Post New

Geez, do you guys really need a clue?

Marco???

You’re wondering who the “leader” will be.

But the answer is right there, and has been all along…

First words in our founding document…

“We, The People”

They’ll give us the answer to that question.

Trump and his band of incompetents have shown us the danger. I’m beginning to trust “We the People” to assess the danger and discern the path.

It probably won’t be a Republican.

Might not even be a Democrat.

(We do seem to be deep in a time of sifting and re-arranging)

Not yet. But the way will become clear.

For now, the road is rock strewn.

Keep moving forward.

The way WILL become clear.

Pastor Z,

Again you spend a lot of words but ultimately evading your responsibility as a member of the body politic to actually make a decision.

You carp, whine, complain, bitch, moan...constantly..

and yet--you don't even know what you personally actually stand for.

You don't even have the ability to tell us which of the currently-available crop of politicians on the Dem or Progressive side, that you believe would have a fair shot at unifying the electorate and obtaining a working majority.

In your opinion.

If you want to say Mamdani, O.K.
If you want to say AOC or Bernie, O.K.

If you want to say Kamala, O.K.

Fetterman? O.K.

Shapiro? O.K.

Warren? O.K.

And so forth.

Anyone of your choice.

Refusing to make a choice is of course, a choice.

If you asked me who I think would be a good Repubican candidate for 2028, I can answer you with several viable options (again from my point of view):

Rubio
Vance
Cruz

They are all in the game, they are all potentially having the ability to win the Republican primaries in 2028.

Does that mean they will beat whoever the Dem is? No.

Does that mean some unknown might not emerge as a candidate in the next couple of years? No.

If the situation changes in the future, we can of course always modify our position--up to the day of the election.

But you abdicate your own personal responsibility to make a choice, instead, preferring to live in a delusional fantasy land where someone else tells you what to think and how to choose.


Remember: Not choosing is itself a choice.

You don't even have the ability to tell us which of the currently-available crop of politicians on the Dem or Progressive side, that you believe would have a fair shot at unifying the electorate and obtaining a working majority.


I posted a number of posts a few weeks ago on the subject, even said which sector the next presidential candidate might come from- even gave you three or four names.

And if I’m not mistaken, you even engaged in that discussion- though in your usual dismissive fashion.

Ok- here you go…… four names:

Beshear, Pritzger, Newsome, Shapiro.

What do those names have in common?

They’re governors, defending their states against the depredations of this administration.


They are fighters, each in their own way.

I would include my own governor, Gretchen Witmer. And I probably should include her. After her legislature turned purple, she’s not the firebrand she used to be. Why? Because to get anything done, she has to work with Republicans, and that is not a bad thing.

But the pool I am looking at is the pool of Democratic governors- particularly those who have tried to hold the line against the incompetence and performative cruelty of the Trump administration.

Each has been successful in some ways, not so successful in others. Each has an upside as well as a downside, but I think this pool provides the best reservoir of presidential competence, at least for this presidential cycle.

Remember: Not choosing is itself a choice.

Oh wow. You’re so deep.

It’s a two-part answer.

1. Trump needs to be impeached and removed.

2. Comrade Marcovich needs to shut his pumpkin pie hole.

I’ve had colonoscopy preps that were more fun than wading through the septic overflow of your inanity.

If I want to know what Fox News says about everything, I have a button on my remote that can take me there.

Seriously, my little dude, you have keyboard Tourette’s. You don’t know what you think until after you hear what you say.

I don’t want to push the frowny face here, but your projectile vomiting of right-wing bot twaddle has officially reached the tiresome stage.

Pastor W,

Thank you for finally giving a specific response and try to remember that not everyone has read every single one of your prior posts about every subject, nor cares to.

Actually, the "thing in common" that the four governors who you feel are potential 2028 Dem nominees have, is that they are all middle-aged or older Judeo-Christian white males.

Being a middle-aged or older Judeo-Christian white male is currently disqualifying to win the 2028 Democratic nomination, so none of these folks are realistic choices.

Not if the radical progressive left maintains its iron grip over your party.

Shapiro specifically is not a viable candidate because he is Jewish, and the Dem Party is expressly anti-Semitic at this time. It doesn't look like that's going to change between now and 2028.

There's a reason Shapiro didn't get Kamala's V.P. nomination in 2024, as he was clearly the far superior choice to Walz.

He's Jewish. Dems will NOT nominate a Jew as President or V.P.

The fact that you would think otherwise shows that you are not in touch with your own party.

Some grayed out troll: You don't even have the ability to tell us which of the currently-available crop of politicians on the Dem or Progressive side, that you believe would have a fair shot at unifying the electorate and obtaining a working majority.

wzambon: Beshear, Pritzger, Newsome, Shapiro.

The bench is actually pretty deep, with Pete Buttigieg, Ruben Gallego, and Chris Murphy. Current governors also include Wes Moore, Jared Polis, and Tim Walz (and as mentioned, Whitmer). And I wouldn't count out Harris (seriously, she has near-universal name recognition, a deep national fundraising network, and strong support among core Democratic constituencies, particularly Black voters and suburban women}. Any of these would be centrist enough to appeal to most Americans and all would be strong VP candidates (no, probably not Harris).

If Trumpedo actually is stupid enough to try to prosecute Mark Kelly, he'll instantly become a top contender. Imagine him testifying in his dress uniform with a chestful of medals.

Others to consider: Raimondo would be a strong candidate (former governor, former Secretary of Commerce), Slotkin, Van Hollen, Klobuchar, Booker, and yes, I'll go there: AOC, who has the Bernie mystique (though she'd be better off running against Schumer should he decide to run again).

For what it's worth, Walz and Moore have said they're not running.

Belcher,

Well obviously Trump will be impeached at midnight Jan. 1 2027 if the Dems take the House but it is highly unlikely he will be removed by the Senate, so save your Kleenex for a more probable wet dream.

Who do you think is a good choice for the Dem nominee in 2028, and why?

White male governors need not apply, especially if they are Jewish.

As noted, white males need not apply for the 2028 Dem nomination.

Especially not Jewish ones.

Harris is a loser and couldn't even get enough support to run for governor of California.

Walz is a disaster and a loser.

Gallego is a radical lunatic.

In any case, if you could narrow it down to the one of those many choices that you personally think is the best choice, please explain what you think their path to the Dem nomination would be, and if nominated, why you think they would be able to capture enough independents, disaffected Republicans, and radical left wing Dems who control the party (and especially control the nominating process).

I mean if you like AOC and want to "go there" that's fine, that's your choice.

Do you really think enough independents will like her to win a general election?

Actually, the "thing in common" that the four governors who you feel are potential 2028 Dem nominees have, is that they are all middle-aged or older Judeo-Christian white males.

Gretchen Witmer is not a white male.

And what makes you think that Shapiro was not chosen because he was Jewish?

That fits with the drumbeat hammered incessantly by right wing propaganda machine, but that’s simply your very stilted view of things.

And, “Dems will NOT nominate a Jew”?

Given that the great majority of Jews in Congress are Democrats, and ALL six of the current Jewish governors are Democrats, I rate your absolute claim as nonsense.

Only one thing can be discerned: There’s a far more likely chance that if a Jew is nominated for either the presidency or vice-presidency, he or she will be a Democrat.

If “past is prologue” of course.

Progress comes in fits and starts, and we seem further along on that road than you are.

First woman nominated for VP? Democrat

First woman nominated for president? Democrat

First black man nominated for president? Democrat


First black woman nominated for president? Democrat.

First Jew?

Who know?

But our talent pool dwarfs yours
++++

Cue marco’s usual nonsense. After criticizing Democrats for “not ever gonna nominate a Jew”, he’ll switch to “Dems choose their leaders using DEI”.

wzambon: Beshear, Pritzger, Newsome, Shapiro.

The bench is actually pretty deep, with Pete Buttigieg, Ruben Gallego, and Chris Murphy. Current governors also include Wes Moore, Jared Polis, and Tim Walz (and as mentioned, Whitmer). And I wouldn't count out Harris (seriously, she has near-universal name recognition, a deep national fundraising network, and strong support among core Democratic constituencies, particularly Black voters and suburban women}. Any of these would be centrist enough to appeal to most Americans and all would be strong VP candidates (no, probably not Harris).

And I don't try to sort it out at this stage. It gets interesting a year before the election, because you get the run up to the official nominee. HC should know this and I don't know why he is frothing at the mouth, but he is, that's why I greyed him out.

It's much more interesting watching the slow collapse of Trump. It's happening slowly. Last night I had a lady tell me that Trump has negotiated the price on drugs down to where in April we will pay the same as Europe does for a drug. I agreed with her that we helped fund the research but paid the most - capitalism at work, we have the finest capitalists, the bestest.

And I don't try to sort it out at this stage.

And at this point, that’s probably the wisest course.

But it doesn’t hurt, now and again, to ruminate on the state of the field.

But you’re right- it’s still a long way to Tipperary, and our main task at present is disassembling MAGA and its destructive malpractice of government.

Beshear, Pritzger, Newsome, Shapiro.

What do those names have in common?

Well, two of them have helped run their states into the ground. That leaves Shapiro and Beshear.

Shapiro won't be it because the democrats don't like Da Joooos. So that leaves Beshear.

Beshear would be somebody who might be able to get the job done, but he has another flaw that this board won't acknowledge: He's not a woke moron. As such he doesn't appear to their core base of AWFLs (Affluent White Female liberals, the most neurotic ones), race grifters, Antifa cosplayers, and nosering-festooned they/them types. He's from a red bumpkin state in Flyover Country, the place that liberal America thinks should just be wiped from the Earth.

So your choice is likely to be Gavin Newsom. The whitewashing of his horrid run as California governor - a tenure that has seen his state lose population for the first time ever - is going to be glorious. Epic gaslighthing to a scale way beyond when the liberal media tried to convince us that Biden was mentally competent and that It Was a Good Thing Kamala Harris was selected. And that Harris ran a remarkable campaign in only 170 days. Or something.

Meanwhile, the GOP has several successful governors and other folks in a wide and deep bench.

So your choice is likely to be Gavin Newsom. The whitewashing of his horrid run as California governor - a tenure that has seen his state lose population for the first time ever - is going to be glorious. Epic gaslighthing to a scale way beyond when the liberal media tried to convince us that Biden was mentally competent and that It Was a Good Thing Kamala Harris was selected. And that Harris ran a remarkable campaign in only 170 days. Or something.

Oh, I forgot the other reason it won't be Pritzker: he's far too unattractive. The democrats have always been the party of shallow appeals to vanity and the bottom end of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and as such they always go for the smooth-talking, good looking slick types. Worked-over looking dudes like Pritzker need not apply.

The democrats are an organized train wreck...and pretty much always have been as long as I've been alive. They value style over substance and appeal to the most base instincts and feelings. Trash.

Dope1,

I agree with everything you wrote in your analysis of the Dem governors.

With one exception, unless there is a very major shift rightward (i.e. to the extreme radical left, but less extreme radical than currently) by the Dem base, Newsome cannot win the Democrat nomination in 2028.

Because, while he doesn't have the fatal flaw (to dems) of being a Jew, like Shapiro he is still a very white, very privileged, male. (I'm not even talking about his incompetence as governor, that doesn't seem to matter to the Dem base).

And if he does manage to win the nomination--the radical left core which controls the Dem party will be demoralized and will stay away from the polls in droves on Election Day.

At a minimum, dems will insist on a woman candidate; most likely a so called "woman of color."

Because, don't you know, the only reason Kamala lost in 2024 is because she didn't have quite enough time to run her campaign.

Who is the likely Dem DEI candidate? Michelle keeps saying she's not interested, but she checks off all the boxes: Black,female, radical, belligerent, hates America, Obama.

Because, while he doesn't have the fatal flaw (to dems) of being a Jew, like Shapiro he is still a very white, very privileged, male. (I'm not even talking about his incompetence as governor, that doesn't seem to matter to the Dem base).
...
Who is the likely Dem DEI candidate? Michelle keeps saying she's not interested, but she checks off all the boxes: Black,female, radical, belligerent, hates America, Obama.

Michelle Obama is the very living definition of the phrase "Never meet your heroes". She's likely the most entitled person on the planet in addition to being extremely tone deaf. I also doubt she'd be up for the effort it takes to actually participate in a political campaign.

Newsom is the far-and-away front runner for them because he'll pull in more than enough money for the campaign. You're very much right in that he has to pick a woman to run with him or the AWFLs stay home. So who are the leading women in the dem party?

There's the Big Gretch Whitmer in Michigan. There are a number of posters here who live in Michigan. To a man and woman they know she's been a lousy governor but won't ever admit it out loud because they just can't be seen criticizing their own side. So she's a meh choice.

Amy Klobuchar of Minne-haha. She's so unlikeable the producers of the show "Veep" tailored parts of the character Selena Meyer after her.

Kamala Harris has managed to convince herself that the democrat party writ large didn't position her for success. She's in for another go!

AOC is dumb enough to think she'd have a shot.

Fauxcohontas Warren wants to be President. But in addition to being a fraud, and a communist...she's also massively unlikeable.

And...that's it. Their depth is horrifically thin. Won't stop this board from glazing whatever intellectual nobody they vomit up to be their nominee for '28, though.

The democrats are an organized train wreck...and pretty much always have been as long as I've been alive. They value style over substance and appeal to the most base instincts and feelings. Trash.

And one more point.

The democrat party is composed of a bunch of intellectual cowards.

Even the most partisan, dyed in the wool democrat knows we're headed for financial hard times. Yet to a man and woman they can't be straight with the American people and tell them, "Yes, we're going to have to consider austerity at some point as things aren't sustainable".

Instead they promise that things will just Totally Awesome yOu gUyS if we...just take all the money from these 4 or 5 people over there. In reality, after a Republican takes an unpopular stance (and takes the heat for it) the democrat will quietly continue the policy (after having loudly criticized it). Witness Joe Biden keeping a lot of Trump's tariffs on China after he took office.

The cowardice bleeds on down to your average left wing message board poster, who rarely will ack any structural issues that tax increases won't "fix". Never mind the money is always earmarked for some new thing instead of solving the structural issue.

In any case, if you could narrow it down to the one of those many choices that you personally think is the best choice, please explain what you think their path to the Dem nomination would be, and if nominated, why you think they would be able to capture enough independents, disaffected Republicans, and radical left wing Dems who control the party (and especially control the nominating process).

Newsom isn't going anywhere. His ex-wife was Trump Jr's squeeze, until she was bought off with the ambassadorship to Greece. Imagine, lounging around, on perpetual holiday, in Greece, and being paid for it. She would say anything, about what a pervert Newsom is behind closed doors, and how he "abused" her, because it would profit her to do so.

As offered before, I expect that, if Trump can draw breath in 28, he will run again. If he does, then Obama should run for a third term. Watching the MAGA heads explode, alone, would be worth it.

Steve

Well, two of them have helped run their states into the ground.

By election 2028 all of that propaganda will be forgotten as Trump's effect on the economy will be in full swing and, if all goes well, Dems will get the job of fixing the economy.

His ex-wife was Trump Jr's squeeze, until she was bought off with the ambassadorship to Greece. Imagine, lounging around, on perpetual holiday, in Greece, and being paid for it. She would say anything, about what a pervert Newsom is behind closed doors, and how he "abused" her, because it would profit her to do so.

That's not a good reason for him to not be chosen. What would be nice is if they found someone people like better,

Lamp Chop,

Typical Progressive. You want the country to fail for the next three years, the American people to suffer, for political leverage.

Maybe you should switch your name to Sadistic Choppie Chop?

That's not a good reason for him to not be chosen.

It is a great reason for him to refuse to run. He knows her character. Remember her shrieking speech at the 2020 GOP convention? He also knows that Repubs will say anything, no matter how detached from reality.

Steve

That's not a good reason for him to not be chosen.

It is a great reason for him to refuse to run.

And it looks like he is obviously planning a run.

if Trump can draw breath in 28, he will run again.

No, he's not. Even if he could - the Constitution says no - he's already said he won't.

No, he's not. Even if he could - the Constitution says no - he's already said he won't.

Dope, do you think anyone thinks what he says now matters at all?

Dope, do you think anyone thinks what he says now matters at all?

I think you people have a fear narrative to maintain and you’ll fuel whatever conspiracy theory you can to keep it going.

Reality stopped mattering to the left years ago.

No, he's not. Even if he could - the Constitution says no - he's already said he won't.

The Constitution also says an insurrectionist cannot hold office, yet, here we are.

Remember the talking points about the insurrection clause in 2020? "that question should be left up to the people". Same thing would be floated in 2028 "the people should decide whether he has a third term, or not."

Steve

Remember the talking points about the insurrection clause in 2020? "that question should be left up to the people". Same thing would be floated in 2028 "the people should decide whether he has a third term, or not."

We keep crossing lines without even acknowledging that we have done so.

Then we wonder how in the hell we ended up “here”.

Steve,

King Trump was impeached for insurrection in 2021. He was tried, and acquitted by the Senate, per the Constitution.

Why don't you believe in Norms and Rule of Law and Democracy?

I think you people have a fear narrative to maintain

You mean the one where brown people coming up from the south are all gangster-druggees who will rape your daughters, build mosques in your driveway, illegally vote blue, take your job, house, car, and MAGA hat? That fear narrative?

Prolapse-A-Day,

You just nailed it. The "fear narrative" that you are trying to peddle is falsely attributing fictitious words to a political opponent and claiming people should be scared of MAGA because of it.

So--you just proved Dope1's point.

Also, stop lying.

The Constitution also says an insurrectionist cannot hold office, yet, here we are.

Exactly. We don't have one in office.

Remember the talking points about the insurrection clause in 2020? "that question should be left up to the people". Same thing would be floated in 2028 "the people should decide whether he has a third term, or not."

Yeah, no.

You mean the one where brown people coming up from the south are all gangster-druggees who will rape your daughters, build mosques in your driveway, illegally vote blue, take your job, house, car, and MAGA hat? That fear narrative?

That's *your* narrative about what securing the border is for.

You mean the one where brown people coming up from the south are all gangster-druggees who will rape your daughters, build mosques in your driveway, illegally vote blue, take your job, house, car, and MAGA hat? That fear narrative?

You forgot the sharia law thing.

Came close with the mosques in driveways, but didn’t quite get there.

Meanwhile, they snivel…

“Are you blind?!”

“Can you not see?”

“Biden ruined the country with his autopen!”

While Trump, his family and cohorts plunder the country…… and now the world.

You mean the one where brown people coming up from the south are all gangster-druggees who will rape your daughters, build mosques in your driveway, illegally vote blue, take your job, house, car, and MAGA hat? That fear narrative?

That's *your* narrative about what securing the border is for.

No. That’s the narrative blaring from FOXNews for the past ten years, as well as from Trump’s mouth, and reflected perfectly here in the scribblings of several right wing trolls.

Dope1,

Exactly. The Left's projection and gaslighting is just a huge psyops. Prolapse's post was a representative of example: False attribution of non-existent political views to his political adversaries to create fear in the ignorant emotional Progressive Left.

Unfortunately, they don't care that their false fear narratives get people killed.

In fact, they splooge when that happens.

No, Rev. Phoney,

It's what your buddy Prolapse Guy posted, and it's a false attribution.

This is why no matter what King Trump does, and no matter how low his approval rating goes, you guys will have trouble winning elections.

You live in a nice little bubble. Upper middle class, all the fine things in life, total lily white neighborhood, completely insulated from the utter havoc and destruction your policies would wreak on society.

What's your net wealth?

I bet it's in the millions if you include the value of all assets, pensions, etc.

What's the square footage of your house? Do you have more than one house?

You're such a hypocrite, all of the Leftists who post here are total hypocrites.

And it looks like he is obviously planning a run.

Fox News must think it's a distinct possibility.
They've got their anti-california knob turned up to 11.

The comment section inre the Stockton shooting blames our Newsom, the courts, Newsom, the DAs, Newsom, the lax gang laws, Newsom, the homeless, Newsom, Biden's open borders, Newsom, sanctuary cities, blue cities, Newsom and, uh, Newsom.

No.

Yes. It's your narrative.
The government is finally doing it's job and securing the border and getting criminals in custody.

In a sane world, 100% of Americans would be on board with this. But since we don't live in a sane world, you folks are losing your minds over it.

King Trump was impeached for insurrection in 2021. He was tried, and acquitted by the Senate, per the Constitution.

You do have a point there. A majority of Senators voted guilty, but not the supermajority required. The criminal cases were dragged out long enough for him to get back into office, then the prosecutions were dropped, because SCOTUS decided that a sitting POTUS cannot be prosecuted.

Steve

ecause SCOTUS decided that a sitting POTUS cannot be prosecuted.

And that the cases were bogus. There's that.

Trump won't be President in 2029.

ecause SCOTUS decided that a sitting POTUS cannot be prosecuted.

And that the cases were bogus. There's that.

SCOTUS did not decide that the cases were bogus….so there’s that.

SCOTUS did not decide that the cases were bogus….so there’s that.

Sure.
But the cases were bogus.

He's in office and the democrat lawfare failed. It's past time you folks moved on to figuring out how to talk about policy again.

Thank you Steve.

Rule of Law does not mean that we agree that the outcome was correct.

It means that there is a lawful procedure for resolving disputes.

Leftists by and large don't seem to accept this notion. They seem to think Rule of Law means that if they don't agree with the outcome,the Rule of Law hasn't been followed.

In Trump's case, he was democratically elected to a second term at the ballot box. The people decided that regardless of what he did or did not do before, they wanted him back. Again, some may disagree with the outcome,but he was re elected according to the Rule of Law and fully democratic principles.

Looking forward, the electorate will tell us whether they approve or disapprove of Trump once again in the 2026 midterms, knowing that if they elect a Democrat house majority, Trump will be immediately impeached and the nation will be fully gridlocked at least until 2029.

Unfortunately for the Left, government gridlock runs counter to their agenda of activist government. But gridlock is more consistent with conservative values and libertarian values as it gives more room for activity in the private sphere.

This is why the Dems caved on the Schumer Shutdown.

But gridlock is more consistent with conservative values and libertarian values as it gives more room for activity in the private sphere.

when the GOP was in the minority, their stated objective was to throw sand in the gears. But now, as offered on the Fool some time ago, Trump is the most activist POTUS since FDR. And, if Congress will not give him what he wants, as fast as he wants it, he rules by diktat.

As you said, the voters will speak in a year. Will be interesting if the election if "free and fair", or of Florida scale vote suppression is rolled out nationwide.

Steve

Trump is the most activist POTUS since FDR. And, if Congress will not give him what he wants, as fast as he wants it, he rules by diktat.

"I've got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't act, I will" <--- seems I read that somewhere.

No.

Dope: Yes. It's your narrative.

Interesting. As Trump goes down the tubes because he screws up the economy, etc., Obamacare will become Trumpcare? Tariffs will become a libtard idea? Biden's magic autopen will have signed all the pardons that Trump signed. We will be responsible for whatever happens in Ukraine. All that will magically occur as we get the task of fixing it all. :) Oh yes, almost forgot, Dope will be 100% right on everything.

Let's unpack:

As Trump goes down the tubes because he screws up the economy Not happening. Next.

Obamacare will become Trumpcare

Say, why does the "Affordable Care Act" need subsidies? Why are the biggest beneficiaries health insurance companies? None of your board running mates want to answer this for some reason so maybe you can.

Tariffs will become a libtard idea

Biden kept Trump's tariffs on China in place when he took over. So...yes. And the best part is you people on this board will justify it.

Biden's magic autopen will have signed all the pardons that Trump signed.

Trump is going to autopen pardon Hunter? Where do you come up with this stuff?

We will be responsible for whatever happens in Ukraine

You consistently fail to ask the right questions in that conflict.

All that will magically occur as we get the task of fixing it all

liberals can't govern. Fact. Literally nothing policy-wise that comes from the left side of the aisle resembles good policy or is even feasible. You guys...just suck at this.

Oh yes, almost forgot, Dope will be 100% right on everything.

Finally you get something right!

I told you Biden wouldn't be your nominee in 2024 before you read it anyplace else because he was mentally incompetent (before you read it anyplace else).

I told you the people who really run the democrat party will tell you who your nominee will be and that you a) won't get to pick and b) you won't say boo over it. 2/2 on that score!

And I told you the border bill was flawed crap and completely unnecessary. And that it was DOA because it was superfluous and all we needed to do was enforce our existing laws.

El Boomio. Border secure. Didn't need to codify 10,000 more crossings a day to get it done, either.

Oh, I told you that once incentives for them to be here would dry up that you'd see illegals self-deporting. Right again!

More winning by me, the Dope1. Am I right 100% of the time? Of course not. As lofty a standard as I uphold around here, perfection is something we must strive for but understand that's a very tough goal to obtain. Still, I'm much closer to it than the dozens of detractors I have - all of whom were wrong about the above things - could ever hope to be.

BTW. I also told you that there are those in the government who believe that just after 2027 things worldwide were going to get spicy. Gonna start a whole new thread so you can say, "Wow, Dope. You were right again!"

Let's unpack:

As Trump goes down the tubes because he screws up the economy Not happening. Next.

There is no next if you do this. Capiche? So that you went on to the next means you believe it possibly could happen!

There is no next if you do this

You mean inline fisk your posts? That's your loss.

BTW:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/black-friday...

Black Friday and Thanksgiving online shopping hit record highs
Story by Washington Examiner Staff, Washington Examiner • 11h • 2 min read

And
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/us-trad...
US trade deficit narrows sharply in August in boost to third-quarter GDP
Story by Lucia Mutikani • 1w • 4 min read

These don't paint a rosy picture by themselves but they do tell us that the sky isn't falling. Which is the opposite of what board liberals spew on the daily.

Dope: why does the "Affordable Care Act" need subsidies?

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) needs subsidies to make health insurance affordable for people who cannot otherwise afford it, especially low- and middle-income individuals. Subsidies, which can be in the form of premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions, lower out-of-pocket costs for monthly premiums and for medical services. Without them, the cost of premiums would rise dramatically for many, potentially pushing millions out of coverage entirely."

I think most folks didn't respond because it's a stupid question.

Dope: Why are the biggest beneficiaries health insurance companies?

"Health insurance companies are not the biggest beneficiaries of the ACA; rather, low- and moderate-income individuals, young adults, and minority groups have benefited most from the law's coverage expansions and subsidies. However, insurers have also profited due to the creation of a new, large market for health plans and government subsidies that provide a consistent customer base and reduce their financial risk."

This isn't hard to figure out, Dope.

Tariffs will become a libtard idea

Dope: Biden kept Trump's tariffs on China in place when he took over.

Me: so you are skipping tariffs on Canada, Europe, and the rest of the world to divert to Biden on China. Sorry, explain them all. Weren't you the one sheepishly saying you would have done it differently, and now you're all gung ho about it? Sorry, YOU OWN ALL OF IT.


Biden's magic autopen will have signed all the pardons that Trump signed.

Trump is going to autopen pardon Hunter? Me: I see you are having a lapse and not following. The strain of twisting everything is getting to you.

We will be responsible for whatever happens in Ukraine

Dope: You consistently fail to ask the right questions in that conflict.

You consistently fail to respond, just divert.

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) needs subsidies to make health insurance affordable for people who cannot otherwise afford it

So in other words, it failed. You left out that part.

I think most folks didn't respond because it's a stupid question.

More like they can't face the truth about Obama's signature legislation. A truth that was pointed out to them back on the Fool but those same goobers said, "We need to pass this bill to find out what's in it". That's some good, solid liberal governance for you.

"Health insurance companies are not the biggest beneficiaries of the ACA;

Oh, really?
Here, I'll do something you libs never do: I'm going to cite data from a source. And a left one at that.

https://truthout.org/articles/top-5-us-health-insu...

Top 5 US Health Insurers’ Annual Profits Jumped 230 Percent Since ACA’s Passage
The lion’s share goes to UnitedHealth Group, which reportedly denies nearly 1 in 3 medical claims from policy holders.

Heckuva job, Obamie. Heckuva job.

Me: so you are skipping tariffs on Canada, Europe, and the rest of the world to divert to Biden on China. Sorry, explain them all. Weren't you the one sheepishly saying you would have done it differently, and now you're all gung ho about it? Sorry, YOU OWN ALL OF IT.

LOL. Don't like that fact either, do we? Let's cite that one, too:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-slammed-trum...

Biden once slammed Trump's China tariffs. Now he's building on them: ANALYSIS
Biden’s tariffs on $18B worth of Chinese goods focus on strategic industries.

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China," Biden said at the time. "Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs."

Then in 2020, while campaigning for the White House, Biden vowed to remove Trump's tariffs if elected.
...
But now, not only is Biden keeping those Trump-era tariffs in place, he actually is building on them.

It's true that Biden's new tariffs on $18 billion worth of Chinese imports are narrowly focused on a few strategic industries. At a Rose Garden event unveiling the new actions, Biden touted it as a "smart approach" to target goods such as electric vehicles, solar cells, steel, aluminum and certain medical equipment.

But he is maintaining many of the broad-based tariffs from the Trump-era that he was once highly critical of.

Because even the people that changed Biden's diaper 4x a day understood that certain goods need to be sourced domestically. Shame none of you have figured that out.

Me: I see you are having a lapse and not following

Your statement was nonsensical. Did AI write it for you?

We will be responsible for whatever happens in Ukraine

We will? Then how can we absolve ourselves of that responsibility? Gonna invent a time machine and convince Putin to not invade? Or go Full Monty and commit US firepower?

Statements like your above are meant to virtue-signal. They're not serious policy positions. Try again.

You consistently fail to respond, just divert.

You're the one who put all these topics in here. Not me.

Your grade? Fail.

Stand in and argue a point. Otherwise you're a poseur just chucking peanuts from the sidelines like 99% of your ideological brethren here.

There is no next if you do this

You mean inline fisk your posts? (Do you mean "with"?

The fiction writer gets to make up the scenario. It's all humorous speculative fiction, but, if it hits close to home, can't help it.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) needs subsidies to make health insurance affordable for people who cannot otherwise afford it

So in other words, it failed. You left out that part.

Since it was designed to be a subsidy, please explain in excruciating detail how that is a failure.

"Top US health insurers' profits surged after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) due to a significant increase in government-funded programs like Medicaid expansion, strategic mergers and acquisitions, and a shift towards private insurance plans with higher premiums and deductibles
. The ACA expanded the number of people with insurance, boosting overall revenue, while subsidies and higher payments for Medicaid managed care provided a massive financial influx for insurers."

A good reason to move to single payer. :P So why hasn't trump come up with a plan? Or, for that matter, why hasn't Dope come up with a plan? Mine would be to copy Norway, or discuss known countries plans, see which one affords good care and is more easily implemented, and do it.

The rest is just a crap rant on your part, but I let you rant.

You're the one who put all these topics in here. Not me.

Speculative fiction.

The sentiment on the economy is bad.

The freight industry, often a leading indicator, shows an "epic collapse" in demand and indicates an underlying weakness in the physical goods economy. Housing isn't doing well. People who lose jobs are finding it hard(er) to find new ones. Fortunately, Trump can't kill the thriving Biden economy quickly. ;P

The primary "freight problem" in 2025 is a "historic freight recession" characterized by an oversupply of capacity and stagnant freight rates, while operational costs (insurance, fuel, labor) continue to rise. This dynamic is squeezing carrier profit margins and leading to increased bankruptcies. (Tariffs did not help here) https://www.freightwaves.com/news/navigating-the-t...

The fiction writer gets to make up the scenario. It's all humorous speculative fiction, but, if it hits close to home, can't help it.

I know. The problem is this board is full of left wingers who all thing they can spin tales like F. Scott Fitzgerald or Nathaniel Hawthorne.

Y'all can't. <--- see what I did there?

Dope1,

No, the Leftists spin delusional tales like chimpanzees on acid.

Since it was designed to be a subsidy

Erm, no it wasn't. The current subsidies that are the subject of the current national debate are from the COVID-era:

https://www.cato.org/blog/six-reasons-not-extend-e...

At the center of the government shutdown is a disagreement over whether to extend a temporary pandemic-era expansion of the Affordable Care Act’s premium tax credits. These subsidies cover health insurance premiums for the roughly 7 percent of Americans who use the government-run Obamacare insurance marketplace. Sold as a temporary boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, the subsidies are costly, fraud-prone, and primarily pad insurance companies’ profits.

While the pandemic plus-up expires at the end of 2025, the originally designed Obamacare subsidy is permanent. The temporary expansion, enacted under the American Rescue Plan Act and later extended by the Inflation Reduction Act, increased the size and made the subsidies more widely available.

I threw that last bit in there as a bone for you.

A good reason to move to single payer.

Nope. I've posted the math a zillion times. Unless you folks want to double the national budget, won't work.
None of you wants to discuss the actual math.

The rest is just me educating you, as usual.

The 'bots are all getting new firmware updates. They'll start all spamming the same topic when the download is complete and their systems reboot.

"Top US health insurers' profits surged after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) due to a significant increase in government-funded programs like Medicaid expansion, strategic mergers and acquisitions, and a shift towards private insurance plans with higher premiums and deductibles. The ACA expanded the number of people with insurance, boosting overall revenue, while subsidies and higher payments for Medicaid managed care provided a massive financial influx for insurers."

And insurance company profits soared. Recall, when the ACA was in Congress, an amendment was proposed to allow people in their 50s to buy into Medicare. The amendment went down in flames, because it didn't help the private insurers.

Nothing new under the sun department. When Bush #43 pushed Medicare Pt C and D through, they were specifically designed to shift Medicare dollars through private insurers, so they can be skimmed. That is the only sort of program that can get through a bought Congress. Bush suppressing a more accurate estimate of the cost of Part D, until after it was passed, was just an extra insult to "We The People" by another corrupt, bought, pol.

If the democratic socialists and the MAGA base pooled their votes, they could unhorse the bipartisan donor class. But the donor class has the money to spend on propaganda, to push wedge issues to keep the socialists and MAGAs fighting each-other.

Steve

Steve,

The Left IS the donor class.

Warren, Sanders, AOC, Mamdani...they are all wealthy children of privilege.

Y'all can't. <--- see what I did there?

Everything you wrote was bunk and so boring. Where's Albaby and Commonone?

Sorry Dope.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was not designed to be solely a subsidy vehicle, but rather a comprehensive framework for healthcare reform that included subsidies as a key component to make coverage affordable for low-to-moderate income individuals.

You are soooo boring.

A good reason to move to single payer.

Nope. I've posted the math a zillion times.

Good. Why don't you post your math to AI, see what it says, and post it to the group? It falls under, "you can't get there from here" from what I understand.

The Left IS the donor class.

How did convicted traitor to the US, Pollard, get to Israel, after Trump ended his parole? Trump donor Sheldon Adelson gave Pollard a ride in his private jet.

Did you notice all the tech bros at Trump's inauguration? And now Trump is pushing regulating AI at the Federal level, to supersede all state regs. We have had that situation with railroads, just about forever. Due to all the manufacturing in metro Detroit, there are rail lines all over the place. The railroads park their trains wherever they please, caring not one whit how many streets they block, nor caring if police, fire trucks, or ambulances need to go a couple miles out of their way, to get around a parked train. Cities, counties, and states, can't do anything about it, because the railroads operate under federal regulation, and the guiding principle in DC is "must not burden the JCs".

Steve

The Left IS the donor class.


You funny.

Ho ho

our main task at present is disassembling MAGA and its destructive malpractice of government.

Yah, the house is starting to shake, and how we are going to do it with the least pain for everyone is a good question. It looks like we defeat him at the voting box right now.

Who will lead us?

First, you people need to realize. You are not an "us"

So, various muftis will lead your various tribes and sects as time goes on.

How cool is that huh

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.