Politics, Politics, Politics

but never hear the same cries to abolish the Senate. They fundamentally serve the same purpose....to help balance the interests of many low population states vs the interests of a few large population states. Do you support eliminating the Senate?
that is twisting it a bit isn't it?
the electoral college has elected 3? presidents that were not by the people!
besides it was created back when it was impossible to tally the votes anywhere near election time.... now with computers... and just all the electronics to begin with the tally can still be in in a reasonable time
let the people decide.... besides how many of these trump people were actually representing the people they were supposed to be voting for... at one time I read where a couple were getting death threats
In this modern day... let the people vote!
although in this modern day it is pretty easy to hack the computers also... I read where Russia had hacked several state computerts on this election... didn't do anything... but they were in the position they could have... maybe just preparing for???..... sorry got off the subject
 
Last edited:
On #3, I always find it odd when I hear all the cries to abolish the Electoral College...but never hear the same cries to abolish the Senate. They fundamentally serve the same purpose....to help balance the interests of many low population states vs the interests of a few large population states. Do you support eliminating the Senate?

If you really want to see chaos, go ahead and abolish the Electoral College. You think 2000 was a fiasco. Just wait until the next election like we had in 1960. JFK won the popular vote by just 112,000 votes nationwide (0.17%). If that happened without the electoral college, we'd have the Florida hanging chads, lawsuits, and resulting chaos in every county of every state in the US.

On #6, Agree....if that were the case, we'd have never gotten Obummercare rammed down our throat...or in the other end of our digestive tract!
w8i6ho2.gif
 
Ted Cruz.... reminds me of some one:
u2f3oHs.gif
Howdy.. do.dally..day.neighbor
Oh thats right
His political speeches always remind me of sermons.

Democrats better watch out on trying to block Trumps Supreme court nominations to much, Trump just might push the Senate into going nuclear and then stick Ted on the bench as revenge, LOL.
 
Last edited:
The Real Reason Trump pushes this...... he can't get to the info to delete it!

White House says real story is about leaking, not Russia

On the defensive, the White House is throwing counter punches to deflect attention from three investigations into the Kremlin's interference in last year's election and possible Russian ties to President Donald Trump or his associates.

The White House says the real story is not about Russia, but about how Obama administration officials allegedly leaked and mishandled classified material about Americans. Reaching back to campaign mode, Trump aides also contend that Hillary Clinton had more extensive ties to Moscow than Trump.

Arguing the White House's case Friday, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer said: "There is a concern that people misused, mishandled, misdirected classified information — leaked it out, spread it out, violated civil liberties."

The White House has not pointed to any hard evidence to support its allegations, and instead has relied on media reports from some of the same publications Trump derides as "fake news." The truth is buried somewhere in classified material that is illegal to disclose.

THE FLYNN AFFAIR
Trump fired national security adviser Michael Flynn following news reports that Flynn misled the White House about his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. But the White House says the problem is that Flynn's conversations were in the news at all.

"The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?" Trump tweeted after firing Flynn in February.
The White House has called for investigations into the disclosure of multiple intercepted conversations that Flynn had with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before the inauguration. The government routinely monitors the communications of foreign officials in the U.S. It's illegal to publicly disclose such classified information.

Officially, the White House said Flynn was ****** to resign because he'd give inaccurate descriptions of the discussions to Vice President Mike Pence and others in the White House. But Trump has continued to defend Flynn, suggesting he was only fired because information about his contacts came out in the media.

"Michael Flynn, Gen. Flynn is a wonderful man," Trump said. "I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media."

THE DEEP STATE?
White House officials say some Obama holdovers are part of a so-called deep state out to tear Trump down.

This week, the White House latched onto a month-old television interview from an Obama administration official who said she encouraged congressional aides to gather as much information on Russia as possible before the inauguration.

Evelyn Farkas, the former deputy assistant secretary of defense, said she feared that information "would disappear" after President Barack Obama left office.

Spicer called Farkas' comments "devastating" and said they "raised serious concerns on whether or not there was an organized and widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes."

Farkas was no longer in government when she urged officials to collect intelligence on "the staff, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians." She left the Pentagon in 2015, just over a year before the election. She says she was offering advice to associates and did not pass on actual information.
Obama administration officials have acknowledged that there were efforts to preserve information that could be related to the Russian investigations, as was first reported in The New York Times. Former Obama officials contend that intelligence was disseminated to pockets of the government where officials had clearance to see classified reports, not publicly leaked.

Still, Farkas herself connected the concerns among government officials about the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia to the information winding up in the press.

"That's why you have the leaking," Farkas said in the March 2 interview on MSNBC. "People are worried."

THE HILL WEIGHS IN
The White House has embraced a top Republican's assertion that information about Trump associates were improperly spread around the government in the final days of the Obama administration. It appears the White House played a role in helping House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., acquire some of that information.

Nunes announced last week that he had seen intelligence reports showing that Trump aides' communications were picked up through routine surveillance. But he said their identities may have been improperly revealed. The California congressman later said he viewed the reports at the White House.

The White House contends that Nunes' information — which has not been made public — validates Trump's explosive claim that his predecessor wiretapped his New York skyscraper. Nunes has disputed that but still says he found the reports "troubling."

The White House's apparent involvement in helping Nunes access the information has overshadowed what Trump officials contend are real concerns about how much information about Americans is disseminated in intelligence reports. Trump has asked the House and Senate intelligence committees to include the matter in their Russia investigations.

CAMPAIGN MODE
Trump won the election, but thinks it's his vanquished opponent whose ties to Russia should be investigated.

Some of the White House's allegations against Clinton stem from her four years as secretary of state, a role that gave her ample reasons to have frequent contacts with Russia.

To deflect questions about Trump's friendly rhetoric toward Russia, the White House points to the fact that Clinton was a central figure in the Obama administration's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow — an effort that crumbled after Vladimir Putin took back the presidency.

"When you compare the two sides in terms of who's actually engaging with Russia, trying to strengthen them, trying to act with them, trying to interact with them, it is night and day between our actions and her actions," Spicer said.

Rex Tillerson, Trump's secretary of state, has deep ties to Russia from his time running ExxonMobil and cutting oil deals with Moscow.
The White House has also tried to link Clinton to Russia's purchase of a controlling stake in a mining company with operations in the U.S., arguing that she was responsible for "selling off one-fifth of our country's uranium."

The Clinton-led State Department was among nine U.S. government agencies that had to approve the purchase of Uranium One. According to Politifact, some investors in the company had relationships with former President Bill Clinton and donated to the Clinton Foundation. However, the fact checking site says most of those donations occurred well before Clinton became secretary of state and was in position to have a say in the agreement.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-launches-counteroffensive-amid-183446741.html
 
Trump walks out of executive order signing ceremony without signing executive orders because help

The President of the United States of America is feeling really tired today and just wants to be left alone, okay?

On Friday, President Trump was scheduled to sign executive orders in front of a press gaggle. Instead of actually signing the orders, Trump seems to have gotten a little bit cranky and walked straight out of the signing ceremony, leaving the orders unsigned.

Trump didn't even respond to Vice President Pence's desperate pleas for the President to come back and sign the orders. Like a good boy, Pence then proceeds to gather the orders in a nice little folder for the president to sign later.

It appears that Trump was provoked after a reporter asked him a question about Flynn.


Watch with all the lights on.
It's fine. Everything's just fine. Here, watch this mashup of the awkward moment and the credits from Veep.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-walks-executive-order-signing-215401726.html
 
Hands raised, Trump aides rush to try to testify on Russia

Their reputations at risk, a coterie of President Donald Trump's associates caught up in the swirling debate about Trump and Russia are turning to a similar if unusual playbook: volunteering to testify to Congress, before even being asked.

They are eager to come forward despite not having been compelled by subpoena to appear before the two committees investigating Russian meddling in the U.S. election and potential Trump campaign collusion. But testifying on such matter is an exercise most people would typically avoid, especially if there's a chance they're being scrutinized in a parallel FBI investigation.

So what gives?

"There's only one way: Tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself," said Lanny Davis, who was special counsel to President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings.

Davis, who frequently advises political figures on crisis management, said it's wise for those whose names have emerged publicly as part of the investigations to seek proactively to clear their names. After all, Washington has seen more than its share of once-powerful people who failed to learn the lesson that the cover-up is often worse than the original sin.

"These questions are going to ultimately get answered," Davis said. "You ought to answer them yourself."

Trump's *******-in-law, Jared Kushner, told the Senate intelligence panel this week he'd gladly answer questions about his meetings with the Russian ambassador and others. Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who features prominently in the Russia scandal, made a similar offer to the House committee investigating. So did former Trump adviser Carter Page and associate Roger Stone.

Those aides haven't publicly asked for any protections from prosecution to testimony. But former national security adviser Michael Flynn is in talks with congressional committees to receive immunity in exchange for being questioned, according to his lawyer. On Friday, the top Democrats on the House intelligence panel said it was too early to consider an immunity deal for Flynn.

In case a formal letter wasn't flashy enough, Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska took out quarter-page ads in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal to publicize his willingness to "take part in any hearings conducted in the US Congress on this subject in order to defend my reputation and name." That move followed an Associated Press report that Manafort in 2005 had written Deripaska, an aluminum magnate close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, proposing he do work for Deripaska that would "benefit the Putin Government."

The rush to volunteer to testify even extended to a convicted Ponzi schemer whose name had not previously been associated with the Russia investigations. Steven Hoffenberg, a Trump supporter and onetime New York Post owner, phoned the AP unsolicited to announce he'd volunteered to testify to offer "evidence that is very serious."

"I decided on my own after watching the circus of false stories," Hoffenberg said, adding that given his criminal history the FBI likely tapped his communications, including those with people in Trump Tower during the summer of 2016. "There's no privacy for me as a citizen."
So far, none of the above has testified before Congress. Nor has former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who agreed to testify before House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes canceled the hearing.

The openness to testify publicly, in the absence of at least a public demand for immunity, is in stark contrast to how last year's Capitol Hill investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server unfolded. In that case, multiple witnesses — including the IT staffer who set up Clinton's server — asserted their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and either did not appear at a hearing or refused to answer questions.

Rob Walker, a Washington lawyer at the Wiley Rein law firm who represents clients in congressional investigations, said the willingness to testify struck him as "contrary to the norm of what one would expect" in such a probe. He said he was not sure a witness had anything to gain from appearing before Congress during an FBI investigation.

"As a general matter," he added, "I would advise a client to follow a different path."

Though witnesses may look like they have something to hide if they refuse to testify before Congress, it's also clear they open themselves to criminal prosecution in the event government officials believe they're lying. The Justice Department, for instance, prosecuted retired baseball star Roger Clemens for perjury after he denied steroid use to Congress, though he was later acquitted of all charges.
It's unlikely the FBI is as enthusiastic as those volunteering to talk.

Testifying before Congress can complicate a criminal investigation if a witness is granted immunity, given restrictions on the Justice Department's ability to use those statements in any subsequent prosecution.

"It's not just that you're not allowed to use the testimony, said Josh Chafetz, a Cornell University law professor and expert in congressional investigations. "You're not allowed to use any leads you got from the testimony."

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hands-raised-trump-aides-rush-070444881.html
 
Mmmmm might have to change my stance on the freedom caucus

they say that only 17% of the people are for Ryan's health care..... most Dr's are against as with most hospitals... said it would raise premiums to almost triple what they are now in 5 years.... not counting all the people who would be dropped
not sure where he got his numbers... but was pretty firm on it!
let me guess who that 17% is that wants this passed!
also said this needs to pass because it hinders Trump Tax plan....

Had a a couple freedom caucus people on jake tapper (CNN)... I like Jake he asks what needs to be asked.... that's why Trump doesn't like him!
 
Speaker Ryan Should Quit Congress Before He Is Rumbled
Neil H. Buchanan,Newsweek
The world finally caught on to Paul Ryan's game last week. The speaker of the House might not survive his inability to find enough Republicans to vote for his deeply unpopular and poorly crafted American Health Care Act—a gratuitously cruel bill that Donald Trump, for no apparent reason, had embraced so completely that Ryan's bill became Trump's bill (TrumpRyanCare, as I called it) and Ryan's failure became Trump's failure. One of Trump's strongest supporters on Fox News (which is filled with people vying to be Trump's strongest supporter) immediately called for Ryan to go. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/080569d6-a2e6-3ba5-9c8b-242da8b02fd3/speaker-ryan-should-quit.html
 
Possibly IF the Republicans would submit a fixed benefit indemnity health product under a well negotiated PPO they could get taxpayers to go along with that plan and it would be quite a bit less expensive than the other plans. The down side, however, is these plans are quite limited in the amount they pay towards a medical/surgical procedure. Still, if participants wanted a plan that offered more benefits, they could buy-up. I haven't even heard them discuss these plans at all.
 
Possibly IF the Republicans would submit a fixed benefit indemnity health product under a well negotiated PPO they could get taxpayers to go along with that plan and it would be quite a bit less expensive than the other plans. The down side, however, is these plans are quite limited in the amount they pay towards a medical/surgical procedure. Still, if participants wanted a plan that offered more benefits, they could buy-up. I haven't even heard them discuss these plans at all.
Health care is not something i really care about, other then them forsing me into something.
I have been saving my money in a health saving account so my premiums would be ultra low still if i had free choice.
If you are able to pay for the first 5,ooo of any medical bills for any year, then you would only need it for total body destruction, diseases or braking like 50% your bones in you body.
During my 20's i saved 5,000 bucks and in my 30's i added another 5,000 for medical emergency.
I only go to the doctor if i feel like i am dying or simple checkup for job stuff or yearly one.

Save your money in your 20's, when most people are healthy, thats only 500-600 a year or less then 50 bucks a month to save.

It would covered everything beyond the 5,000 mark, since i don't *******, smoke, exercise, keep a healthy weight, never done *******, ect ect.
Thats how you make health care cheap and affordable.
If you don't; do the above then your premiums WILL rise and you don't punish the other people for being responsible.
Money is a heck of an incentive to stay health, smoking will get even more expensive.

And if you don't want health care fine, it's like helmet laws, then roll the dice and risk dying.
tough love man, tough love.

Lastly Trump said he is pushing to get ride of regional and state laws that allow insurance companies and the ******* companies to get monopolies in areas. This needs to be supported by EVERY ONE.
Just by congress changing these rules would drop the price of ******* by 50% and make it so insurance companies actually have to compete for your business.
Prices would drop so long as congress enforces anti-trust laws.
 
saw a show on the tube this weekend about all these jobs moving to mexico
these biz people say they have to because of the labor rate there and they need it to compete

that's bullshit!
it boils down to greed!.... greed over country... which is our downfall to begin with.... they all want to be millionaires in the first year

lets look at the cost of living there... do they pay what we do for electric... a house... a car... groceries?
hell no... so their labor rate matches their cost of living

trump says he wants to add a tariff to incoming products.... that just fucks the consumer that much more!

the answer is simple..... if they want to move to mexico.... fine...... but if they want to have it manuf. at Mexico's prices..... sell it at Mexico's prices!
 
Last edited:
If you are able to pay for the first 5,ooo of any medical bills for any year, then you would only need it for total body destruction, diseases or braking like 50% your bones in you body.
gif_Yellowball-foreheadSlap.gif ...Just shows how uninformed you are about medical costs itis ... one cancer claim, open heart surgery, or major car accident would suck that $10,000 right out of your account in 1-2 days. Even if you had 10X that, it wouldn't be enough. And god forbid you were in an auto accident and in intensive care for 3-4 weeks. And therein lies the problem ... you simply aren't aware of the high costs of medical care; you say you've saved for the big claim of the future, and if that's not enough, its basically on everyone else (using that hospital facility) to suck up your leftover charges. The only difference between you and the freeriders of the totally uninsured is your pitiful $10,000.
..Also, if you aren't under a contract that has negotiated the procedure charges, like a PPO/HMO, you would pay FULL cost for your medical care. As an example, I had a back injury a few years ago and the charges from the hospital for lab, x-rays, mri, rehab, and doctor visits amounted to well over $28,000, but my health insurance had negotiated the costs down to just $12,000 and of that I ended up paying $800 out-of-pocket. Same with dental plans ... had a crown put in last year, the cost of the crown was $1,200, but my dental carrier negotiated the cost down to $700 of which I paid $380 because I used the doctors & facilities in the network.
...So, I'm not about to start a discussion with someone so uninformed of what medical care actually cost. Besides, those are the direct charges ... didn't even get into the residual charges of travel "to & from", home health care, convalescence care, etc that aren't covered under a health plan .... it would be like teaching a pig to sing, "I'd just be wasting my time and irritating the pig" so, lets just move on.

PS ... you might wish to check out the Critical Care insurance plans ... they usually cover the first $5,000-50,000 of charges, are based upon diagnosis so you get your benefit lump sum up front, have no deductibles or co-insurance charges, then the plans pay nothing after the limit you chose to take out. But, they do cover the critical care situations pretty good ... cancer, strokes, heart attacks, major accidents, Alzheimer's, organ failures, paralysis, etc and cost pennies in premium compared to a full blown health plans. Critical Care plans pay on a 'diagnosis' not on 'incurred claims' which is good as you get reimbursed before you incur many of your medical charges. If you're an AARP member, they have one that's pretty good. My *******-n-law has a $25,000 plan and he got paid within 3 weeks of his prostate cancer diagnosis.

Info on Critical Care Insurance
https://www.healthedeals.com/articles/is-critical-illness-insurance-worth-it
 
Last edited:
Is this guy just friggn nuts... or is he that much of an asshole...... Follow Brownback enough and you understand HH's way of thinking!

The battle over Obamacare's most popular program just hit a wall in a key state

Kansas lawmakers on Monday failed to override Republican Gov. Sam Brownback's veto of a bill that would have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

The Kansas House voted 81-44 to override Brownback's veto, three votes short of the necessary majority needed.
Brownback vetoed a bill last week that proposed expanding Medicaid, the government-run health program that provides insurance primarily to pregnant women, single parents, people with disabilities, and seniors with low incomes.

"I am vetoing this expansion of Obamacare because it fails to serve the truly vulnerable before the able-bodied, lacks work requirements to help able-bodied Kansans escape poverty, and burdens the state budget with unrestrainable entitlement costs," Brownback said in a statement.
Lawmakers have been trying to expand the program under a provision of the Affordable Care Act that opens eligibility up to any adult living under 138% of the federal poverty level — an income of $27,821 for a family of three in 2016.

Thirty-two states, including the District of Columbia, have chosen to participate, leading to more than 11 million people nationwide gaining coverage.

The Kansas House passed the bill in February by the same margin of 81-44, and the Senate passed it on Tuesday by a margin of 25-14.
In the lead up to the vote on the veto override, many of the bill's supporters acknowledged the tall order.

Sen. John Doll, a moderate Republican elected in 2016 amidst a public backlash against Brownback's conservative policies, told Business Insider on Thursday that garnering the two votes needed to override in the Senate would be "really difficult."

"I hope we are able to. I just don’t see it," Doll said.

Barbara Bollier, a first-term senator representing several Kansas City suburbs and a retired physician, expressed hope that overwhelming public support for the bill could push some senators and representatives from no to yes.

A public opinion poll conducted by the American Cancer Society in January found that 82% of Kansans support the Medicaid expansion. Several other polls from recent months put the number closer to 62%. Still, it has been hampered, its supporters say, by its association with the Affordable Care Act.

A major supporter of the bill, Doll said that even if an override failed, public support would ensure that Medicaid expansion will be raised by lawmakers again, though probably not until the next legislative session.

"It will come before the legislature again and again until it becomes law. Or until [the ACA] is repealed in Washington," Doll said.
A major obstacle to the bill's passage is its association with the ACA, according to Doll.

"Some of us can’t get past the origination of the law," Doll said. "We’ve got to look past parties and look at policies. We need a big lesson that at every level of government, but especially state and federal. We need to look at what’s good for the people."

In his veto memo, Brownback said that an increase in federal Medicaid funding would result in increased funding to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood and said that because Kansas is "pro-life," he could not support the bill.

Bollier called Brownback's reasoning "disingenuous" and a "weak excuse," noting that amendments to the Medicaid expansion bill addressing funding to abortion providers were introduced in both chambers and were voted down because voters did not support the measures.

"The people have spoken. [Planned Parenthood is] not their issue," said Bollier. "We're a far cry from listening to the people right now."

Bollier also suggested that Brownback's objection to the bill's lack of work requirements for Medicaid recipients was a non-issue because the population gaining coverage is "the working poor."

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/battle-over-obamacares-most-popular-170556256.html
 
View attachment 1214003 ...Just shows how uninformed you are about medical costs itis ... one cancer claim, open heart surgery, or major car accident would suck that $10,000 right out of your account in 1-2 days. Even if you had 10X that, it wouldn't be enough. And god forbid you were in an auto accident and in intensive care for 3-4 weeks. And therein lies the problem ... you simply aren't aware of the high costs of medical care; you say you've saved for the big claim of the future, and if that's not enough, its basically on everyone else (using that hospital facility) to suck up your leftover charges. The only difference between you and the freeriders of the totally uninsured is your pitiful $10,000.
..Also, if you aren't under a contract that has negotiated the procedure charges, like a PPO/HMO, you would pay FULL cost for your medical care. As an example, I had a back injury a few years ago and the charges from the hospital for lab, x-rays, mri, rehab, and doctor visits amounted to well over $28,000, but my health insurance had negotiated the costs down to just $12,000 and of that I ended up paying $800 out-of-pocket. Same with dental plans ... had a crown put in last year, the cost of the crown was $1,200, but my dental carrier negotiated the cost down to $700 of which I paid $380 because I used the doctors & facilities in the network.
...So, I'm not about to start a discussion with someone so uninformed of what medical care actually cost. Besides, those are the direct charges ... didn't even get into the residual charges of travel "to & from", home health care, convalescence care, etc that aren't covered under a health plan .... it would be like teaching a pig to sing, "I'd just be wasting my time and irritating the pig" so, lets just move on.

PS ... you might wish to check out the Critical Care insurance plans ... they usually cover the first $5,000-50,000 of charges, are based upon diagnosis so you get your benefit lump sum up front, have no deductibles or co-insurance charges, then the plans pay nothing after the limit you chose to take out. But, they do cover the critical care situations pretty good ... cancer, strokes, heart attacks, major accidents, Alzheimer's, organ failures, paralysis, etc and cost pennies in premium compared to a full blown health plans. Critical Care plans pay on a 'diagnosis' not on 'incurred claims' which is good as you get reimbursed before you incur many of your medical charges. If you're an AARP member, they have one that's pretty good. My *******-n-law has a $25,000 plan and he got paid within 3 weeks of his prostate cancer diagnosis.

Info on Critical Care Insurance
https://www.healthedeals.com/articles/is-critical-illness-insurance-worth-it

"then you would only need it for total body destruction or diseases"

You need to reread it, since i said I cover my first 5,000 of any given year and then and only then would insurance kick in.
It already exists and works.

Set up a Health Savings Account
To take full advantage of this cost and tax-saving strategy, the small business employer enrolls employees in an HDHP and deposits money every payday for each employee into their individual HSA. The HSA is similar to an IRA: the amount of money going into the employee’s HSA is not subject to federal income tax or any other payroll taxes, such as Social Security or FICA, Medicare, unemployment, etc. And like other health insurance benefits paid by the employer, contributions to an employee’s HSA account are tax deductible on the business’ tax return for the year in which the contributions are made.

The HSA belongs to the individual, not the business. Its unused balance goes with the employee when he or she leaves the company to work elsewhere or retires. The amounts added to the HSA each year may be invested for future growth and income, which is tax-free during the years held.
 
Last edited:
As an example, I had a back injury a few years ago and the charges from the hospital for lab, x-rays, mri, rehab, and doctor visits amounted to well over $28,000, but my health insurance had negotiated the costs down to just $12,000 and of that I ended up paying $800 out-of-pocket.

Sounds like our resident insurance salesman has a pretty nice policy for himself. That sounds a lot like the great insurance my employer USED to offer before Obummercare got shoved up our asses. My company prided itself on the quality of the health insurance it offered in our benefit package. Trouble was Obummer kept promising "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"....but left off the little tidbit that if Obummer felt your plan was TOO good then he would slap a 40% "Cadillac tax" on it. My employer, like many others said no way we're eating a 40% tax on top of our already high insurance costs....so great insurance goes bye bye and everyone got stuck with high deductible plans instead. Now if I had your back issue, I'd have paid $6,500 out of my pocket before insurance ever kicked in a dime. Oh and the "reward" for this piss poor insurance....my rate is currently almost double what I paid before for my "Cadillac plan".
 
Looks like old Obama found his patsy to cover the illegal spying.
Screenshot-from-2017-04-03-18-29-18-618x512.png
Bloomberg:

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking/spying on citizens” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”


_____

Obama administration’s “unmasking/spying/wire taping” activities were investigated and the Trump administration was informed about it. This was in February.

Later, in March, Trump makes his famous tweet:

Trump:
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!


In other words, Trump already knew about all of this when he made the tweet.


This is literally a Watergate-tier spying scandal we have on our hands here.
Anyone with an ounce of objectivity will acknowledge that this is deeply corrupt political behavior, using the state’s intelligence apparatus for the benefit of your petty party interests.




trump-is-happening.gif
 
You obviously didn't read and comprehend the post, did you ... bobblehead? Too anxious to post a smart ass comment, soooooooo ....

View attachment 1214597 .................View attachment 1214625
Damn, wee bit touchy are we??? I did read and comprehend your entire post. Please tell me what in anything I said suggests otherwise. I didn't argue or disagree with anything you said. I merely pointed out the example of your insurance claim shows you have or had at the time a damn good policy....then I cried in my beer explaining that I had a similarly good policy before Obummer fucked us with his lies to sell Obummercare. Should have known he was lying....typical of insurance salesmen ;)

Glad to see you're still ole "sweet and cordial" Mac!
 
Back
Top