cancer and Alzheimer's. That's what George Will was talking about when he said that most Millennials haven't thought the concept through. All they hear is that they're going to get a bunch of free chit.

I think we saw it in the midterms where the trump base turned out in force and was still overwhelmed by almost 9 points and 6 million votes in the national popular vote.

The midterms may not be a good indicator of the following general election. Although 2018 was a bigger than usual win, the party out of power always does well in the midterms.

Polls show Trump losing to not just Biden but socialist sanders and far left liberals like warren , gay mayor Buttigieg, Harris etc. Honestly he would likely be losing to Daffy Duck or dirt clod if it were in the poll.

Way too early to start looking at head-to-head matchups. Although it's always better to be ahead in the polls than it is behind, we're still over 16 months from the general election. A lot can happen between now and then. The Dems could very well shoot themselves in the foot if they let the liberal wing of the party run the show.

[idhawkman]

Way too early to start looking at head-to-head matchups. Although it's always better to be ahead in the polls than it is behind, we're still over 16 months from the general election. A lot can happen between now and then. The Dems could very well shoot themselves in the foot if they let the liberal wing of the party run the show.

According to most indicators, (polls, news, etc) it really doesn't matter until about 10 days before the election. Wasn't that when the news and left said that Comey turned the election around by announcing the Weiner emails?

[RiverDog]

Way too early to start looking at head-to-head matchups. Although it's always better to be ahead in the polls than it is behind, we're still over 16 months from the general election. A lot can happen between now and then. The Dems could very well shoot themselves in the foot if they let the liberal wing of the party run the show.

According to most indicators, (polls, news, etc) it really doesn't matter until about 10 days before the election. Wasn't that when the news and left said that Comey turned the election around by announcing the Weiner emails?

I disagree. You really start paying attention after the conventions. Both candidates will get a 'bump' following their convention, so once that bump has taken effect, you can get a sense as to which candidate is ahead.

In 1968, Richard Nixon was far ahead in the polls after the conventions, but polls showed his lead gradually being eroded by his opponent Hubert Humphrey. As his campaign staff was debating how to change their tactics so as to stop this trend, Nixon sat in the corner with a pencil and scratch paper and finally said "we don't have to change anything." He figured out how big his lead was and how much he could afford to lose per week and still be ahead in November, and that's exactly how it played out.

If you look at 2016, you can see how Hillary's lead was gradually slipping from the 3rd week of September through October, and that trend carried through until election day.

Obviously polls aren't the same as votes and they can and have been wrong, but they are indicators that warrant keeping an eye on, even at this early stage. Certainly the candidates think they mean something. Indeed, Trump is kicking off his 2020 campaign in Orlando, FL, where he is currently running behind in the polls. He knows that he needs FL if he is to have any chance of winning re-election, so they need to start repairing bridges now while the Dems are focused on IA and NH.

[Hawktawk]

ID and I dont usually agree in OT but unless he was being totally sarcastic the weiner E mails might have been the lynchpin that finally doomed the worst least popular Democratic candidate ever to lose to the worst most unpopular republican candidate ever. She ran a terrible campaign from her slogan to her lazy overconfident attitude ignoring rust belt states she thought were in the bag to her idiotic basket of deplorables comment that trumps zombie army wore as a badge of honor. Then there was the Russian interference the impact of which cannot really be accurately measured but may have tipped several close states such as Michigan where Trump won by 11 K votes out of many millions cast.

It was recently revealed that the Russian intelligence hackers had actually breached the voter rolls in at least 2 Florida counties in 2016. The FBI briefed some state lawmakers a few weeks ago but only after they signed a non disclosure agreement, highly unusual to say the least. One county in the panhandle was leaked and records show it went 75% for trump. As I say we will never know the full extent of it and Trump just said come on back in 2020 on ABC.

But IMO foreign in interference may be the only hope Trump has in 2020 if he faces Biden, O'Rourke, or Harris to name a few. If he's lucky enough to Draw Sanders which is less and less likely or god forbid Warren then maybe.

Buttigeig is a complete wild card. The gay married thing is the only reason hes not leading in the polls IMO as he is a very intelligent well spoken man with a history of service to his country and proven ability to run a government organization, a knowledge of the issues etc.

Either way I think Trump's polls do matter quite a bit. He inherited a good economy, a booming stock market, relative peace abroad and can claim to have at least kept several campaign promises and tried to keep others and yet hes NEVER been above water at any point in 2.5 years in office.He's in the low to mid 50s disapproval in the rust belt. Hes well behind Biden in TEXAS and when no democratic candidate has led any republican candidate there in 30 years 18 months out of the election that matters.Every time he starts inching up he does some stupid thing to shoot himself in the foot.

It's not the message so much as the man. I think it was Asea that said everyone is just getting sick of him. His tweets get far fewer re tweets, his continual name calling and 5th grade insults are increasingly falling flat. Then the party he controls with its all out attacks on any access to abortion etc when Trump is already in the mid 30% range among women is a disaster. Nobody likes abortion but 70+ % think it should be legal in some fashion.Again, it's a cro magnon neanderthal stupid ham fisted strategy employed by a bunch of old white men against one of the most powerful and reliable voting blocs in the country. Even among evangelicals his support has slipped to 69%

Barring some monumental breakthrough in trade, perhaps a war or him going and getting help for his mental illness and getting on some prescription meds I think hes a one term guy. And barring a pardon or something he might be the first indicted ex president.

[RiverDog]

But IMO foreign in interference may be the only hope Trump has in 2020 if he faces Biden, O'Rourke, or Harris to name a few. If he's lucky enough to Draw Sanders which is less and less likely or god forbid Warren then maybe.

Buttigeig is a complete wild card. The gay married thing is the only reason hes not leading in the polls IMO as he is a very intelligent well spoken man with a history of service to his country and proven ability to run a government organization, a knowledge of the issues etc.

Speaking for myself, I won't be voting for Warren or Sanders because they're both confirmed socialist. I'm not sure about O'Rourke or Harris as I haven't done much research on them and probably won't unless they win the nomination. I agree with you about Mayor Pete, that he does sound good in interviews. I haven't done a lot of research on him, either. If he's not a socialist, I'd certainly vote for him but like you, I don't think the nation is ready for an openly gay POTUS.

It's not the message so much as the man. I think it was Asea that said everyone is just getting sick of him. His tweets get far fewer re tweets, his continual name calling and 5th grade insults are increasingly falling flat. Then the party he controls with its all out attacks on any access to abortion etc when Trump is already in the mid 30% range among women is a disaster. Nobody likes abortion but 70+ % think it should be legal in some fashion.Again, it's a cro magnon neanderthal stupid ham fisted strategy employed by a bunch of old white men against one of the most powerful and reliable voting blocs in the country. Even among evangelicals his support has slipped to 69%.

This I agree with. Trump might have gone too far in his re-tweet of the faked video of Pelosi being drunk during an interview. I saw a discussion as to how politicians in both parties are extremely concerned with how easy it is to alter videos and photo shop pictures and how difficult it is to tell the fakes from the actual. If Trump is seen as promoting these kinds of attacks, it could resonate with a lot of his otherwise loyal supporters.

[burrrton]

Trump might have gone too far in his re-tweet of the faked video of Pelosi being drunk during an interview.

He didn't RT the slowed-down video- he RT'd one that was a 'supercut' of her stumbling statements (she's like Obama impromptu- terrible).

[RiverDog]

Trump might have gone too far in his re-tweet of the faked video of Pelosi being drunk during an interview.

He didn't RT the slowed-down video- he RT'd one that was a 'supercut' of her stumbling statements (she's like Obama impromptu- terrible).

OK, my bad, I was mistaken on exactly which fake video Trump re-tweeted. The point is that he's spreading faked videos that show a political opponent in a bad light. I don't want to go so far as to say that he knew it was fake before he tweeted it, but it sure fits with a pattern of behavior of his that includes his mocking of a disabled reporter and his continued disrespect for a dead war hero that IMO constitutes a disgrace to the office he holds.

It's this type of behavior I was referring to in an earlier post of mine when I said that a POTUS is more than just the head of the government, that I want a person with a little more sense of respect and personal dignity to represent me as the leader of my country.

[Aseahawkfan]

Everyone wants to make these sweeping declarations. Young people have been pushed towards socialism through highly liberal education for a while now. If you attend college of almost any kind, you can see the liberal bias at the school and with the teachers. Any conservative teacher is almost looked at as an outsider. You may have schools that lean conservative and produce conservative students, but for the most part college level education has been decidedly liberal and producing liberal students. it's no accident that a state like Washington State is one of the most educated states and one of the most liberal along with many other tech oriented states. And being Green has been heavily promoted with huge funding by several organizations and individuals, even though folks are going to find out later on that producing Green technology also isn't the most environmentally friendly energy when it is produced for seven billion people. No one wants to read on the waste involved with Green energy until it too becomes a headache.

The socialism young people support is not the European socialism of old, but the new Social Democracy of places like Scandinavia and Germany. These place are socio-capitalist. They have socialized medicine and higher education along with the standard services we socialize like the military, police, and bureaucracy, but they also support capitalism. In fact, I think a little German style capitalism would be good for the nation. Germany strongly supports small to mid-sized businesses incentivizing larger corporations to use small and mid size businesses as their primary supplier. It is called the Mittelstand. It's a very good business model.

I don't fear the socialism being promoted by the modern left like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez as much as others. It's not your Grandpa's Socialism. It may be good for the nation.

Ideas that I don't find good for the nation are Universal Basic Income and trash like that. People need to work, not be encouraged to be lazy and unproductive. We need a culture of excellence back. Germany has managed to maintain a culture of excellence and prosperity while having socialized medicine and education. It seems to support their business structure.

As far as Trump, he's a passing fad. America is a country of constant change. One guy isn't going to destroy the Republican or Democratic Party. This whole idea that one guy will have this extreme effect is ridiculous. None of these parties would have survived if one idiot could destroy them because an idiot has run both parties before and likely will again. If the Republicans lose too much power, they will adjust their messaging to court voters as they have done many times whether it was G.W. Junior courting Hispanic voters with his immigration tolerance or Bill Clinton touting business friendly policies with a centrist message. As stupid as some of these politicians seem sometimes, the aggregate is generally fairly intelligent. Even now the Republican Party is weathering the passing Trump Fart until he passes into the wind in 2 to 6 years, just like every other president.

What I would like to get out of this is some real reform to some processes like watching closer this foreign oppo research. Trump may be the dumbass that spoke plainly about it in public, but let's be real: we all knew these SoB politicians were getting foreign information. We've all heard the rumors, seen the fundraisers, and know that these power groups mingle with each other on vacations and at events and the like, not to mention the use of consultants and PACs to use the information while skirting the legal system. It would be nice to further reform some of these loopholes all the politicians use to allow foreign interference in our elections given how important American sympathy is for certain groups like the Saudis, Israel, China, Russia, and just about every nation in the world. It would be real nice to clean some of this up and get them out of our affairs.

[Aseahawkfan]

ID and I dont usually agree in OT but unless he was being totally sarcastic the weiner E mails might have been the lynchpin that finally doomed the worst least popular Democratic candidate ever to lose to the worst most unpopular republican candidate ever. She ran a terrible campaign from her slogan to her lazy overconfident attitude ignoring rust belt states she thought were in the bag to her idiotic basket of deplorables comment that trumps zombie army wore as a badge of honor. Then there was the Russian interference the impact of which cannot really be accurately measured but may have tipped several close states such as Michigan where Trump won by 11 K votes out of many millions cast.

It was recently revealed that the Russian intelligence hackers had actually breached the voter rolls in at least 2 Florida counties in 2016. The FBI briefed some state lawmakers a few weeks ago but only after they signed a non disclosure agreement, highly unusual to say the least. One county in the panhandle was leaked and records show it went 75% for trump. As I say we will never know the full extent of it and Trump just said come on back in 2020 on ABC.

But IMO foreign in interference may be the only hope Trump has in 2020 if he faces Biden, O'Rourke, or Harris to name a few. If he's lucky enough to Draw Sanders which is less and less likely or god forbid Warren then maybe.

Buttigeig is a complete wild card. The gay married thing is the only reason hes not leading in the polls IMO as he is a very intelligent well spoken man with a history of service to his country and proven ability to run a government organization, a knowledge of the issues etc.

Either way I think Trump's polls do matter quite a bit. He inherited a good economy, a booming stock market, relative peace abroad and can claim to have at least kept several campaign promises and tried to keep others and yet hes NEVER been above water at any point in 2.5 years in office.He's in the low to mid 50s disapproval in the rust belt. Hes well behind Biden in TEXAS and when no democratic candidate has led any republican candidate there in 30 years 18 months out of the election that matters.Every time he starts inching up he does some stupid thing to shoot himself in the foot.

It's not the message so much as the man. I think it was Asea that said everyone is just getting sick of him. His tweets get far fewer re tweets, his continual name calling and 5th grade insults are increasingly falling flat. Then the party he controls with its all out attacks on any access to abortion etc when Trump is already in the mid 30% range among women is a disaster. Nobody likes abortion but 70+ % think it should be legal in some fashion.Again, it's a cro magnon neanderthal stupid ham fisted strategy employed by a bunch of old white men against one of the most powerful and reliable voting blocs in the country. Even among evangelicals his support has slipped to 69%

Barring some monumental breakthrough in trade, perhaps a war or him going and getting help for his mental illness and getting on some prescription meds I think hes a one term guy. And barring a pardon or something he might be the first indicted ex president.

Just don't go back to sleep, Hawktawk once the jackass is gone. Trump may have shined a big old reality star spotlight on American politics and the sickening problems, but he didn't create them.

I told you the Saudis been using us and us them for ages. That is a toxic relationship. You will notice that neither the Republicans nor Democrats did a damn thing to put them back in line. They whined a little. Let a few politicians make some "noble" speeches. They introduced a bill they knew wouldn't pass. Then once the press dropped it, both Repubs and Dems wiped their respective brows and said, "Glad I don't have to pretend we were going to do anything about Saudi Arabia any more. I don't want those gas prices going up or I'll lose my seat at the table. Who cares if they killed a few naturalized Americans. Gotta keep the Saudis happy or we have bigger headaches."

Now we're trying to justify taking out Iran. Just great. Though I imagine if we took out Iran, the Middle East would be like a sea of tranquility for the United States as long as they could contain the instability regionally. An Iran with friendly relations with the United States would pretty much mean we had near zero to worry about there. I'm sure the warhawks are dreaming of that day waiting for a reason to launch a war to take them out. The Saudis will gladly help us eliminate their last annoying enemy in the Middle East. Now I am a little worried the warhawks may push Trump to attack Iran, especially if he wins a second term.

Once again, stay awake. Trump's an asshat, But he isn't the problem. He's just the brazen idiot that doesn't know how to play the political game in Washington D.C. to keep the masses pacified.

[RiverDog]

The socialism young people support is not the European socialism of old, but the new Social Democracy of places like Scandinavia and Germany. These place are socio-capitalist. They have socialized medicine and higher education along with the standard services we socialize like the military, police, and bureaucracy, but they also support capitalism. In fact, I think a little German style capitalism would be good for the nation. Germany strongly supports small to mid-sized businesses incentivizing larger corporations to use small and mid size businesses as their primary supplier. It is called the Mittelstand. It's a very good business model.

I don't fear the socialism being promoted by the modern left like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez as much as others. It's not your Grandpa's Socialism. It may be good for the nation.

ASF, you often times chide me and others about our failure in your eyes to educate ourselves on some historical aspect in world affairs. Have you researched what this move towards socialism, particularly in the field of medicine will mean if the liberal Dems take control? Well, I have, and what I've read scares me. Here's two examples:

The United States is BY FAR the country that spends the most money and produces the most new and effective drugs in the world. Take a look at this chart:

https://www.quora.com/Which-country-dev ... tive-drugs

Other countries with socialist medicine sponge off our research and development. If we go to a socialistic system similar to those in western Europe and regulate drug companies by fixing prices, we will indeed lower our cost to acquire drugs that are currently available, but without a profit motive, companies will start cutting back on R&D and instead focus on producing existing drugs as cheaply as they can. New drugs take an extremely long time to test and refine before they can get approved by the FDA. If you sell those new drugs at the same price it costs to manufacture generic drugs, they will not be able to recover their R&D expenses.

Here's another article that shows where most of the research and development in the field of medicine is being done and compares our performance against western Europe that everyone is so anxious for us to model our medical system after:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewher ... d869eb1a71

Of almost 3,000 articles published in biomedical research in 2009, 1,169, or 40%, came from the United States. As the line graph below demonstrates (that’s the number of publications on the Y axis, and the year of publication on the X axis), the output of every other single country in the world is dwarfed by what America produces. The closest contender is Great Britain, which comes in at about 300 articles.

Once again, those people in our country are doing that research not because they are being motivated by some humanistic quality that only people in the United States posses. They're doing it because they are being funded by companies that are looking to make a profit off new drugs, new equipment, new medical procedures, and so on.

I could cite other examples, but hopefully I've made my point. Yes, it scares me to think of what would happen if the liberal Dems take control and ram their brand of socialism down our throats.

[idhawkman]

ID and I dont usually agree in OT but unless he was being totally sarcastic the weiner E mails might have been the lynchpin that finally doomed the worst least popular Democratic candidate ever to lose to the worst most unpopular republican candidate ever. She ran a terrible campaign from her slogan to her lazy overconfident attitude ignoring rust belt states she thought were in the bag to her idiotic basket of deplorables comment that trumps zombie army wore as a badge of honor. Then there was the Russian interference the impact of which cannot really be accurately measured but may have tipped several close states such as Michigan where Trump won by 11 K votes out of many millions cast.

It was recently revealed that the Russian intelligence hackers had actually breached the voter rolls in at least 2 Florida counties in 2016. The FBI briefed some state lawmakers a few weeks ago but only after they signed a non disclosure agreement, highly unusual to say the least. One county in the panhandle was leaked and records show it went 75% for trump. As I say we will never know the full extent of it and Trump just said come on back in 2020 on ABC.

But IMO foreign in interference may be the only hope Trump has in 2020 if he faces Biden, O'Rourke, or Harris to name a few. If he's lucky enough to Draw Sanders which is less and less likely or god forbid Warren then maybe.

Buttigeig is a complete wild card. The gay married thing is the only reason hes not leading in the polls IMO as he is a very intelligent well spoken man with a history of service to his country and proven ability to run a government organization, a knowledge of the issues etc.

Either way I think Trump's polls do matter quite a bit. He inherited a good economy, a booming stock market, relative peace abroad and can claim to have at least kept several campaign promises and tried to keep others and yet hes NEVER been above water at any point in 2.5 years in office.He's in the low to mid 50s disapproval in the rust belt. Hes well behind Biden in TEXAS and when no democratic candidate has led any republican candidate there in 30 years 18 months out of the election that matters.Every time he starts inching up he does some stupid thing to shoot himself in the foot.

It's not the message so much as the man. I think it was Asea that said everyone is just getting sick of him. His tweets get far fewer re tweets, his continual name calling and 5th grade insults are increasingly falling flat. Then the party he controls with its all out attacks on any access to abortion etc when Trump is already in the mid 30% range among women is a disaster. Nobody likes abortion but 70+ % think it should be legal in some fashion.Again, it's a cro magnon neanderthal stupid ham fisted strategy employed by a bunch of old white men against one of the most powerful and reliable voting blocs in the country. Even among evangelicals his support has slipped to 69%

Barring some monumental breakthrough in trade, perhaps a war or him going and getting help for his mental illness and getting on some prescription meds I think hes a one term guy. And barring a pardon or something he might be the first indicted ex president.

I won't respond to the rest of the post you posted because as you say, this may be the first post in OT we agree (somewhat) on. I was not being sarcastic.

[idhawkman]

OK, my bad, I was mistaken on exactly which fake video Trump re-tweeted. The point is that he's spreading faked videos that show a political opponent in a bad light. I don't want to go so far as to say that he knew it was fake before he tweeted it, but it sure fits with a pattern of behavior of his that includes his mocking of a disabled reporter and his continued disrespect for a dead war hero that IMO constitutes a disgrace to the office he holds.

It's this type of behavior I was referring to in an earlier post of mine when I said that a POTUS is more than just the head of the government, that I want a person with a little more sense of respect and personal dignity to represent me as the leader of my country.

He didn't retweet a fake video River. He retweeted a collage of her stumbling and bumbling through many impromptu questions. She's ok with talking points but I think she's losing a couple of steps in the impromptu area. She's never really been good in this area (think about the "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" statement around Obamacare).

[RiverDog]

He didn't retweet a fake video River. He retweeted a collage of her stumbling and bumbling through many impromptu questions. She's ok with talking points but I think she's losing a couple of steps in the impromptu area. She's never really been good in this area (think about the "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" statement around Obamacare).

Trump re-tweeted a video that was edited/doctored/altered, pick your term. It was not an accurate re-creation of what she was recorded as having said and was manufactured in such a way as to show her in a bad light. In layman's terms, it was a fake.

And once again, it's more of your "pot calling the kettle black" if you're critical of Pelosi' "losing a couple of steps in the impromptu area" without mentioning Trump's almost daily gaffs.

[idhawkman]

Trump re-tweeted a video that was edited/doctored/altered, pick your term. It was not an accurate re-creation of what she was recorded as having said and was manufactured in such a way as to show her in a bad light. In layman's terms, it was a fake.

I must have missed the one you are talking about. Is there a link?

And once again, it's more of your "pot calling the kettle black" if you're critical of Pelosi' "losing a couple of steps in the impromptu area" without mentioning Trump's almost daily gaffs.

If he does it daily, how can he lose a step?

[RiverDog]

Trump re-tweeted a video that was edited/doctored/altered, pick your term. It was not an accurate re-creation of what she was recorded as having said and was manufactured in such a way as to show her in a bad light. In layman's terms, it was a fake.

I must have missed the one you are talking about. Is there a link?

Oh, come off it! Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, your home away from home, was the first network to air the fake. And you tell me that I don't pay attention. Oh, well, here it is, first the original, undoctored version:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w ... real-thing

And the fake that Trump re-tweeted that was aired on Fox:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... hocking%2F

[burrrton]

Yes, it scares me to think of what would happen if the liberal Dems take control and ram their brand of socialism down our throats.

There's also the small matter of the examples they point to where their Socialism** supposedly "works" are places literally a fraction of our size (with little national defense, etc and so on, as you allude to).

What works (to the extent it does) for a tiny, homogenous population can't be directly translated to a nation of 330 million people spread across 50 states covering ~4 million square miles.

** Also, they're not Socialist states. You know who says so? They do. They're capitalistic *welfare states* (and trending more capitalistic by the year), and if you want to move a country our size to their style of welfare state, you damn sure better be able to coherently answer the question "How are you going to pay for it?" (looking at you, Ocasio).

[RiverDog]

Yes, it scares me to think of what would happen if the liberal Dems take control and ram their brand of socialism down our throats.

There's also the small matter of the examples they point to where their Socialism** supposedly "works" are places literally a fraction of our size (with little national defense, etc and so on).

What works (to the extent it does) for a tiny, homogenous population can't be directly translated to a nation of 330 million people spread across 50 states covering ~4 million square miles.

** Also, they're not Socialist states. You know who says so? They do. They're capitalistic *welfare states*, and if you want to move a country our size to their style of welfare state, "how are you going to pay for it" is damn sure a question you need to answer.

Bingo!

This is probably a better comment for the retirement thread we had going a while ago, but my former employer (I've been retired for 1.5 years) has a very generous retiree medical program I'm enrolled in. It's currently subsidizing my pre-65 health insurance premiums (they're still outrageously high, over $1k/month) and once I turn 65 in October and go on Medicare, will give my wife and I $6400/year in health care credits that can be used on Medicare premiums, Medigap premiums, prescription drugs, etc. What I worry about is that the liberal Dems take control and embark on their "Medicare for All", start taxing companies in order to support it, and cause my former employer to throw up their hands and chitcan their retiree medical program.

Just a few months ago, the health care company (Lynx) that my primary care physician was with went out of business. My doctor decided to go to work for the VA, so I had to start looking for a new primary care doctor. When I went to retrieve my records, I told their office that I didn't have any outstanding medical problems so I was going to wait and do some research before deciding on a new doctor. Their response was "Oh, don't wait very long! Most doctors only take a certain number Medicare patients and we had over 2,000 patients in this office that are now going to be looking for a new doctor just like you are. Better find a new one quick." Can you imagine what it would be like if the federal government suddenly doubled or tripled the number of people on Medicare or Medicaid?

[burrrton]

Can you imagine what it would be like if the federal government suddenly doubled or tripled the number of people on Medicare or Medicaid?

Oh, c'mon, RD- we'd just grow a herd of unicorns to crap out skittles that doctors would start accepting as payment in lieu of money!

[RiverDog]

Can you imagine what it would be like if the federal government suddenly doubled or tripled the number of people on Medicare or Medicaid?

Oh, c'mon, RD- we'd just grow a herd of unicorns to crap out skittles that doctors would start accepting as payment in lieu of money!

Yea, those programs sound good until it comes time to fund them. Elizabeth Warren says that she would institute a wealth tax on individuals and corporations. First of all, that would be hugely complicated and there'd be a million ways for companies and individuals that have a lot of money to be able to hide it, and secondly, it is likely un-Constitution, especially being that SCOTUS is now decidedly conservative, as the 16th Amendment only allows for an income tax.

Here's how Bernie Sanders says he's going to pay for his plan:

Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, America's foremost proponent of single-payer, admitted in June that "there will be pain" if the nation adopts the government-run system he favors. The plan he touted on the presidential campaign trail in 2016 would have cost $1.4 trillion per year, according to his own estimates. To pay for it, he called for a new 2.2% income tax, a 6.2 tax on employers, and higher taxes on the wealthy.

An independent analysis of Sanders's plan conducted by the left-leaning Urban Institute estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

That kind of talk is what scares the bejeezus out of me. 2.2% income tax increase I could live with, but a 6.2% tax on my employer will force them to cut not only my retiree medical, but make drastic cuts in other employee benefits in order to pay for it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes ... df48a356f3

Like my mother used to say: If you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.

[idhawkman]

Oh, come off it! Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, your home away from home, was the first network to air the fake. And you tell me that I don't pay attention. Oh, well, here it is, first the original, undoctored version:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w ... real-thing

And the fake that Trump re-tweeted that was aired on Fox:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... hocking%2F

I don't think you watched the 20 minute video River because they show a duplicate of the excerpts used and they are from her.

BTW, it is much much easier watching her and trying to understand her if you watch the video playback at 1.5x speed.

[Hawktawk]

At least Pelosi doesn’t sound like a 5th grade mentally handicapped person speaking publicly . Good lord any trump supporter judging anyone else’s speaking habits looks ludicrous

[burrrton]

At least Pelosi doesn’t sound like a 5th grade mentally handicapped person speaking publicly

Fact not in evidence, there, Counsel.

[RiverDog]

Good lord any trump supporter judging anyone else’s speaking habits looks ludicrous

Like I said, pot calling kettle black.

[c_hawkbob]

At least Pelosi doesn’t sound like a 5th grade mentally handicapped person speaking publicly

Fact not in evidence, there, Counsel.

Facts in abundant evidence!

[idhawkman]

At least Pelosi doesn’t sound like a 5th grade mentally handicapped person speaking publicly

Fact not in evidence, there, Counsel.

Facts in abundant evidence!

Actually, it is your opinion Bob.

[Aseahawkfan]

ASF, you often times chide me and others about our failure in your eyes to educate ourselves on some historical aspect in world affairs. Have you researched what this move towards socialism, particularly in the field of medicine will mean if the liberal Dems take control? Well, I have, and what I've read scares me. Here's two examples:

The United States is BY FAR the country that spends the most money and produces the most new and effective drugs in the world. Take a look at this chart:

https://www.quora.com/Which-country-dev ... tive-drugs

Other countries with socialist medicine sponge off our research and development. If we go to a socialistic system similar to those in western Europe and regulate drug companies by fixing prices, we will indeed lower our cost to acquire drugs that are currently available, but without a profit motive, companies will start cutting back on R&D and instead focus on producing existing drugs as cheaply as they can. New drugs take an extremely long time to test and refine before they can get approved by the FDA. If you sell those new drugs at the same price it costs to manufacture generic drugs, they will not be able to recover their R&D expenses.

Here's another article that shows where most of the research and development in the field of medicine is being done and compares our performance against western Europe that everyone is so anxious for us to model our medical system after:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewher ... d869eb1a71

Of almost 3,000 articles published in biomedical research in 2009, 1,169, or 40%, came from the United States. As the line graph below demonstrates (that’s the number of publications on the Y axis, and the year of publication on the X axis), the output of every other single country in the world is dwarfed by what America produces. The closest contender is Great Britain, which comes in at about 300 articles.

Once again, those people in our country are doing that research not because they are being motivated by some humanistic quality that only people in the United States posses. They're doing it because they are being funded by companies that are looking to make a profit off new drugs, new equipment, new medical procedures, and so on.

I could cite other examples, but hopefully I've made my point. Yes, it scares me to think of what would happen if the liberal Dems take control and ram their brand of socialism down our throats.

Yes. I'm aware of all you stated. It's all true. We pay for and develop the most medical technology in the world. A lot of medical advancements developed in other nations require the U.S. market to become profitable. I have invested in medical device and drug companies in foreign nations and the key factor to their growth was acceptance in the U.S. market because we do not set prices. When you rate medical access we are low, but we are number one in medical technology.

But at the same time, is all this medical development necessary? Is it prolonging our lives? Is the cost we pay worth the advanced tech? I'm not sure. I'm not seeing us as healthier than other nations. I'm also not seeing our infant mortality rate showing marked improvement over other nations. I'm not seeing our average age of death improving compared to other nations.

That's why I can live with it either way. Sure, there are horror stories in socialized medicine nations. But there are horror stories in our nation of people not getting quality medical care if they don't have enough money, insurance companies refusing to cover certain technologies or procedures, waiting lists for organ transplants, malpractice by doctors leaving surgical instruments in people, and a variety of other horror stories.

It's a definite trade off. At the same time I don't see Germans, Canadians, and Scandinavians hating life or anything like say a third world nation. Even folks on Medicare, which is a government managed system, seem to be doing ok. Let's just say I'm more open to exploration of socialized medicine than many others. To me it seems we're already socialized through private insurance. Most people in the nation can't afford medical care without insurance and I'm not sure how I see that as different than a managed care system similar to Canada or Germany.

Sure, there are systemic trade-offs. I'm not sure the tradeoffs would be as bad as outlined in the horror stories, especially for most working folk that don't have amazing medical insurance. So given the evidence, I'm not much buying into the conservative Armageddon theories surrounding socialized medicine. We have some very well managed socialized services in the United States like the Fire Department and military. We might able to come up with a good socialized medicine system.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's also the small matter of the examples they point to where their Socialism** supposedly "works" are places literally a fraction of our size (with little national defense, etc and so on, as you allude to).

What works (to the extent it does) for a tiny, homogenous population can't be directly translated to a nation of 330 million people spread across 50 states covering ~4 million square miles.

** Also, they're not Socialist states. You know who says so? They do. They're capitalistic *welfare states* (and trending more capitalistic by the year), and if you want to move a country our size to their style of welfare state, you damn sure better be able to coherently answer the question "How are you going to pay for it?" (looking at you, Ocasio).

Yep. Capitalist states with socialized higher education and medicine. It is done to support the capitalist system, not damage it. Germany is one of the most interesting nations to read about as far as economic management. Even after all these years, two World War defeats, and Germany is still going strong. Say what you will of Germans, they are a strong people.

[RiverDog]

But at the same time, is all this medical development necessary? Is it prolonging our lives? Is the cost we pay worth the advanced tech? I'm not sure. I'm not seeing us as healthier than other nations. I'm also not seeing our infant mortality rate showing marked improvement over other nations. I'm not seeing our average age of death improving compared to other nations.

Life expectancy is just one measure. There's also the cost component that has to be considered. For example, can robotic surgeries reduce the number of physicians and support staff required for an open heart surgery? Can more surgeries be done in less expensive surgery centers vs. expensive overnight stays in hospitals? I had a knee replacement done 18 months ago, and it was done in a hospital and required an overnight stay. Can it be done in the same manner as my hernia repair surgery that was performed across the street from the hospital and got me home the same day? Keeping costs low will make insurance more affordable. Additionally, there's a quality of life component in the health care equation. Can modern advances help mitigate the effects of arthritis, which is the #1 affliction that seniors say affects their quality of life? Being afflicted with arthritis myself, eliminating it might not extend my life, but it would sure open up more activities for me that prevents me from doing now. We go to a socialized system and eliminate the profit motive, it will have an adverse effect on advances in quality of life enhancement. There will be no motivation to discover new drugs that can reduce the possibility of infection and shorten or eliminate hospital stays because the developing company won't be allowed to profit from them.

That's why I can live with it either way. Sure, there are horror stories in socialized medicine nations. But there are horror stories in our nation of people not getting quality medical care if they don't have enough money, insurance companies refusing to cover certain technologies or procedures, waiting lists for organ transplants, malpractice by doctors leaving surgical instruments in people, and a variety of other horror stories.

It's a definite trade off. At the same time I don't see Germans, Canadians, and Scandinavians hating life or anything like say a third world nation. Even folks on Medicare, which is a government managed system, seem to be doing ok. Let's just say I'm more open to exploration of socialized medicine than many others. To me it seems we're already socialized through private insurance. Most people in the nation can't afford medical care without insurance and I'm not sure how I see that as different than a managed care system similar to Canada or Germany.

Sure, there are systemic trade-offs. I'm not sure the tradeoffs would be as bad as outlined in the horror stories, especially for most working folk that don't have amazing medical insurance. So given the evidence, I'm not much buying into the conservative Armageddon theories surrounding socialized medicine. We have some very well managed socialized services in the United States like the Fire Department and military. We might able to come up with a good socialized medicine system.

Like I said earlier, the problem is that those countries like Canada, Germany, and Norway that have socialized medicine have been sponging off our R&D for decades, benefiting from the advances but not paying the cost of supporting R&D. What's going to happen to their systems if we eliminate the profit motive from ours?

[Aseahawkfan]

Life expectancy is just one measure. There's also the cost component that has to be considered. For example, can robotic surgeries reduce the number of physicians and support staff required for an open heart surgery? Can more surgeries be done in less expensive surgery centers vs. expensive overnight stays in hospitals? I had a knee replacement done 18 months ago, and it was done in a hospital and required an overnight stay. Can it be done in the same manner as my hernia repair surgery that was performed across the street from the hospital and got me home the same day? Keeping costs low will make insurance more affordable. Additionally, there's a quality of life component in the health care equation. Can modern advances help mitigate the effects of arthritis, which is the #1 affliction that seniors say affects their quality of life? Being afflicted with arthritis myself, eliminating it might not extend my life, but it would sure open up more activities for me that prevents me from doing now. We go to a socialized system and eliminate the profit motive, it will have an adverse effect on advances in quality of life enhancement. There will be no motivation to discover new drugs that can reduce the possibility of infection and shorten or eliminate hospital stays because the developing company won't be allowed to profit from them.

It depends. Can we leverage our universities to advance medical science? A lot of the technology private companies eventually commercialize is developed in universities or with private funds. CRISPR technology as an example wasn't developed in a private lab. It was researched by publicly and privately funded scientists at universities. https://www.quantamagazine.org/crispr-natural-history-in-bacteria-20150206/ Much of our medical tech is first built off research at universities and the like, then private companies try to find different uses for the technology. Some successful, most not. We would have to find ways to continue to fund new research to improve our medical technology, perhaps with grants and the like. We would have to see.

Like I said earlier, the problem is that those countries like Canada, Germany, and Norway that have socialized medicine have been sponging off our R&D for decades, benefiting from the advances but not paying the cost of supporting R&D. What's going to happen to their systems if we eliminate the profit motive from ours?

Do you like paying this crazy amount of money to fund medical research? You've got companies like Gilead charging insane fees up to 500% more or higher for the same drug to Americans. Is it fair to our citizens to make them pay the cost of medical advancement worldwide for what is not amounting to improved health and longevity? We literally don't rank high on the health markers. We have a huge obesity issue. We could do more to make our nation healthier by forcing diet modifications or severely taxing companies selling this incredibly unhealthy food forcing those that wish to consume it to the pay the increased cost for their health issues. Obesity related health issues cost us huge sums of money every year and everyone has to pay that with higher insurance and medical costs regardless of how well you maintain your health.

I see a lot of ways we can improve the health system. It's difficult to make the necessary moves while for profit companies are charging us crazy prizes and trying to create drugs to deal with every malady even when a non-drug or medical procedure method would be far better for humanity overall.

[RiverDog]

It depends. Can we leverage our universities to advance medical science? A lot of the technology private companies eventually commercialize is developed in universities or with private funds. CRISPR technology as an example wasn't developed in a private lab. It was researched by publicly and privately funded scientists at universities. https://www.quantamagazine.org/crispr-natural-history-in-bacteria-20150206/ Much of our medical tech is first built off research at universities and the like, then private companies try to find different uses for the technology. Some successful, most not. We would have to find ways to continue to fund new research to improve our medical technology, perhaps with grants and the like. We would have to see.

Drug companies are the largest sponsors of medical research at colleges and universities in the United States:

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/04/ ... u-s-today/

If we take the profit motive out of the equation, those contributions will dry up, and with the government encumbered with a hugely expensive Medicare for All program, it's highly unlikely that they could support medical research. From the article above:

Universities and other academic institutions are relying more on funding from the pharmaceutical industry.3 The driving force of this reliance stems from the need for large amounts of funding that may not be available from government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Like I said earlier, the problem is that those countries like Canada, Germany, and Norway that have socialized medicine have been sponging off our R&D for decades, benefiting from the advances but not paying the cost of supporting R&D. What's going to happen to their systems if we eliminate the profit motive from ours?

Do you like paying this crazy amount of money to fund medical research? You've got companies like Gilead charging insane fees up to 500% more or higher for the same drug to Americans. Is it fair to our citizens to make them pay the cost of medical advancement worldwide for what is not amounting to improved health and longevity? We literally don't rank high on the health markers. We have a huge obesity issue. We could do more to make our nation healthier by forcing diet modifications or severely taxing companies selling this incredibly unhealthy food forcing those that wish to consume it to the pay the increased cost for their health issues. Obesity related health issues cost us huge sums of money every year and everyone has to pay that with higher insurance and medical costs regardless of how well you maintain your health.

I see a lot of ways we can improve the health system. It's difficult to make the necessary moves while for profit companies are charging us crazy prizes and trying to create drugs to deal with every malady even when a non-drug or medical procedure method would be far better for humanity overall.

No, it's not fair for us to pay for the high cost of drugs while citizens in other countries get the same medicine much cheaper. As I've said, they're sponging off drugs that are procured in this country via the high prices we pay for new and experimental drugs and procedures. But it is what it is. The alternative is going to a single payer system and not doing the research at all and have drug companies just provide us with generic products.

There are lots of ways to reduce your drug costs. As I've indicated, my wife has both MS and rheumatoid arthritis, so she's on 6 or 7 different drugs, some that appear very expensive at first glance. But we've found huge price differences between various pharmacies. One drug, with my wife's Medicare Part D insurance, was available at Walmart for over $100. She called around and got the same drug at Costco for less than $10 w/o going through insurance. The GoodRX cards available in most doctors offices and over the internet provide for some large discounts. Most drug companies have programs that will subsidize the cost of some drugs for low income people but you have to apply to get their lower price. The problem is that most people either aren't aware of the different prices or don't go to the trouble to shop around. Another problem is that those that live in someplace like Ritzville don't have dozens of pharmacies they can buy from.

[Aseahawkfan]

Drug companies are the largest sponsors of medical research at colleges and universities in the United States:

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/04/ ... u-s-today/

If we take the profit motive out of the equation, those contributions will dry up, and with the government encumbered with a hugely expensive Medicare for All program, it's highly unlikely that they could support medical research. From the article above:

Universities and other academic institutions are relying more on funding from the pharmaceutical industry.3 The driving force of this reliance stems from the need for large amounts of funding that may not be available from government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Did you read the entire article? NIH spends 31 billion versus 39 billion. There are questions of the profit motive causing conflicts of interest. High risk and high reward medicine for profit is not what may be best for people.

Do these drugs do much? For every one hundred drugs developed, maybe higher, only one every succeeds. Does this funding encourage unnecessary medical development? Maybe it does. Just because funding is occurring doesn't mean it is having a positive impact on our lives. Once again I point to the life expectancy rate which isn't substantially higher given the amount of money we spend. Is quality of life higher? I doubt it.

I would bet you every dollar I had that focusing more on diet and exercise which costs far less than drugs would save far more lives than this level of expenditure on medications. The positive correlations between a good diet and exercise is far more impactful on the overall population than drugs.

The only area where this may be contradicted is orphan drug development for diseases that affect a very small proportion of the population. Then again I'm not sure private funding by wealthy donors might not have a similar success rate. For all the money spent, most drugs fail. The few that do succeed are exorbitantly priced. Do we have too much medical development reaching for the golden goose causing drugs to cost far more than they would in a more efficient, less profit driven system.

You're listing money spent without listing success rates of drug development. So much money gets tossed at medicine to what effect? Are we living better than other nations? Are the medicines we take curing us or curing one symptom only to cause three more that require more drugs?

No, it's not fair for us to pay for the high cost of drugs while citizens in other countries get the same medicine much cheaper. As I've said, they're sponging off drugs that are procured in this country via the high prices we pay for new and experimental drugs and procedures. But it is what it is. The alternative is going to a single payer system and not doing the research at all and have drug companies just provide us with generic products.

There are lots of ways to reduce your drug costs. As I've indicated, my wife has both MS and rheumatoid arthritis, so she's on 6 or 7 different drugs, some that appear very expensive at first glance. But we've found huge price differences between various pharmacies. One drug, with my wife's Medicare Part D insurance, was available at Walmart for over $100. She called around and got the same drug at Costco for less than $10 w/o going through insurance. The GoodRX cards available in most doctors offices and over the internet provide for some large discounts. Most drug companies have programs that will subsidize the cost of some drugs for low income people but you have to apply to get their lower price. The problem is that most people either aren't aware of the different prices or don't go to the trouble to shop around. Another problem is that those that live in someplace like Ritzville don't have dozens of pharmacies they can buy from.

GoodRX and similar services are a big help if the pharmacy uses them.

I still don't know. Sometimes it seems like drug development is a lot of snakeoil with some gems. Some of the drug efficacy rates are so low as to provide a marginal chance of life improvement. Sometimes the cost is everything that person has. When you're selling someone even the smallest chance of survival, they make some bad emotionally driven decisions. I wonder if we can come up with a more efficient, better managed system than encouraging this amount of snake oil for a few good medicines.

Ever since I started investing in biotech and drugs, I've seen so much rotten behavior, failure, and tons of money tossed around hoping for one perhaps useful drug they can charge some person their life savings to give them a shot at a better life. I feel we might have accomplished the same level of efficacy for less money. Our military is a great example of a socialized system that still draws investment from private industry even though they don't have the same money to spend were they private. It seems maybe we could do the same with medicine without having as much snake oil money going around.

[RiverDog]

You're listing money spent without listing success rates of drug development. So much money gets tossed at medicine to what effect? Are we living better than other nations? Are the medicines we take curing us or curing one symptom only to cause three more that require more drugs?

I don't have any facts to support it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were a 1-in-20 rate of FDA approval for new drugs. It's the nature of the beast. They don't know how a drug will perform until they put it through rigorous testing. That's why the new drugs that are proven to be successful are so expensive, so the manufacturer can reclaim not only the investment made in that drug, but also all the ones that have failed. Bottom line is that if we want lower drug prices, the companies are going to have to cut back somewhere, and the first thing that any company under financial stress will cut back is R&D.

GoodRX and similar services are a big help if the pharmacy uses them.

I still don't know. Sometimes it seems like drug development is a lot of snakeoil with some gems. Some of the drug efficacy rates are so low as to provide a marginal chance of life improvement. Sometimes the cost is everything that person has. When you're selling someone even the smallest chance of survival, they make some bad emotionally driven decisions. I wonder if we can come up with a more efficient, better managed system than encouraging this amount of snake oil for a few good medicines.

Ever since I started investing in biotech and drugs, I've seen so much rotten behavior, failure, and tons of money tossed around hoping for one perhaps useful drug they can charge some person their life savings to give them a shot at a better life. I feel we might have accomplished the same level of efficacy for less money. Our military is a great example of a socialized system that still draws investment from private industry even though they don't have the same money to spend were they private. It seems maybe we could do the same with medicine without having as much snake oil money going around.

No doubt that there are abuses in the industry. I can remember Martha Stewart's insider trading conviction where her broker had information that a certain drug was about to get FDA approval and she was going to cash in by buying that company's stock. But it gets back to don't throw out the baby with the bathwater as we should do what we can to improve the system rather than abolish it.

One of my points is regarding the ineffectiveness of the Medicare Part D drug insurance plans. It sucks. If you don't participate, they'll assess a lifetime penalty in the event you eventually want to join, yet the coverage they offer is so poor that it often times is much less expensive to pay for the drugs out of pocket at a pharmacy that's not in their network vs. going with their best price you can find by calling around. All Part D does is to dupe people into thinking that they are paying the lowest price possible under their insurance plan.

[Hawktawk]

At least Pelosi doesn’t sound like a 5th grade mentally handicapped person speaking publicly

Fact not in evidence, there, Counsel.

Pelosi sounds like an 80 year old woman who is not the best public speaker and probably suffering a bit of mental decline like most 80 year olds. My point is just listen to Trump repeat "we'll see what happens" "lets see what happens" one million times The slow 5th grader monotone delivery when reading the teleprompter to avoid saying truly stupid things, the zillion misspelled tweets on foreign policy etc, things that should be handled privately in meetings and on the phone, not demonstrating the warped indecisive compromised mind of Trump to the world.

Trump supporters are just ridiculous criticizing Pelosi, Biden or anyone else for their linguistic style , gaffes or anything else. And as I've said many times had someone told me 4 years ago Id be rooting for Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, favoring impeaching a republican president etc Id have told them they were crazier than me. But as the Orlando sentinel said last week in its super early endorsement"Not Trump"




Indeed....

[RiverDog]

At least Pelosi doesn’t sound like a 5th grade mentally handicapped person speaking publicly

Fact not in evidence, there, Counsel.

Pelosi sounds like an 80 year old woman who is not the best public speaker and probably suffering a bit of mental decline like most 80 year olds. My point is just listen to Trump repeat "we'll see what happens" "lets see what happens" one million times The slow 5th grader monotone delivery when reading the teleprompter to avoid saying truly stupid things, the zillion misspelled tweets on foreign policy etc, things that should be handled privately in meetings and on the phone...

Trump supporters are just ridiculous criticizing Pelosi, Biden or anyone else for their linguistic style , gaffes or anything else.

I agree with Hawktalk that Trump supporters are truly the pot calling the kettle black if they choose to make fun of anyone else's manner of speech, although his linguistics are the least of my problems with him.

What's more concerning is Trump's continued gross exaggerations that he uses to support his arguments and contentions. Just this morning, he defended his decision not honor a request from the UN for the FBI to investigate the Khasoggi murder by saying that he didn't want to jeopardize Saudi arms purchases and claims they have spent "$400-$450 billion over a period of time..." when last year's purchases were less than $15B. I've never seen a person that distorts the truth as much as that man does. He's about as trustworthy as a robocall.

[burrrton]

I agree with Hawktalk that Trump supporters are truly the pot calling the kettle black if they choose to make fun of anyone else's manner of speech, although his linguistics are the least of my problems with him.

I agree, too, but my point is just because Trump sounds foolish doesn't mean Pelosi doesn't sound like she's about a month away from a dementia diagnosis with her "Uh beh buh de dub beb de beb" stuttering moments.