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

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

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

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

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

 

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

This is the reality of it:

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

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

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

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

 

Yes they do.

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

They do similar things in civil cases.

 

Ralph Nader on Trump, Hiliar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

I use a left wing source here, too.

 

That's not the author of the study.

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

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

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


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

 

A week ago, WaPost published this:

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

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

 

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

That's single payer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Reagan saved Social Security. The big lug.

 

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

Obama's 2016 budget cuts Medicare but eliminates sequestration