Democrat Debates and Trump

[I-5]

Surprised? Not a bit? Wrong? Absolutely, just like it's wrong if anyone else does it.

Just because he trusts his kids and son-in-law does not qualify them to be able to function in the role, since it's for the COUNTRY. Does Kushner have half a clue what he's even talking about trying to broker anything at all in the mideast? He can't even answer basic questions about what happened with Kashoggi or his relationship to the Saudi prince. History will someday tell the full story, and my bet is it's not going to be kind to this administration.

[Aseahawkfan]

Surprised? Not a bit? Wrong? Absolutely, just like it's wrong if anyone else does it.

Just because he trusts his kids and son-in-law does not qualify them to be able to function in the role, since it's for the COUNTRY. Does Kushner have half a clue what he's even talking about trying to broker anything at all in the mideast? He can't even answer basic questions about what happened with Kashoggi or his relationship to the Saudi prince. History will someday tell the full story, and my bet is it's not going to be kind to this administration.

History will still tell many stories just as it does every administration. Some will be kind, some won't. This idea Trump is doing worse than other administrations is BS.

One of the reasons C-bob pisses me off is because he spent years calling Bush Jr. Shrub and pretty much pushing the Democrat narrative that Bush and Cheney started an illegal war that killed thousands of Americans, maimed tens of thousands, and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Yet he wants Bush back over Trump? What BS. Once you tell me you want a guy back you believe murdered a few hundred thousand people with an illegal war over a jackass that twitters to much, you lose a lot of credibility.

Bill Clinton made deals to end the Yugoslavia breakup wars that caused thousands of deaths. He messed up in Somalia. He was launching missile strikes into Iraq to distract from his trial where he lied on the witness stand.

Reagan had the Iran-Contra BS and had more racist policies and beliefs than Trump, yet he is considered a nicer guy than Trump because he could speak well. But Americans of African descent hate Reagan for his perceived racism and policies towards South Africa.

Obama had drones, the stupid Iran Deal, and the embassy killings.

Moral of the story? Don't bet on any stories sticking to any administration as they will have good and bad. If anything Trump will be remembered better than he is currently if he can manage to avoid starting any wars that actually kill people. Once he's not being a jerk on twitter every day, people will remember a good economy, no war, and generally a very stable nation.

[idhawkman]

Am I the only here not surprised by Ivanka getting a job? Donald trusts his daughter absolutely. He always gives her some job. She's very professional and well spoken. She has a business degree and lots of experience in business.

Is it any different from Clinton giving his wife a job or Colin Powell's son heading up the FCC? Not really. You want people you trust around you. Trump obviously doesn't have many people he can trust in D.C. other than his kids and maybe a few close Republicans like Lindsey Graham.

You are not alone, I'm in the same state of mind as you are. I believe the two most desired skills/traits for the job she got was

1. Trust of the president - as you pointed out in your post. When he won, who could he trust? Not eve Lindsay Graham was trustworthy. He couldn't trust incumbent Republicans or democrats. So this was a high priority on his list - having people he trusted implicitly in his inner circle.

2. A Woman that had a major company in the US. Not only does Trump value the quality of the degree but he also values the success of the company that the person runs. She demonstrates both and is a proven leader and successful business woman.

[Aseahawkfan]

You are not alone, I'm in the same state of mind as you are. I believe the two most desired skills/traits for the job she got was

1. Trust of the president - as you pointed out in your post. When he won, who could he trust? Not eve Lindsay Graham was trustworthy. He couldn't trust incumbent Republicans or democrats. So this was a high priority on his list - having people he trusted implicitly in his inner circle.

2. A Woman that had a major company in the US. Not only does Trump value the quality of the degree but he also values the success of the company that the person runs. She demonstrates both and is a proven leader and successful business woman.

I get tired of people hating on Ivanka and Trump's children. People bash on Trump, but he made sure all his kids were taken care of, educated, and know to keep their noses out of the press for things like drug addiction, sex tapes, and the like. Ivanka is a classy lady that always carries herself well. They are basically bashing on her for loving her father and being loyal to him. I'm quite sure behind closed doors she has had more than a few discussions with her father about policy, but at the same time she loves him enough to keep it out of the press. Basically the smarmy, petty left is bashing on Ivanka for being the daughter of Donald Trump and being a good, loyal daughter. If I have a daughter, I hope she is as quality a person and as loyal a daughter as Ivanka Trump.

[idhawkman]

I get tired of people hating on Ivanka and Trump's children. People bash on Trump, but he made sure all his kids were taken care of, educated, and know to keep their noses out of the press for things like drug addiction, sex tapes, and the like. Ivanka is a classy lady that always carries herself well. They are basically bashing on her for loving her father and being loyal to him. I'm quite sure behind closed doors she has had more than a few discussions with her father about policy, but at the same time she loves him enough to keep it out of the press. Basically the smarmy, petty left is bashing on Ivanka for being the daughter of Donald Trump and being a good, loyal daughter. If I have a daughter, I hope she is as quality a person and as loyal a daughter as Ivanka Trump.

I totally agree with this. I also agree with the extension you made to the whole family although I'm not too sure about the one daughter from Ivana as she's not been in the spotlight too much. I'm curious to see how Barron turns out, too. What is even more egregious to me is the treatment of Melania. She's shown nothing but class the whole time she's been by his side and yet she's trashed for no reason at all. Shameful.

[I-5]

Keep justifying it. Nepotism is wrong, no matter who does it or when. Especially at this level.

[RiverDog]

Keep justifying it. Nepotism is wrong, no matter who does it or when. Especially at this level.

Agreed. All this argument about qualifications is beside the point. We have laws in place, specifically the Bobby Kennedy law, that prohibits appointing close relatives to federal positions. It was wrong when Bill Clinton appointed his old lady to oversee his health care proposal and it's wrong when Trump does it with his family members.

[idhawkman]

Agreed. All this argument about qualifications is beside the point. We have laws in place, specifically the Bobby Kennedy law, that prohibits appointing close relatives to federal positions. It was wrong when Bill Clinton appointed his old lady to oversee his health care proposal and it's wrong when Trump does it with his family members.

I highly doubt it otherwise the dems would have had her removed by now. Yet, there she still is and I have no knowledge of any pending suits by dems to have her removed.

[I-5]

So when President Harris appoints her husband Douglas Emhoff to a Senior White House Advisor position, we can count on you to support her right do so, just like Bill did with Hillary. Awesome.

[RiverDog]

Agreed. All this argument about qualifications is beside the point. We have laws in place, specifically the Bobby Kennedy law, that prohibits appointing close relatives to federal positions. It was wrong when Bill Clinton appointed his old lady to oversee his health care proposal and it's wrong when Trump does it with his family members.

I highly doubt it otherwise the dems would have had her removed by now. Yet, there she still is and I have no knowledge of any pending suits by dems to have her removed.

Back in 1993 when Clinton appointed HRC to head up his health care reform, two federal judges ruled that while the Bobby Kennedy law applied to things like cabinet appointments and paid positions within the government, they said that it probably didn't apply to positions within the White House staff, so we have Slick Willy to thank for setting that precedent. So long as Trump doesn't pay his relatives for their work, he's probably clear of the law, but it's never been tested beyond that one opinion.

That and the Democrats would have been placing themselves in a very hypocritical situation had they contested Trump's appointing family members to his staff when they sided with Clinton back in '93. They probably figured it wasn't worth the political capital they would have had to spend. They had bigger fish to fry.

It's still nepotism and it's still wrong (I personally argued against HRC's appointment). The primary reason they were selected is due to their family relationship with the POTUS.

[Aseahawkfan]

I never worry much about nepotism. It's everywhere. I bet there are a ton of positions filled by family in the government we don't even know about. Nepotism is everywhere. People like working with their family. Usually they are the most trustworthy.

[I-5]

You might be right ASF, which means you were ok with the Clintons doing it, correct?

[Aseahawkfan]

I totally agree with this. I also agree with the extension you made to the whole family although I'm not too sure about the one daughter from Ivana as she's not been in the spotlight too much. I'm curious to see how Barron turns out, too. What is even more egregious to me is the treatment of Melania. She's shown nothing but class the whole time she's been by his side and yet she's trashed for no reason at all. Shameful.

Ivana has a daughter other than Ivanka?

Marla has a daughter that steers clear of the public. I don't think she maintains close relations with Donald. She steers clear and hasn't said much.

[Aseahawkfan]

Keep justifying it. Nepotism is wrong, no matter who does it or when. Especially at this level.

Why is nepotism wrong? You wouldn't hire one of your children if they were highly intelligent, capable, and loyal? Who can you trust more than family?

[RiverDog]

Keep justifying it. Nepotism is wrong, no matter who does it or when. Especially at this level.

Why is nepotism wrong? You wouldn't hire one of your children if they were highly intelligent, capable, and loyal? Who can you trust more than family?

It's wrong because there is an inherent conflict of interest. If Bill Clinton was dissatisfied with Hillary's work on health care, how could he fire his own wife? And on the other side of the coin, knowing that she has some unique leverage over her boss, what's stopping Hillary from really making a power grab and doing things that anyone else would even think of?

The best example, and the reason for the law, was Bobby Kennedy's appointment as JFK's Attorney General. Do you think that Bobby would have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate his brother's dealings with known underworld figures? Bobby was 10 times his brother's defender than Barr is Trump's.

[idhawkman]

So when President Harris appoints her husband Douglas Emhoff to a Senior White House Advisor position, we can count on you to support her right do so, just like Bill did with Hillary. Awesome.

Why would she do that? I think everyone with half a brain knows that the President counts on input from their spouse. Most presidents even give their spouses certain assignments like Nancy Reagan with drugs, Michelle Obama with child nutrition, Melania with bullying, etc. I have no problem with the president appointing people to positions - I don't even have a problem with Bill appointing Hilliary for that debacle she called health care reform. What I would have a problem with is the quality of their work. E.g. Michelle thought she was doing a good job forcing nutrition into the schools but the reality was that kids quit eating what she was pushing and instead were in class hungry. Was that effective in your opinion?

[idhawkman]

Ivana has a daughter other than Ivanka?

Marla has a daughter that steers clear of the public. I don't think she maintains close relations with Donald. She steers clear and hasn't said much.

Oops! That's the one. I think she lives in one of the Carolina's but stays away from the fray as you point out.

[burrrton]

Popping back in to show everyone your healthcare system when Big Gov is in control:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/health/f ... -dies-intl

Mind you, they didn't simply remove life support (which is a defensible decision to make in some cases)- they intentionally dehydrated and starved him to death.

[I-5]

nice to see you, burrrton!

I just read that article you posted....looks like his family has been lobbying the gov't to ALLOW doctors to remove his life support, according to his wishes (despite his staunch catholic parents wishes that he be kept alive in a vegetative state, but he is an adult, after all), and the news is that it was finally allowed to happen. Or are you saying something else?

[I-5]

I can't speak for France or any other countries that I haven't experienced from the inside, but having been inside both the US and Canada systems, you have MUCH less to be afraid of when it comes to socialized healthcare in Canada. I know I sound like a broken record, but though all doctors I've encountered have been helpful, the ones in Canada take more time to allow questions and make sure I'm satisfied with the information as well as my options. And they always say to come back if anything else comes up that we need help with. Until you've seen it yourself, I don't blame you for not believing it. I wouldn't either.

[RiverDog]

Popping back in to show everyone your healthcare system when Big Gov is in control:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/health/f ... -dies-intl

Mind you, they didn't simply remove life support (which is a defensible decision to make in some cases)- they intentionally dehydrated and starved him to death.

It's unclear to me why France, a sovereign country known for their independence, would look to the UN for guidance. I hope the hell that we never rely on the UN for guidance.

IMO I've always believed in euthanasia beyond simply turning off the switch on life support as an option for the family in those situations.

[burrrton]

looks like his family has been lobbying the gov't to ALLOW doctors to remove his life support, according to his wishes (despite his staunch catholic parents wishes that he be kept alive in a vegetative state, but he is an adult, after all), and the news is that it was finally allowed to happen. Or are you saying something else?

CNN intentionally mischaracterized it as "taking off life-support", but inadvertently gave the game away near the end:

"Last month, France's Court of Cassation overturned the appeal court ruling, allowing doctors to stop feeding Lambert on June 28."

Again, they didn't simply shut off a machine that was keeping him alive- they quit giving him food and water- and people in completely vegetative states don't sob when told of the decision to kill him, don't open their eyes, etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48911187

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/break ... -and-water

I'm not going to argue it's 100% indefensible, but it's pretty frightening and clearly illustrates that cruel decisions aren't the exclusive domain of private insurers.

Have a great day, everyone.

[I-5]

First, I have to ask: you would trust a for-profit health insurer to make decisions that affect your health more than a socialized system? You have the right to feel that way, but I highly disagree with that assessment.

Secondly, the two articles you posted are told in diametrically opposed viewpoints, one from his wife and siblings' side who were in favor of what happened, and one from his mother Viviane, who equates it with murder. Whichever side you fall on in that belief is the side you're going to believe. No one is going to convince the other.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's wrong because there is an inherent conflict of interest. If Bill Clinton was dissatisfied with Hillary's work on health care, how could he fire his own wife? And on the other side of the coin, knowing that she has some unique leverage over her boss, what's stopping Hillary from really making a power grab and doing things that anyone else would even think of?

The best example, and the reason for the law, was Bobby Kennedy's appointment as JFK's Attorney General. Do you think that Bobby would have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate his brother's dealings with known underworld figures? Bobby was 10 times his brother's defender than Barr is Trump's.

There are more people in our government to ensure any conflict of interest is a non-factor. I guess I don't worry about it as much as others since it's been this way since the beginning of the nation. Sheer number of people involved in our government prevent one family or small group from making nepotism dangerous. I can see if they were hiring their idiot children (cue the Bush Jr. joke), but mostly the family members hired seem competent.

[Aseahawkfan]

CNN intentionally mischaracterized it as "taking off life-support", but inadvertently gave the game away near the end:

"Last month, France's Court of Cassation overturned the appeal court ruling, allowing doctors to stop feeding Lambert on June 28."

Again, they didn't simply shut off a machine that was keeping him alive- they quit giving him food and water- and people in completely vegetative states don't sob when told of the decision to kill him, don't open their eyes, etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48911187

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/break ... -and-water

I'm not going to argue it's 100% indefensible, but it's pretty frightening and clearly illustrates that cruel decisions aren't the exclusive domain of private insurers.

Have a great day, everyone.

I agree. Another reason begging the question of why pay more for what seems to be the same thing? It seems like the main difference between the two is we're socialized through several big private insurers with us and corporations bearing the cost and they're socialized through the government with us and corporations bearing the cost.

I thing some of the main concerns are the age concern. They do seem to use much lower priority for older folks for things like hip replacements and the like for folks outside the working age. They do make some cost-benefit decisions that would be questionable to Americans. I'm not sure how much private insurance makes the same cost-benefit decisions. I know if you have money in the States, you can get anything you want done as long as it's legal. Then again you can get anything you want done with money anyway as I know many rich folk from America go to other nations for things like fetal stem cell treatments or some questionable blood transfusions.

A full study and analysis of the medical system would be nice at some point. Really look into how we can adjust it and decouple it from our employers as you stated. I hate having to work for a company for affordable healthcare. Really limits your flexibility.

[RiverDog]

First, I have to ask: you would trust a for-profit health insurer to make decisions that affect your health more than a socialized system? You have the right to feel that way, but I highly disagree with that assessment.

Let me phrase that question a little differently: Would you trust a career bureaucrat that has absolutely no fear of losing his/her job by making a bad decision over someone that knows that if they or their insurer doesn't make the right decision that another person or company will be waiting in the wings to replace them?

I don't understand why it is that some people consider the term "profit" a dirty word. So long as there is genuine competition, it's the primary motivator that keeps quality high and prices low. If your services are wasteful, it increases your price and customers leave you. If you try to get by on the cheap and quality suffers, customers leave you. A world without competition leads to complacency and an inability to think outside the box.

[I-5]

Would you trust a career bureaucrat that has absolutely no fear of losing his/her job by making a bad decision over someone that knows that if they or their insurer doesn't make the right decision that another person or company will be waiting in the wings to replace them?

I would trust a bureaucrat over a businessman when it comes to decisions that affect health issues. Every time. The businessman is incentivized by profit first, second, and third. If he makes the 'right decision', then it will be to turn a profit. That's what he's designed for. I am a capitalist, but it doesn't belong in healthcare, or prisons in my opinion.

[RiverDog]

Would you trust a career bureaucrat that has absolutely no fear of losing his/her job by making a bad decision over someone that knows that if they or their insurer doesn't make the right decision that another person or company will be waiting in the wings to replace them?

I would trust a bureaucrat over a businessman when it comes to decisions that affect health issues. Every time. The businessman is incentivized by profit first, second, and third. If he makes the 'right decision', then it will be to turn a profit. That's what he's designed for. I am a capitalist, but it doesn't belong in healthcare, or prisons in my opinion.

There in lies one of our differences. I do not trust bureaucrats. There is no fear of failure, no motivation to excel at their work, and no sharing in the success of their organization. It's a recipe for mediocrity. I would much rather trust a for-profit company that wants not only to stay in business but to thrive and be best their competition and whose employees have a vested interest in their company's success.

[I-5]

I see what you mean Riv, but that isn't my experience with socialized healthcare (so far). I haven't seen enough evidence of a for profit business taking the side of the customer, unless forced to do so via law.

I don't blame you for thinking that way, though. My experience with government workers in the US has been just as mediocre as everyone's here, so I get it. DMV, passport office, and every time I drive through the border (which is often, about 12-15 times annually) I'm reminded of it. It's just been very different in Canada, and I've learned that gov't workers aren't all like that.

[RiverDog]

I see what you mean Riv, but that isn't my experience with socialized healthcare (so far). I haven't seen enough evidence of a for profit business taking the side of the customer, unless forced to do so via law.

I don't blame you for thinking that way, though. My experience with government workers in the US has been just as mediocre as everyone's here, so I get it. DMV, passport office, and every time I drive through the border (which is often, about 12-15 times annually) I'm reminded of it. It's just been very different in Canada, and I've learned that gov't workers aren't all like that.

Please excuse me for going off on a tangent to make a point.

Recalling the brief discussion we had regarding the Challenger accident investigation. Do you know how many people at NASA lost their jobs due to the gross disregard for safety and fixation on maintaining their schedule and acquiring more funding? None. Lawrence Mulloy, the director of NASA's solid rocket booster program and the major player that literally threatened Morton Thiokol executives unless they agreed to sign off on a launch that was 25-30 degrees below the minimum temperature their engineers had given them was simply transferred to another department (rather than accept the reassignment, he retired). Mulloy was subsequently named in a wrongful death lawsuit by one of the astronauts families. And to make matters worse, despite a major shake up at NASA and a re-commitment to their stated goals and objectives, they committed the same damn systematic mistakes 15 years later in the Columbia disaster.

I have a similar example involving the collapse of the Teton Dam in southern Idaho as my college roommate's father was the comptroller for the Army Corps of Engineers during that time (Teton Dam was built by the Bureau of Reclamation). There is no fear of losing one's job and there is no personal investment in the organization when you work for the federal government.

Bottom line is that I do not trust the federal government to run something as big and complicated as a single payer health insurance system for 330 million people. Like my mom used to say, if you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.

BTW I appreciate the manner in which you are debating this subject and your understanding of my POV.

[I-5]

I appreciate your point in both the Challenger and Teton Dam examples, and those were definitely gov't employees. I'm not going to sit here and argue that they were anything but incompetent and/or corrupt. In both the Challenger and Teton Dam examples, they were critical technical and design failures, respectively, that involved decision-makers at the top level. With NASA in particular, it's easy to imagine the pressure they felt to make sure the US came out on top of the Soviets in the space programs. Their mistake was in ignoring warnings from their suppliers like Morton Thiokol, and proceeding with recklessness. I don't know the Teton Dam as much, but I imagine similar pressures to open the project - would that be correct?

Social healthcare is much more mundane and the issues we're talking about is at the legislative level, which govern how patients are treated. I have more faith in that process than with a businessman who's not doing his job if he's not making a profit. So while I share your concern with bureaucrats, I don't automatically throw the baby out with the bathwater on this. That's my opinion.

[Aseahawkfan]

You shouldn't trust the bureaucrats or the businessman. You can only trust the human working in any position based on an assessment of their character. There are plenty of honest and good businessmen that work hard to server their customers and plenty of politicians wanting to do the right thing. And vice versa for the corrupt folks. Most are middle of the road folk doing a job.

My problem with the for profit system is not the people, but the idea itself. Profiting off people that are sick and dying is macabre. You can have the nicest guy in the world running the medical company giving a fair price, but he's still marking up a price based on supply-demand where supply is life saving medicine and procedures and demand are the sick and dying. No human should be put in a position where a child is dying or a loved one and say, "You don't have good enough insurance or enough money." That's just not a good place to have your system. It's ethically questionable as a society.

Once you do the cost-benefit analysis where we're not getting much benefit from the expensive system, why continue the ethical problems? We have to find a better way to to do this thing.

Prisons for profit is a bad idea too.

The messed up part is we could cure the majority of health problems and costs by forcing a healthy diet and exercise on the population, but Americans would freak out. You can't even force Americans to do what is better for their long-term life and healthspan. They would literally rather be fat and entertained than limited and healthy, even if it forces all these extra costs us due to obesity related disease. Just more proof humans are not rational and rational self-interest in economics is mostly BS.

[RiverDog]

I appreciate your point in both the Challenger and Teton Dam examples, and those were definitely gov't employees. I'm not going to sit here and argue that they were anything but incompetent and/or corrupt. In both the Challenger and Teton Dam examples, they were critical technical and design failures, respectively, that involved decision-makers at the top level. With NASA in particular, it's easy to imagine the pressure they felt to make sure the US came out on top of the Soviets in the space programs. Their mistake was in ignoring warnings from their suppliers like Morton Thiokol, and proceeding with recklessness. I don't know the Teton Dam as much, but I imagine similar pressures to open the project - would that be correct?

By the time of the Challenger accident, the Soviet Union competition with the Soviets had pretty much subsided. The overall design of the shuttle was flawed, but that wasn't really my point. My point was about the bureaucratic bungling that went on and the failure of the government to hold accountable employees that made obvious, catastrophic mistakes.

Teton Dam was very similar. No one was held accountable. According to my roommate's dad, the Corps looked at the same survey results and told the Bureau not to build that dam at that site. FYI there are 8 federal agencies authorized to build dams.

Social healthcare is much more mundane and the issues we're talking about is at the legislative level, which govern how patients are treated. I have more faith in that process than with a businessman who's not doing his job if he's not making a profit. So while I share your concern with bureaucrats, I don't automatically throw the baby out with the bathwater on this. That's my opinion.

The bureaucrat, like the businessman, has a budget to live with. As they have with Medicare and Medicaid, they will be making decisions based on financial considerations just like the private sector does. The difference is that the government doesn't have to worry about another company coming in and do a better, more efficient job of making the trains run on time.

[RiverDog]

My problem with the for profit system is not the people, but the idea itself. Profiting off people that are sick and dying is macabre.

Using that philosophy, the government should take over the funeral home business. Profiting off a grieving family has to be at least as objectionable, right?

[Aseahawkfan]

Using that philosophy, the government should take over the funeral home business. Profiting off a grieving family has to be at least as objectionable, right?

Not really. Once you're dead, you're dead. Funeral home is cleaning up the remains. You can be subject to the customer choosing the best way to lay their family member to rest.

Family members grieving isn't the near the same as a a child dying of cancer or a wife needing a kidney transplant. Sicks folks are still alive, unable to work and produce income to save themselves, and hanging on to life. The sick and dying are usually in the worst position to worry about their income and the economics of medicine. Very different scenarios.

[burrrton]

Profiting off people that are sick and dying is macabre.

Only if you think "profit" is an evil idea.

Pediatricians treating your sick child aren't working for cost, chief.

[Aseahawkfan]

Only if you think "profit" is an evil idea.

Pediatricians treating your sick child aren't working for cost, chief.

No. I made it clear that I think profiting off the sick and dying is macabre. Profit in general isn't. If this is how you debate, hard to believe you won much.

Profit off the sick and dying marks up life saving care by an additional amount other than the base cost of production. Increasing the cost of production for a life-preserving necessity for profit is ethically questionable, much like doing the same thing for police or military services.

If I say found you crawling in the desert having no water for three days and I have water, should I sell it to you for a profit mark up? If you say don't have the money to pay, do I let you die? Is that what you think I should do, Chief? Sounds like it. Or am I making an assumption about you that isn't true because I'm being a jerk? One must wonder.

I do think profiting off certain situations is perhaps "evil" as you put it or ethically questionable. Not sure why anyone would think profit in all things is desirable or ethical.

[burrrton]

No. I made it clear that I think profiting off the sick and dying is macabre. Profit in general isn't.

"Profiting off the sick and dying" is a pediatric surgeon operating on your sick child, and as I said, they don't do that for cost. You're decrying profit just as directly there as in any other situation.

If this is how you debate, hard to believe you won much.

This ham-fisted attempt at hair splitting would have lost you the debate before it even got rolling.

Bye, asea.

[idhawkman]

After the last two nights, anyone who thinks Trump won't win big this next election isn't paying attention to what these candidates are saying and doing.

[idhawkman]

I just saw this on Facebook and thought it was appropriate for here:

1. If you were to strip naked and run around in a circle at 186,282 miles an hour (speed of light), it is theoretically possible to screw yourself.

2. However, since we are not physically able at our age to do this, you can accomplish the same result by voting democrat in November 2020.

yep, I couldn't hold the coffee in when I read it.