Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College Football Soundoff' started by jantydog, Apr 30, 2017.
God be with us. Things are about to get far more ugly than they already have been.
May truth reign.
You heard about laJolla San Diego in the past hour ?
not good, and hopefully not racial, but it might be, according to early twitter reports.
No idea what you're referring to. My post has nothing to do with anything occurring in the last hour.
But as a fellow American and friend, I wish you all the best.
you will see online, past couple hours a mass shooting in LaJolla area, cops shot the shooter, most of the victims are alive, in hospital, so some good news.
could have been worse they are reporting,
but frayed nerves down in SD tonight,
For the record, I don't agree with dems or repubs, libs or cons, black or white. I agree with taking care of your own, so whatever brings finanicial security, safety and a better future for my kids, I will support. America is not heading in that direction right now due to a corrupt 2-party political system sponsored by greedy corporations. Someone save this country, it's looking bleak.
Is there a Geek Squad guarantee that we can purchase for our political process?
AWW I wasn't the first post. IN ON THE FIRST PAGE!
SUBLIGHT WAS HERE!
Mandated course for the lefties on this thread:
Learn what makes America great....
Made it on the first page. See you guys next thread...
1st page. You guys carry on changing each other's minds and stuff.
It's all about personal freedom. Freedom to choose whether or not to buy health insurance,. And if the choice is to buy health insurance then one should be able to pick and choose which health care items they wish to cover, and not be forced to pay for things that are not pertinent to that person's being.
May Day! Viva Communism!
President Trump’s first 100 days: The fact check tally
By Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee May 1 at 3:00 AM
The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been chaotic and unpredictable. Reporters who covered it recount the events that dominated the news. (Alice Li, Jayne Orenstein, Julio Negron/The Washington Post)
President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered. He earned 59 Four-Pinocchio ratings during his campaign as president. Since then, he’s earned 16 more Four-Pinocchio ratings.
But those numbers obscure the fact that the pace and volume of the president’s misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up. The president’s speeches and interviews are so chock full of false and misleading claims that The Fact Checker often must resort to roundups that offer a brief summary of the facts that the president has gotten wrong.
As part of our coverage of the president’s first 100 days, The Fact Checker team (along with Leslie Shapiro and Kaeti Hinck of the Post graphics department) produced an interactive graphic that displayed a running list of every false or misleading statement made by the president. We also catalogued the president’s many flip-flops, since those earn Upside-Down Pinocchios if a politician shifts position on an issue without acknowledging he or she did so.
So here are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days.
488: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day.
10: Number of days without a single false claim. (On six of those days, the president golfed at a Trump property.)
4: Number of days with 20 or more false claims. (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, March 20 and April 21.) He made 19 false claims on April 29, his 100th day, though we did not include his interview with “Face the Nation,” since that aired April 30.
While the president is known to make outrageous claims on Twitter — and that was certainly a major source of his falsehoods — he made most of his false statements in unscripted remarks before reporters. (Interviews were another major source of false claims.) That’s because the president would rely on talking points or assertions that he had made in the past — and continued to make, even though they had been fact-checked as wrong.
This makes Trump somewhat unique among politicians. Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump just repeats the same claim over and over.
In particular, the president repeatedly took credit for events or business decisions that happened before he took the oath of office — or had even been elected.
He gave himself credit for the January jobs report — 216,000 jobs — even though the data was collected the week of Jan. 12, before he became president. (In other words, the gain in jobs took place from Dec. 12 to Jan. 12.)
Among other deals, Trump took credit for $1 billion investment by Fiat Chrysler (which the company said was due to talks with unions in 2015), $1 billion General Motors investment (also in the works for some time), 10,000 jobs added by Walmart (announced in October), 10,000 jobs created by Intel (announced originally in 2011), 1 million planned jobs by Chinese e-company Alibaba (a plan outlined in 2015), and a $25 billion investment by Charter Communications (in the works since 2015). Trump also touted a big investment by Japanese company SoftBank — which announced its investment fund three weeks before the U.S. elections, when Trump faced a narrow path to victory.
On at least 15 occasions, Trump boasted that he had personally negotiated a cut between $600 million and $725 million off an order for Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. But Lockheed had already planned the cost reductions, saying in December that the next batch of 90 planes would cost six to seven percent less per plane than the previous order. (This was well before any meeting that Trump had with the company’s chief executive.) The Air Force’s budget had already accounted for the cut in price — and the price is expected to keep dropping.
Another Trump favorite was claiming — seven times — that the United States had spent $6 trillion on wars in “the Middle East.” He usually utters this figure to note the money would have been better spent in the United States. But Trump is lumping together the wars in Iraq (in the Middle East) and Afghanistan (in South Asia), which together cost about $1.6 trillion from 2001 to 2014. He is also adding in estimates of future spending, such as interest on the debt and veterans’ care for the next three decades.
Trump has also repeatedly asserted (17 times) that the Affordable Care Act was failing or on the edge of disaster or in serious trouble. But the Congressional Budget Office has said that the Obamacare exchanges, despite well-documented issues, is not imploding and is expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future. Trump, as he did during the campaign, also cherry-picked numbers about premium increases to make the increases sound worse than reality.
Trump repeatedly also blamed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—“the worst trade deal ever made by any country”– for resulting in the loss of one-third of U.S. manufacturing jobs. He also claimed that the entry of China into the World Trade Organization led to the closure of as many as 70,000 factories.
But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in 2017 concluded the “net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.” Meanwhile, manufacturing jobs in the United States have been adversely affected by many factors, especially changing consumer tastes and technology. Drawing a connection between China’s entry in the WTO and factory losses is a stretch, especially because the Great Recession played a big role in factory closings.
Judging from Trump’s repeated false claims, one would think that he is not a regular reader. But on March 21, Trump remarked that the news media was too judgmental about his statements. “If it’s off by 100th of a percent, it’s like I end up getting Pinocchios,” he said.
That’s a start. Hope springs eternal.
God bless President Donald Trump.
Antifa is composed of cowards.
I heard the shooter was white, a Trump supporter, and shot minorities while screaming MAGA. Also there was someone named Zimmerman involved.
No...you as a middle aged male should have to purchase vagina care coverage.
Yeah, I don't understand it either.
Young, healthy people paying for your old man boner pills is cool though?
Um no. Incidentally, I'm still "saluting the flag".
It is gonna get fugly, in a hurry, for sure.
End days are near,
The Trumpocalypse leading us into a NKorean war, coming soon
The end is nigh.....
I swear by all that is holy that I never knew what "antifa" meant. (an-TEEF-ah)
I thought it was an African dream pop band.
I'm not kidding.
workplace violence is the worst.
I still dont kkow
Interesting the sjw only protest conservatives speaking at commencements,
But an open advocate for sharia law is welcomed.
Conservatives prepare for Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement - CNN
Whatever trump does in his administration, if he gets 2 justices on the bench, thatll be a lagacy spanning decades
Im hoping for a political activist judge. Opposite sotomayor and ginsburg
You're better off.
Did i make it on page one?Trump is great ,God is Great, America is Great,and guns are awesome.GO
Antifa is a funny name short for anti fascist. It's like calling a fat guy tiny or a tall person shorty. You know, the exact opposite of what they really are.
Taking away health insurance from really sick people is going to be tremendously popular in the midterm elections:
"Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) on Tuesday formally unveiled an amendment to the American Health Care Act, the bill to repeal Obamacare that Republicans tried to get through the House last month. The amendment, which HuffPost’s Matt Fuller first reported last week, is the product of negotiations among key Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence.
A main goal of the proposal is to win over conservative House members who last month opposed the GOP repeal bill because, in their view, it still left too much of the 2010 health care law in place. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, helped to craft the amendment. And although he has not yet declared support for it publicly, a few other conservatives have signaled they may be ready to switch from no to yes.
It’s easy enough to see why. If enacted, it would allow states to re-create the conditions that existed before the Affordable Care Act took effect ― a time when insurance premiums were cheaper, chiefly because insurers didn’t have to pay the big medical bills of people with serious conditions.
At the same time, the new proposal leaves intact most of the initial bill’s big financial changes. Those include shifting the law’s health insurance subsidies, which would offer less help to poor people, and dramatically cutting funds for Medicaid, which would free up money for tax cuts for the wealthy.
But conservative dissension wasn’t the only obstacle to passage last time around.
Moderate Republicans also objected to the bill, citing, among other things, the huge loss of insurance coverage it would cause. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the number of uninsured Americans would climb by 24 million if the law took effect ― partly because people would lose financial assistance they need to pay for health insurance, and partly because people depending on Medicaid would no longer be eligible for it.
Instead of addressing those concerns ― say, by pulling back on the huge Medicaid cut ― this proposal seems to make repeal even less palatable to moderates. By gutting the protection for people with pre-existing conditions, the proposal attacks a feature of the health care law that has been wildly popular, even with Republicans. It also violates a key promise that virtually every Republican, including President Donald Trump, has made repeatedly.
How The Proposal Guts Pre-Existing Condition Protections
The measure’s supporters insist that their proposal would not harm people with serious medical problems. In fact, a clause states explicitly: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.”
But that is exactly what it would do.
By now, most people know that the Affordable Care Act protects people with pre-existing conditions. But not everybody realizes that the law accomplishes this through several mechanisms that interact.
The law doesn’t simply prohibit insurers from denying coverage outright to people with medical problems, it also prohibits insurers from charging those people more ― or from selling policies that skimp on or leave out key benefits, rendering insurance useless to people who depend on those benefits.
Under the new proposal, insurers still couldn’t reject people who have pre-existing conditions. But states could allow insurers to charge those people higher premiums ― and to sell policies without Obamacare’s essential benefits.
This approach provides access to people with pre-existing conditions in theory but not in practice.Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Conservatives have long objected to these features of the Affordable Care Act, because they drive up premiums for younger and healthier people. What conservatives fail to mention is that, without these provisions, people with medical problems end up paying a great deal more for their health care, because they face much higher premiums or can’t find policies to cover their medical needs. Ultimately, many end up with no insurance at all.
A recent analysis by researchers at the liberal think tank Center for American Progressexamined the likely effects of such a proposal on premiums for people with medical conditions. For conditions like asthma or diabetes without complications, the researchers predicted, insurers would seek premiums more than twice as high as the standard rates. For people with metastatic cancer, the researchers concluded, insurers would ask for premiums 35 times higher than usual ― pushing premiums well beyond $100,000 a year. Needless to say, that’s more than virtually anybody could or would pay for insurance.
“This approach provides access to people with pre-existing conditions in theory but not in practice, since they’d be charged astronomical premiums if states allow it,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, said Tuesday evening.
The proposal comes with plenty of caveats, like requiring states to seek waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services before eliminating those rules on insurance. These protections don’t appear to mean a whole lot, however, because the conditions for getting the waivers are broad and easy to satisfy.
“Essentially, any state that wanted a waiver would get one,” Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, wrote in a blog posted Tuesday evening for the journal Health Affairs. And even states that wanted to keep the existing consumer protections in place could be under enormous pressure from insurers to change them.
Defenders of the Republican proposal are likely to insist, as they always do, that so-called high-risk pools can take of people with pre-existing conditions. But few experts familiar with the history of health policy take this vow seriously because such high-risk pools existed before and rarely worked well.
And, of course, the high-risk pools wouldn’t do much good for the millions who now depend on either Obamacare’s financial assistance or its expansions of Medicaid for coverage ― and would lose it once the money for those programs was taken away from them.
Curiously, the bill would leave the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections in place for members of Congress and their staffs, as Sarah Kliff of Vox reported.
It’s Hard To Know How Serious This Is
Exactly how House Republicans will react to this proposal remains to be seen. In the last few weeks, moderates within the GOP caucus have become, if anything, more outspoken about their determination to keep some of the law’s consumer protections in place. And House leadership has been relatively quiet about the negotiations, which have apparently been driven by the White House.
Meanwhile, polling has detected a clear shift in public opinion away from repeal. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll that came out Tuesday, 61 percent of Americans said they prefer Congress “keep and try to improve” the 2010 health care law, while 37 percent say they want Congress to “repeal and replace it.”
The same poll found that 70 percent of Americans favor requiring all states to prohibit higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, while 62 percent favor requiring all states to make plans cover essential benefits including “preventive services, maternity and pediatric care, hospitalization and prescription drugs.”
In other words, strong majorities oppose both of the key provisions in this new plan. That doesn’t mean it can’t pass. But it means that Republicans voting for it would be risking a pretty big political backlash ― while making insurance less accessible for some of the people who need it most.
CORRECTION: This article previously misidentified the state that Mark Meadows represents as South Carolina.
Do you have information you want to share with the Huffington Post? Here’s how.
Jonathan Cohn Senior National Correspondent, HuffPost"
I woke up this morning and everything was still here and the same as it ever was.
Being elated or being pissed about it doesn't change that I have to deal with it.
Everyone have a nice day.
I bought a new vape and botanicals to go with it, so I'm doing well.
Life is good.
Pictures of Che and others becoming a Good Socialist
That's an odd way to come out of the closet in this thread, but I support you