President Donald J. Trump

[pyewacket]

It's hard for some of us to be happy in TrumpWorld 

Maybe you can understand how some of us felt for the last eight years.

[the_Stranger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKiLEgAzFDQ

[pyewacket]

Techie stuff in the printing industry. A bit of trouble shooting and maintenance thrown in. Plus making me a decent coffee (vital).

Your résumé is a bit sketchy and "didn't hit the mark":- thank you for your interest and good luck in your search. 

[aldousburbank]

It's hard for some of us to be happy in TrumpWorld 

I'm having the opposite problem.

[TigerLily]

Maybe you can understand how some of us felt for the last eight years.

Like the way I felt under the eight years of W.?  This seems much worse, pye, though that war started on fake evidence was pretty bad

[Yorkshire pud]

Your résumé is a bit sketchy and "didn't hit the mark":- thank you for your interest and good luck in your search. 

Oh, That cuts deep. I'll let them know. 

[TigerLily]

I'm having the opposite problem.

Hard to be happy even in TrumpWorld?

[Dr. MD MD]

Like the way I felt under the eight years of W.?  This seems much worse, pye, though that war started on fake evidence was pretty bad

So, yeah...how is a guy who's been cutting red tape for the past month worse than a guy who started a war on false pretenses?! 

[aldousburbank]

Hard to be happy even in TrumpWorld?

Happy to be hard in the TrumpWorld.
You made me say it.

[Yorkshire pud]

So, yeah...how is a guy who's been cutting red tape for the past month worse than a guy who started a war on false pretenses?! 

Because Bannon is a fascist. Cutting red tape? Utter bullshit. He's just been campaigning still.

[Dr. MD MD]

Happy to be hard in the TrumpWorld.
You made me say it.

[Dr. MD MD]

Because Bannon is a fascist. Cutting red tape? Utter bullshit. He's just been campaigning still.

So yeah...how is Bannon as fascist? Just cuz you say so? 

[Meister_000]

Way too intelligent, articulate and sensible to be a guy. I thought

I do take that as a High compliment! Thanks TL. Guess it's pays to (also) be in touch with " the Woman in you". (and, Her Majesty (that woman) didn't raise no fool (I do still pray, but we're not infallable) !  ;-)

But really, I do believe that the girls far out-smart the boys generally, and too that they DO have more courage than many men these days. So, per the OZ formulation, we only need now consider "Heart", and I'm afraid here too the girls win. So that gives us: Brains, Heart, and Courage -- the key three, in one package = "The Right Stuff"

You Go Girls!   ;-)

[the_Stranger]

Hand size 1/1 scale with Trumps.

[Dr. MD MD]

Hand size 1/1 scale with Trumps.

Guys with tiny hands make up for it in other ways. 

BTW, my monitor is a 46" TV 

[TigerLily]

Happy to be hard in the TrumpWorld.
You made me say it.

real lol. I'm happy I did

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6O-AdvzTM

[pyewacket]

Like the way I felt under the eight years of W.?  This seems much worse, pye, though that war started on fake evidence was pretty bad

I was not happy with Dubya, either. So it's more like that last 16 years.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm going to come clean and throw the lefties here a bone. I think the Republicans are full of shit about health care but I'm still interested to see what they come up with, nonetheless. If we really want a public option for health care though (as most seem to indicate these days) the only logical way of truly achieving that is to go to a socialist style single payer system. Now, before y'all go sounding the commie alarms consider the following things that we already socialize in some form or another: police and firefighting; infrastructure; education (up to highschool); sanitation; and, let's face it, corporations in this country seems to receive a lot of welfare too; etc. However, all of those things don't mean a lot if you don't have your health. It seems pretty basic and essential to me. I think we're going to have to have this conversation sooner or later. Maybe I'm wrong though. Have at it! 

[albrecht]

I'm going to come clean and throw the lefties here a bone. I think the Republicans are full of shit about health care but I'm still interested to see what they come up with, nonetheless. If we really want a public option for health care though (as most seem to indicate these days) the only logical way of truly achieving that is to go to a socialist style single payer system. Now, before y'all go sounding the commie alarms consider the following things that we already socialize in some form or another: police and firefighting; infrastructure; education (up to highschool); sanitation; and, let's face it, corporations in this country seems to receive a lot of welfare too; etc. However, all of those things don't mean a lot if you don't have your health. It seems pretty basic and essential to me. I think we're going to have to have this conversation sooner or later. Maybe I'm wrong though. Have at it! 

It also would take costs off companies.  We compete globally with companies who dont need the HR and costs for healthcare and with lower corporate taxes. And using ERs or primary care (or for accute fare since people not seeing docs,) and the general inflation in healthcare costs by insurance and that. I would rather a mixed system where each State, or agreements between States, could experiment. Single-payer, mixed system, tort reforms, coverage differences, incentives for healthy lifestyles, etc n see 'what works.'.and then others could implement, or, after time roll out on a national level. It might not be that a top-down, universal single-payer is best. And we are a large, diverse country. It could be taxpayers want to pay for gender reassignment in Mass but in OK they don't want and only for non-elelective stuff.

[Dr. MD MD]

It also would take costs off companies.  We compete globally with companies who dont need the HR and costs for healthcare and with lower corporate taxes. And using ERs or primary care (or for accute fare since people not seeing docs,) and the general inflation in healthcare costs by insurance and that. I would rather a mixed system where each State, or agreements between States, could experiment. Single-payer, mixed system, tort reforms, coverage differences, incentives for healthy lifestyles, etc n see 'what works.'.and then others could implement, or, after time roll out on a national level. It might not be that a top-down, universal single-payer is best. And we are a large, diverse country. It could be taxpayers want to pay for gender reassignment in Mass but in OK they don't want and only for non-elelective stuff.

Yes, I agree. It should be a system that covers the basics, not electives. The single biggest criticism I hear of single payer systems is waiting lists though. So, I assume that even if a single payer system was incorporated it would still naturally evolve into a mixed system because there would still be some richer folks who would still want the option of paying for private care.

[GravitySucks]

Yes, I agree. It should be a system that covers the basics, not electives. The single biggest criticism I hear of single payer systems is waiting lists though. So, I assume that even if a single payer system was incorporated it would still naturally evolve into a mixed system because there would still be some richer folks who would still want the option of paying for private care.

I think there should be a basic level of insurance for basic services (with buy up options) and a medicaid-like safety-net for high cost issues such as cancer or organ replacement. If something like this would have been an option for the ACA I think it would have been a success.

[albrecht]

Yes, I agree. It should be a system that covers the basics, not electives. The single biggest criticism I hear of single payer systems is waiting lists though. So, I assume that even if a single payer system was incorporated it would still naturally evolve into a mixed system because there would still be some richer folks who would still want the option of paying for private care.

In any "socialist" country I lived there was a mixed system or still private options available. It comes at cost. Like everything in life there is rationing. In the public system one issue I saw was waiting times for getting primary care or dentists...because the national allotment system didnt keep up with demographic shifts. (Like here how some wont accept Medicare or ones that do arent adding patients.) Another thing to consider in those systems the patient gives up some rights (no "lottery-style" lawsuit wins for malpractice.) You will have help but for care/maintenance but not  the million dollar stuff or class-action you see here. And also there is more rationing in medical schools, based on projected needs versus "I want to be an X specialist." If panel decides Y region and whole country will need X numbet of brain surgeons (or it is cheaper to fly them to Germany) than that speciality wont have as many candidates. Etc. All systems "ration," it is just an argukent on what system is best: top-down, market, localized, private, profit, non-profit, or mixes thereof.

[Up All Night]

Trump: I won't attend White House correspondents' dinner

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/321202-trump-i-wont-attend-white-house-correspondents-dinner

More W I N N I N G ! !

[Up All Night]

Steve Bannon a man on our side. Never Forget


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08LJngqmkbE

[PB the Deplorable]

I was not happy with Dubya, either. So it's more like that last 16 years.

Add Clinton and make it 24 years.

We were very fortunate he was president at a time of peace and prosperity - after the Soviets collapsed and before the rise of Islamic terror, and during the dot.com boom.

(And before people want to suggest Clinton was responsible for the economy, be prepared to state exactly what specific actions he took regarding the economy).

[ItsOver]

Add Clinton and make it 24 years.

We were very fortunate he was president at a time of peace and prosperity - after the Soviets collapsed and before the rise of Islamic terror, and during the dot.com boom.

(And before people want to suggest Clinton was responsible for the economy, be prepared to state exactly what specific actions he took regarding the economy).

I haven't been happy since The Gipper.  At least we don't have Billarry and a hopeless SCOTUS.  Shit , we still have scumbag Schumer, crazy Nancy, insane McCain, Turtle McConnell.  You'd think that carnival would be enough to keep the dingbats happy.  The best thing Trump can do is to keep giving them the finger and blow up the shit hole DC swamp.

[pyewacket]

Add Clinton and make it 24 years.

We were very fortunate he was president at a time of peace and prosperity - after the Soviets collapsed and before the rise of Islamic terror, and during the dot.com boom.

(And before people want to suggest Clinton was responsible for the economy, be prepared to state exactly what specific actions he took regarding the economy).

Agreed!

[PB the Deplorable]

I was reading some articles about nominees for the Academy Awards best foreign film decrying the nationalism that seems to be permeating through our country which led me to ponder a question.

Why is nationalism bad and globalism good?...

The long term goal of the Left is a one world government, run by them.  A fascist dictatorship.  ''Globalism'' is a part of their multi-pronged attack.  Aspects of it are to expand the power of these elites, aspects of it are meant to demoralize and weaken the rest of us. 

Globalism strengthens the huge multinational companies and is destructive to the middle class.  Military alliances, economic alliances, political alliances, all expand the power and reach of government and the elites, at the expense of the rest of us.  Each of these agreements moves these elites a step closer to their ultimate goal.

Bringing in floods of immigrants upsets the demographics of the host nation, and fundamentally alters society and the culture.  Bringing in floods of Muslim refugees allows terrorists to hide among them, and once in the host country can disrupt right away or exist as cells for future attacks. 

[ItsOver]

The long term goal of the Left is a one world government, run by them.  A fascist dictatorship.  ''Globalism'' is a part of their multi-pronged attack.  Aspects of it are to expand the power of these elites, aspects of it are meant to demoralize and weaken the rest of us. 

Globalism strengthens the huge multinational companies and is destructive to the middle class.  Military alliances, economic alliances, political alliances, all expand the power and reach of government and the elites, at the expense of the rest of us.  Each of these agreements moves these elites a step closer to their ultimate goal.

Bringing in floods of immigrants upsets the demographics of the host nation, and fundamentally alters society and the culture.  Bringing in floods of Muslim refugees allows terrorists to hide among them, and once in the host country can disrupt right away or exist as cells for future attacks.

Yes, sir.  Damn evil arrogant bastards.  I wish they'd get a hobby and leave us alone. Soros and ilk should take up surf boarding.  If they don't break their necks, maybe the sharks will eat them.