rangerx

Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. And POTUS. Why are you admonishing me for a low bar, when clearly conservatives are totally fine with one? You're welcomed to the bottom. I won't race you there.

You mean like building walls with tax dollars that Mexicans were supposed to pay for?

Indeed. Those options are available because they are not emergency services, even though many are imperative. Some employers offer Blue Cross as an incentive, which is okay, especially if it means getting back to work, as opposed to getting on a waiting list and needlessly missing more work in the meantime. In America, no insurance, no treatment. Pre-existing condition? No treatment. Neither puts people back to work.

Two tier medical is a conservative pipe dream and little else. The Canada Health Act and the Constitution prohibit preferential emergency treatment based on economic standing, Canada is already somewhat two tiered when it comes to dental, optical and physio-therapeutic treatment, but elective procedures continue to be triage based. Health insurance is individually mandated by law. The CHA says all citizens must be insured. If an uninsured citizen arrives in an emergency room, instead of being turned away, they are signed up instead. At the end of procedure, they're only left holding the bag for the premium itself, not the total bill. America has wrongly conflated the individual mandate into a freedom of expression issue. Liken that to biting off one's nose to spite their face.

I don't expect journalism from talk shows. I watch talk shows for a panel discussion about political events. Journalism dropped the ball when it stopped correspondent news and co-opted the discussion panel.

You're right about Assange in that Maher defaulted to him. Whistle blower v foreign agent, if you will. Bilked, but that's a high bar. Coulter and most republicans deny a bar even exists. I never trusted Assange from the get-go, knowing full well that sort of thing may lead to insidious things and wow, did it ever. They barbecued Maher over the "cowardly act" comment. It even cost him his job and show. I mean really,? The Show was called Policially Incorrect, WTF? HBO picked him up in a heartbeat and he's been good for ratings ever since. He's at home in his delivery, his jokes are funny and current. His guests are smart and the discussion is usually lighthearted and to the point. That's a far cry from Coulter, who leaves me scoffing most time she speaks.

No doubt about it. My point being, Maher (albeit loosely) tends to lean to the middle, but Coulter digs in at the fringe. Most of the republicans on his show, allude to much of what he's getting at, where Coulter invariably ends on something really inflammatory, repugnant or absurd. Political differences. Those things influence swing voters, a lot.

Game of Thrones doesn't espouse American politics in their screenplay, but Bill Maher's format does, on every level in every segment. That said, it's true he never speaks at Democratic events, nor is he embraced by the party for his policies and statements. He is old fashioned, even square at times, but make no mistake he's deeply concerned and frustrated by the current state of affairs in the USA and conveys that in meaningful, often hilarious ways.

His show is among the top 25 (at 13 last week) original cable shows among adults 18-49. Hardly irrelevant, no less totally.

As opposed to being Republican, which is not cool? Or are you just projecting on Democrats?

I don't think it's sexist. Almost any person would observe that upon first impression. Although she doesn't speak in those terms, I suspect she struggles with her vanity. She has the physical appearance of a person with a severe eating disorder and her hardened veneer may prevent her from acknowledging or addressing it. Then again, she just might be abnormally slender, but otherwise healthy.

Ann Coulter is neither a comedian, nor had her own show, ever. For decades, Bill Maher has. He hosts liberals and conservatives and they discuss things like adults and in almost every case from the middle ground. He's no fan of snowflakes on either side of the coin and often derides liberals for not being ballsy enough to properly deal with the scandalous antics of today's conservatives. Coulter speaks in extremes for the purpose of shock value and division and little else. She has no skill sets other than appealing to the lowest common denominator among conservatives.

Debating style perhaps? Indeed, Coulter is extreme in her views and outrageous in her statements. Maher, although decidedly liberal is centrist and articulates in common sense terms.

It's telling how so-called constitutionalists invoke Hillary Clinton as though it's okay for Trump to commit crimes in reality, because Hillary did it in their imaginations Wasn't the Steel Dossier commissioned by Republicans to get opposition research on Trump, but acquired after the fact by the DNC because it had dirt on Trump?

Carnelian fire agate perhaps?

I'm sure what ever policy Trump comes up with, will be as absurd as the last one.

The dems realized the best thing to do was nothing. Not concede to a failed election promise, not fund a white elephant and moreover, not give in to a bully. This one's on Trump. To go through this again expecting a different result is not only ridiculous, it's counterproductive and detrimental on pretty much every level. Chaotic.

I doubt Mr. Meuller is interested in Bernie either. I'm certain he's going to have something to say about the Steele dossier, though. Maybe the linchpin, maybe a linchpin, but not a nothing burger, as some would put it.

No surprise here. Stone is alleged to have lied about inquiring for access to hacked/stolen DNC emails, presumably from WikiLeaks at the behest of the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, the president's press secretary, who was also on the campaign, basically said, "so what? CNN did it". Did she actually say.. Did it too? Was that an admission? That begs the question what does she know? Is her denial of the "White House" having knowledge a deflection from the "campaign" having knowledge? Why hasn't she been questioned by Mueller? Here's the thing though. Republicans have no problem with guilt by association and the perceptual maybes they rant. Take Rev. Jeremiah Wright for example, who some times espoused anti American sentiments. For weeks on end, the right barbecued Obama for attending his services or "paling around with terrorists undermining national security". Did any of that even remotely rise to the level of this? Then of course there's the Hillary email thing and her so-called threat to national security for three classified notes on a private server that may have undermined national security. Meanwhile Trump's campaign, requested emails stolen from the DNC by Russians and provided electoral polling data in a quid pro quo and lied about it to the special council. Again why was a perceived threat horrifying while actually colluding is not? Now apparently the Trump campaign has nothing to do with Trump is the narrative. Whatever happened to "I hire all the best people"? Whatever happened to accountability for one's people? Whatever happened fair elections? I have little doubt Trump is criminal in this, but for now, I'll will go along on the premise and the only remaining defense left in the Trump play book, he's been played. A fool. Putin's "useful idiot" The President of the United States of America. Nice job Republicans. Very well done, telling the world just exactly who you are.

Can you imagine what would have resulted had Richard Nixon went after John Dean's family? Had he done that, I'm certain Ford and the rest of the Republican party would have been reticent to grant him a pardon for stepping down. Watergate concluded because it was the republicans that finally put their foot down and said enough is enough for the sake of the party and the country, but today's republicans are silent as the crypt, even though the situation has long since spiraled downward, lower from Nixon's capitulation point.

Ok, I see what happened here. The quote feature lumped two quotes together as one, hence I'll concede the snark and attack part was directed at TenOz, not me. For that I'll offer my apology to everyone for missing a point. However, The projection part stands because it was clearly directed at me too. Even the remotest premise that any of us think employees should not be paid in any scenario is just plain wrong.

Yes, if you scroll down to my comment you will see what he edited out. In his reply, opened with a snarky remark, then a personal attack. Then stated an bogus answer, then asked the question as though the previously stated answer was true, which it was not. What's wierd, said the same thing to Zap, then denied saying it to me on the very next page. WTF is with that?

As is your right. So keen for a gotcha, you just had to announce it for all? Gonna cite this reprehensible transgression every time I post now? Just so you know, I've reported raider twice once for personal attacks, which he edited and said what he didn't claim to say. It's preserved in my quote. Please read it on the last page and tell me if you thought that was an appropriate way to respond to my comment. It's gotten to the point that I can't even make a moderate comment without his finger wagging foot stomping projection and demands.

It was directed at me .... I quoted it, you ninja edited yours. Now you deny having said it AND demonize me as hysterical?

There go again putting words in my mouth, that I think it's unacceptable pay people their paychecks before the government opens. Cut with that shit. Open the government. And like, do I need to explain importance of public health and safety to you? Mr FKIA? How about we start here. You didn't, but that's the straw many he's built for us.