ACA is certainly flawed, but why doesn’t Trump and his regime explain the details of their replacement program? The Republican critics of ACA have had 8 years to perfect their replacement.
Oh, you mean like “You have to pass it to know what’s in it” (but don’t read it because it is over 2000 pages) or my all time favorite……..”If you like your health plan you can keep it”
No explanation for Republicans was deemed necessary by Obama, Reid and Pelosi Galore (“We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”).
Are you saying you’re a hypocrite?
No explanation is forthcoming from Republicans now because there are several plan proposals that have to be considered and pieced together for the best solution to a HYUUUUGE mess left behind by Obama and the Dems who previously controlled BOTH chambers of Congress.
CAN YOU POST ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINDLESS LIBITTERAL TALKING POINTS?
TrumPolar, you’re the one who swore that Trump was going to reveal the new plan an January 20th. Do you remember that? You said just wait until January 20th. Now, put up or shut up. We don’t need any more of your lies.
February 1, 2017 at 9:38 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
So, he didn’t follow the plan ETA outlined by one of my associates/ colleagues in the know. Big deal. That doesn’t invalidate the plans or my point.
More details are being put into the plan, which requires state by state legislation. Dem controlled states are most likely the source of the delay. Tort reform for med mal and changes in licensing of HI cos. by state must be aligned before any plan is put forth before Congress. Blame the foot dragging, obstructionist Dem governors and legislatures in Blue states for the delay.
Continuing to argue based on a soft deadline is a sign of immaturity and frustration by Libitterals. The meltdown continues, yet unabated by the eventual realization of the inevitable replacement plan that will gradually, over a few years, fix most of the mess left behind by Obama, Jarrett, Pelosi-Galore, Reid, Gruber, Emmanuel, and the other ‘amateurs’.
Finally, NO ONE reading these boards has a RIGHT to know anything about the Replacement plan. NO ONE. So, due to the veracity of attacks, I won’t reveal anything else about HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS until the planS are revealed in the near future.
February 1, 2017 at 9:48 am
factchecker says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Citation on state by state legislation.
February 1, 2017 at 11:00 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
find it yourself or wait until Republicans are good and ready to publicize their plan. IOW, Go Fish!
February 1, 2017 at 11:41 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Classic troll move – make an unsubstantiated claim and when someone asks for evidence to support the claim you just made, demand they find it themselves.
I’m sure if we reply with “I couldn’t find anything to support your argument” Yogi would post “You don’t know how to google, you’re checking fake news sites, and I don’t have time to teach you how to find things. (insert multiple insults here).”
February 1, 2017 at 12:35 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Tort reform is required for med mal insurance reform and savings that will decrease health care costs.
Licensing of health insurers must also be changed, state by state, to increase competition and availability of coverage.
So, state by state legislation is needed for two components of ‘health insurance reform’.
Why is that so difficult for Libitterals to comprehend and accept as a FACT of legal procedures?
Since it has now been explained above, I’m not going to track down ANY info about state by state legislative actions being planned. Libitterals who don’t have any work to do can search for details – – – which are not being publicized now…. LOL!
February 1, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
You won’t reveal anything because you DON’T HAVE anything, just as you didn’t have anything back in December.
They don’t need state approval in order to pass their “plan”. All they have to do is vote on the “plan” in Congress, where they have full control, then send it to the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief’s desk for his signature.
January 30, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
It IS a mindless conservative talking point, unless you posted that with the knowledge of what she said before that sentence which was basically “the plan will be amended during the house & senate review, so we can’t know all the details of the plan until those unknown amendments have been voted on.”
Did you understand that subtle context existed when you posted the comment? If not, you are just posting mindless conservative talking points.
If you REALLY think she didn’t provide the bill to the House of Representatives & the Senate for a full review of the entire plan before there was a vote on it, you do not know how government works.
SAYING it is a mindless conservative talking point doesn’t make it so, but certainly proves you are a Libitteral who is frustrated with MAGA via TrumPresidency..
February 1, 2017 at 9:41 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
reposted:
Of course, CONGRESS saw the bill before they voted on it. Duh!
Did the AMERICAN PEOPLE see anything?
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
Play your little Libitteral word games with som
February 1, 2017 at 9:41 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
else who is stupid enough to fall for your verbal tricks.
February 1, 2017 at 9:42 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
‘with nary’
January 30, 2017 at 4:16 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
SAYING it is a mindless conservative talking point doesn’t make it so, but certainly proves you are a Libitteral who is frustrated with MAGA via TrumPresidency.
Of course, CONGRESS saw the bill before they voted on it. Duh!
Did the AMERICAN PEOPLE see anything?
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
Play your little Libitteral word games with someone else who is stupid enough to fall for your verbal tricks.
Why is this troll allowed to rant, spam and insult on here all day?
February 1, 2017 at 11:02 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Send an email to IJ staff about Confused, actu (banned?), Ron, etc. if they annoy you with their all-day rants and spam.
February 1, 2017 at 11:45 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I am confident NONE of my posts will get me banned. I actually kind of hope someone reports me and makes the IJ staff review my posts AND those of whomever reported me to figure out who should REALLY be banned.
February 1, 2017 at 12:36 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
No one cares to ban you; your posts are amusing.
February 1, 2017 at 12:37 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
BTW: who should be banned? Why don’t YOU report them to IJ?
January 30, 2017 at 4:24 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I didn’t vote for Hillary nor Obama and voted Republican in the last 8 mid-term elections — calling me a liberal is an “alternative fact”.
Also, I didn’t just SAY it was a mindless talking point, I took the time to explain it to you.
Let me ask you quite simply – are you just quoting that one sentence without trying to understand the context based on what she said immediately before and after that line?
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
February 1, 2017 at 9:43 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
REPEATED A SECOND TIME BECAUSE SORE LOSERS CANNOT FACE TOUGH QUESTIONS AND CENSOR THEM WITH BOTS:
repeated:
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
February 1, 2017 at 9:44 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
‘with nary’
February 2, 2017 at 9:34 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused, I agree you shouldn’t be banned because you never have anything substantial to add to the conversation, don’t know anything, don’t do your own research and constantly ask people for links. You also have trouble using Google.
February 1, 2017 at 9:47 am
factchecker says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
All he can do is regurgitate what he hears on Fox, you are dealing with a Birther, treat him accordingly, especially when it comes to your expectations.
All he can do is criticize someone as being a mindless robot who repeats what he / she hears on Fox News (don’t watch Fox myself, but hear things second hand) or Rush or Beck or Laura or Savage or …. or is a Birther, or is a follower of Palin or Bachmann or some other fringer. Treat him as you would anyone who cannot debate on facts AND has to make personal attacks on those who are in power or their supporters.
January 27, 2017 at 1:29 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
1
@ Boonedoggle – I agree that they should have been working on a replacement for a long time. Since they didn’t, I don’t want them rushing through and putting together a substandard law just to say “they replaced it”. They need to get it right and make sure no one who finally bought healthcare loses it.
Boondoggle is only capable of repeating Libitteral talking points and has nothing substantive to offer for a solution, while being hypocritical about the Republicans revealing their plan AFTER Obama, Reid, and Pelosi hid their plan to sink the US Health Insurance industry in favor of a Single Payer Plan.
Boondoggle is only capable of repeating Libitteral talking points and has nothing substantive to offer for a solution, while being hypocritical about the Republicans revealing their plan AFTER Obama, Reid, and Pelosi hid their plan to sink the US Health Insurance industry in favor of a Single Payer Plan.
“The federal government has spent more than $60 million promoting the open enrollment period,” Lloyd said in an e-mail. “HHS has pulled back roughly $5 million of the final placement in an effort to look for efficiencies where they exist.”
integrity, don’t think there is much interest in signing up for something that is going bye bye soon. Spending money promoting sign up is a total waste.
Based on some of the comments from the right, the goal for the Trump Administration and Republicans is to be just like the Obama Administration and Democrats. Way to aim high, guys.
Why not hold your elected officials to a higher standard?
As I have been saying, there has never been a replacement plan and the Republicans have been lazy and incompetent.
Ron, you supported a lazy, incompetent for two elections and you have the gall to criticize someone in office 1 week. Enjoy your blizzard this weekend.
@Ron; your hyperbole and lies about the Trump Admin and Republicans is tiresome. Get a new act.
There are many possibilities being discussed to replace ACA. The fact is that there cannot be a sustainable fix to the problem through ONE Congressional bill. State legislators are being brought in to fix things in their states.
Multiple steps are involved. I laugh everytime I read posts like yours because I’ve seen some of the proposals to fix things, and MANY of the things that must be fixed were due to ACA.
Costs will be addressed over time, and not through a single bill.
Libitterals can on now say “Where is the Republican Plan?” The answer is … in state legislatures. Figure that out, if you can.
When did I lie? Please make your case based on what I have posted and what the “truth” is/was, not how you interpreted what I said and alternative facts.
When did I say that? What I said is that the posters’ goal for the Trump Administration and Republicans to be just like the Obama Administration and Democrats.
I said this because the only defense you have provided for President Trump, his administration and the Republicans in Congress so far is to point out how similar their actions are compared to President Obama, his administration and Democrats in Congress.
January 30, 2017 at 4:23 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Word games; play them with someone who is naive enough to fall for it.
January 31, 2017 at 8:16 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
So, your excuse for your poor reading comprehension skills is to say I was playing word games?
Nice job pivoting Kellyanne.
January 31, 2017 at 9:37 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
So, your defense for lying is to say others have poor reading and comprehension skills. Poor attempt to deflect your lies and being caught.
January 31, 2017 at 9:50 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I DID NOT LIE!!! You misinterpreted a simple statement regarding the right’s inability or unwillingness to hold President Trump and Republicans accountable for their actions/inactions.
I still cannot believe I had to clarify what I posted to anyone who I assume possesses a reading comprehension level above the 3rd grade.
I will try to type slower and use smaller words in the future.
January 31, 2017 at 11:15 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Mis-rememberer, Mis-rememberer, pants on fire!
Hmm. Just doesn’t have that same flow without using ‘liar’.
January 31, 2017 at 11:18 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“… to hold him unaccountable for past actions…”
Would that be just like Obama didn’t want to hold FULLY accountable (to an adjudicated court sentence) the criminals he pardoned?
January 31, 2017 at 11:24 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
This is about the current people in power. Stop living in the past.
January 31, 2017 at 12:06 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Yes, Ron… Obama is a failed ex-POTUS.
But YOU and other Libitterals started discussing PAST LIES by Trump. Further, you won’t trust anything he will say in the FUTURE. EVERYONE has lied in the past, including you, so you must be a hypocrite if you want people to believe what you are NOW saying.
Now that you’ve been boxed into a corner on that issue by me, you want to discuss something else… to avoid further mention of the flaw in your logic, or your hypocrisy. Got it!
January 31, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
You are the one who is picking and choosing when we should and should not hold a candidate and/or elected official accountable for their lies, not me.
Did you miss my other post where I stated, “If he (President Trump) decides to start telling the truth, I will forgive his 249 Mostly False-Pants on Fire statements in the past.”
January 31, 2017 at 8:00 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
So, you are holding him accountable for his past lies UNTIL he does something in the future that you like. That means you will ALWAYS hold him accountable for his past lies.
Did you ever lie in the past? If not, you are ONE TO JUDGE Trump. Otherwise, you need to let go of past lies just as you have let go of your past lies… or be a hypocrite. Your choice.
February 1, 2017 at 12:39 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ron can’t debate on the basis of facts.
So, he censors the opinions of others whose opinions are polar opposites to his /hers.
BOTs ahoy!
February 1, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And your proof is…?
January 30, 2017 at 7:05 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
No. That’s not the plan of TrumPresident. Lying won’t fly anymore.
There’s a new sheriff in town who won’t let the Liberal Mainstream Media feed The People fake news any longer, and who will push for truths over lies.
We have to give him credit for being honest for once, right?
I am starting to think it may be Kellyanne Conway posting.
January 30, 2017 at 4:24 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“anymore” vs. “past”
WOW!
January 30, 2017 at 4:34 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Word games; play them with someone who is naive enough to fall for it.
January 30, 2017 at 5:36 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
So Trumppo-liar-bear doesn’t care if Trump lied in the past. Wonder when they will figure out the past was just 1 minute ago.
January 30, 2017 at 9:22 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Celtica, Confused, and Ron;
If you’ve EVER lied in the past, I shouldn’t trust you in the future. OK?
Oops! Logic flaw by Libitterals!
January 31, 2017 at 8:22 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Yes, we all have lied in the past. But Candidate/ President-elect/President Trump has been proven to lie in about 70% of what he has said. He will even deny that he has said things that are recorded.
Go ahead, keep blindly supporting and trusting our president. Unlike you, I believe people should earn trust.
January 31, 2017 at 8:24 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I’m still waiting for the Libitterals who posted word game replies to answer my question about trusting them NOW and in the future if the EVER lied in the past….
I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for a direct reply to my question…. which would prove their hypocrisy and using past actions to discredit someone’s future actions while not doing so themselves.
January 31, 2017 at 8:27 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I wonder what is the source of the 70% lies/ lying history of TrumPresident. Huff & Puff POSt? NPR? PBS? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? CNN? …. uh, most likely to be CNN, based on their growing feud with TrumPresident. But it may be sourced from any of the LYING Liberal Main Stream Media members.
I’ll trust anyone going forward who promised to MAGA and who is doing just that right now.
January 31, 2017 at 8:29 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I will apply Ron’s approach to people who lied in the past… to Ron only.
I will give the benefit of the doubt to others, given my faith in ALL humans to improve themselves, and to MAGA.
January 31, 2017 at 9:43 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Since I am not a Liberal, Libbiteral or or whatever lame insult you like to throw around, I know it was not me to whom you were referring.
I cited my source already, and it’s none of the above.
If he decides to start telling the truth, I will forgive his 249 Mostly False-Pants on Fire statements in the past.
January 31, 2017 at 12:13 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
OK, Politifacts is the source. But how reliable are they? and did they actually do the poll?
You realize that several fact checkers are biased leftward, don’t you?
Example:
” My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.”
— Donald Trump on Sunday, January 29th, 2017 in a statement.
Politifacts rates this as mostly false.
Missing in their assessment is the importance of the word ‘similar’ in Trumps’ statement.
Please refer to a dictionary to learn the meanings of ‘similar’ and ‘same’.
“
February 2, 2017 at 9:44 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
TrumPolar, Ron just loves to use his pet word games and has been doing it for years. Bob calls him out every time and he can’t stand the heat and eventually goes away only to return on the next article to do the same thing. He is an Obama lover who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand the biggest disaster of a law ever passed.
Everyone remembers Obama coming out after his first shellacking in the mid terms and saying – “maybe we just didn’t explain it well enough”. I am afraid the folks did “get” all the lies and did understand it well enough and that is why it was rejected then and now.
BO Care economics are amazing!! How was it ever considered solvent? The young person’s premium supports the old person’s medical expense. The older person does not pay a higher premium, Medicaid pays less of their expenses, and young people are subsidized by the federal govt and pay lower premium. They in turn have a very high deductible and insurance they can’t use. They don’t go to the doctor cause they can’t pay the subsidized premium, much less a 100% of the cost of the doctor visit.
So the federal govt is paying premiums for insureds of all ages, insureds are paying premiums they can’t afford for insurance they can’t use. The insurance companies are strapped for cash cause they have to apply a higher percentage in patient care. Maybe they need better accountants????
The federal govt should save money, remove BO Care from every record except what not to do in the future and assist the elderly with their medical benefits. Hospitals and doctors will go after the young for their major medical expenses as they’ve always done. My insurance premium goes down, yours goes down and our deductibles return to a level below the value of my first car.
The simple answer is that it was disguised by its authors to obfuscate the long term goal of Single Payer, government control of ALL of Health Care Industries, replacing the entire health insurance industry.
IOW, it was DESIGNED TO FAIL. IT nearly succeeded, but didn’t, thank God and thanks to US voters.
Polar, it was interesting seeing Ron’s favorite Senator bawling in front of the camera this weekend because Trump was doing the right thing vetting people trying to come here from the Middle East. Democrats have been totally thrashed in just a few months and are now exhibiting wuss syndrome.
“…vetting people trying to come here from the Middle East”
You say that like we don’t currently have a multifaceted vetting process already in place. Although I’m sure you’ll post that it’s not good enough, do you know the hoops those folks already have to jump through to get approved for entry?
It looks like at least 39 Syrian refugees voted thumbs up on Confused’s post above. Hooray for Confused and his BOTs, er, Syrian refugee friends!
January 30, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Yogi – are you still of the opinion that Syrian refugees did not go through the “extreme vetting” process?
January 31, 2017 at 8:35 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Hi Confused. It seems your posts in these comments sections aren’t being vetted properly. So, I will provide that service to the insurance community….
Google searches yield a broad range of results, many of which are not credible. The ranking of items in Google search lists are not indicative of credibility of the items at the top versus lower in the list. Ask Google to disclose their criteria for ranking the results on any search using their ‘engines’. Let us know what they tell you. Thanks.
January 31, 2017 at 9:56 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Yogi – are you still of the opinion that Syrian refugees did not go through the “extreme vetting” process?
As you posted earlier today “I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for a direct reply to my question….”
You can bash google’s results and raise concerns of their rankings all you want, but are you intentionally ignoring the numerous first-hand experiences of Syrian refugees explaining what they dealt with during the extreme vetting process?
February 2, 2017 at 9:47 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Wake up Confused. Obama was letting them in in masses with no vetting at all.
February 2, 2017 at 11:41 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I see Agent has not googled “syrian refugees extreme vetting usa before 2017”, or at least hasn’t read the many first-hand experiences of what those folks had to endure to enter the country while Obama was President.
January 30, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Anyone who feels this action is morally just might as well just spit in Jesus Christ’s face.
You must be referring to a ‘deposed by term limits’ tyrant and his party allowing foreigners to enter the US without proper vetting or ANY vetting, to endanger the lives of American citizens.
If so, this action is both morally proper and long overdue.
January 30, 2017 at 2:09 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
clarification: ‘this action’ = proper vetting of potential immigrants seeking refuge from an abusive regime.
January 30, 2017 at 4:26 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
reposted:
You must be referring to a ‘deposed by term limits’ tyrant and his party allowing foreigners to enter the US without proper vetting or ANY vetting, to endanger the lives of American citizens.
If so, this action is both morally proper and long overdue.
January 30, 2017 at 4:26 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
reposting:
clarification: ‘this action’ = proper vetting of potential immigrants seeking refuge from an abusive regime.
January 31, 2017 at 9:39 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Sen. Schmucky Schumer: “Boo hoo! I am upset that Trump is doing what I actually suggested be done in 2015.”
I am not a liberal (didn’t vote for Obama or Clinton, voted Republican in the last 8 mid-term elections) but Rasmussen’s poll only asked 1,000 people.
Even if we only count “potential voters” as those who actually voted in the last presidential election (138,884,643), Rasmussen polled 0.00072% of those who voted last election
0.00072% of actual voters were polled. This is not a large enough sample size to extrapolate that their findings are indicative of the entire American voting public, let alone all Americans.
January 31, 2017 at 11:22 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Polls do not require a full accounting of all members of a pool to be valid. Of course, statistical variations are possible, and may skew a poll. But a poll with such a WIDE difference between one choice and the polar opposite, with the specific sample size, is highly accurate. The underlying truth for the whole population is not likely to be at variance with the polled sample results.
January 31, 2017 at 11:27 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
The 24% gap in the Rassmussen poll results (57% vs 33%) for a poll with a MoE of +/-3% at 95% implies virtually no chance the poll results are incorrect as regards public opinion on the matter.
Yours are Straw Man Arguments which are not worth discussing any further, either due to you ‘baiting the discussion’ with incorrect assumptions, ignorance, lies, or all three.
January 31, 2017 at 12:05 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“The underlying truth for the whole population is not likely to be at variance with the polled sample results.”
Unless you know the demographics of who was polled, this statement is impossible to verify.
Say they polled 1,000 conservatives – this WOULD vary from the whole population as liberals weren’t polled.
Say they polled 1,000 white christian males – this WOULD vary from the whole population as other religions and genders weren’t polled.
Tell us what demographics were polled to support your argument that it’s a fair sample size reflective of the entire country.
January 31, 2017 at 12:27 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Go ask Rasmussen for details.
They DON’T poll people in a biased manner. If you believe they do, it is YOUR duty to prove so, rather than introduce it as a possible reason to invalidate their poll.
You are now arguing for the sake of arguing. Find an idiot to continue such a line of discussion; I’ve got other, important things to do other than discredit you and your claims.
January 31, 2017 at 1:24 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Yogi “…please try to discredit the following poll results”
Confused “1,000 people does not make a statistically significant pool that accurately reflects all Americans belief on the topic”
Yogi “I’ve got other, important things to do other than discredit you and your claims.”
Don’t ask for reasons the survey is invalid if you are not willing to discuss the reasons the survey is invalid.
February 1, 2017 at 7:28 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
No one but a handful of Libitterals are claiming the Rasmussen poll is invalid. Let me invalidate that by using the Libitterals argument against them….
One or two Libitterals represent a FRACTION of the percentage of the .00072% stated in the Libitterals objection to the R poll. Thus, those few Libitterals claim is one based on TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. QED
PS If you 1, 2, or 3 Libitterals NOW want to claim that a small sample size cannot be credible, please prove why that doesn’t apply to the Rasmussen Poll, which is based on MANY MORE people polled than 1, 2, maybe 3 Libitterals objecting to it’s credibility.
February 1, 2017 at 7:30 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ooops! Last sentence should read ‘…can be credible…’
not ‘…cannot be credible…’
February 1, 2017 at 12:43 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
reposted:
TrumPolarBear says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 41
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
No one but a handful of Libitterals are claiming the Rasmussen poll is invalid. Let me invalidate that by using the Libitterals argument against them….
One or two Libitterals represent a FRACTION of the percentage of the .00072% stated in the Libitterals objection to the R poll. Thus, those few Libitterals claim is one based on TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. QED
PS If you 1, 2, or 3 Libitterals NOW want to claim that a small sample size cannot be credible, please prove why that doesn’t apply to the Rasmussen Poll, which is based on MANY MORE people polled than 1, 2, maybe 3 Libitterals objecting to it’s credibility.
February 1, 2017 at 12:44 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
reposted:
Ooops! Last sentence should read ‘…can be credible…’
not ‘…cannot be credible…’
February 1, 2017 at 1:42 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
reposting:
No one but a handful of Libitterals are claiming the Rasmussen poll is invalid. Let me invalidate that by using the Libitterals argument against them….
One or two Libitterals represent a FRACTION of the percentage of the .00072% stated in the Libitterals objection to the R poll. Thus, those few Libitterals claim is one based on TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. QED
PS If you 1, 2, or 3 Libitterals NOW want to claim that a small sample size cannot be credible, please prove why that doesn’t apply to the Rasmussen Poll, which is based on MANY MORE people polled than 1, 2, maybe 3 Libitterals objecting to it’s credibility
February 1, 2017 at 1:42 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
replacement:
Ooops! Last sentence should read ‘…can be credible…’
not ‘…cannot be credible…’
February 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Psst; Libitterals:
BOTs can ALSO be used to re-post deleted posts, selectively.
Censorship is the tool of losers.
February 2, 2017 at 9:48 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
TrumpPolar, Trump correctly said Schumer was crying “Fake Tears”.
January 31, 2017 at 11:32 am
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Mexico has a wall on their southern border with Guatemala.
Mexico opposes a wall on their northern border, with the USA.
Libitterals oppose construction of a Wall on the US-Mexico border on the basis of false narratives and ignorance of facts.
Libitterals who now continue to oppose a Wall, after being informed of the Mexico/ Guatemala border wll, are displaying their hypocrisy on this matter.
Thank you for the confirmation, Al. I hope Yogi is willing to post a link which he believes supports his argument that there actually is a wall.
January 31, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Confused,
If you open my link, you’ll see where he was given his misinformation. Either that, or I imagine Drudge, Breitbart, The Pill Popper, or Sean Hannity talked about it yesterday.
Hahahahahahaha, oh man. This is just rich. Yogi, we are all done with your alternative facts. You have just as much credibility, no, actually, less than your favorite cohort out here. You guys, I tell you. Keep being you, I’ve never laughed so hard with other insurance professionals before. AWESOME!
We just disproved there is no wall all along the border as you suggested. We, too, have walls in areas along our border. So, your point again is? It’s moot anyhow, Yogi. If Mexico jumped off a bridge, I wouldn’t suggest we do.
February 1, 2017 at 10:06 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Further, Yogi, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Someone who suggested there is a wall later to find out they are completely wrong could’ve edited your source to show there are fences in populated areas. Why don’t you go down there and get us some photos?
February 2, 2017 at 9:57 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
TrumPolar, don’t let these trolls get the best of you. I pulled up the info and what you said was true.
Remember when their other hero Slick Willy said – It depends on what the definition of is is. That is their mantra.
February 1, 2017 at 12:45 pm
TrumPolarBear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
re-posted:
TrumPolarBear says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 76
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Mexico has a wall on their southern border with Guatemala.
Mexico opposes a wall on their northern border, with the USA.
Libitterals oppose construction of a Wall on the US-Mexico border on the basis of false narratives and ignorance of facts.
Libitterals who now continue to oppose a Wall, after being informed of the Mexico/ Guatemala border wll, are displaying their hypocrisy on this matter.
The Great Fence of China! How in the heck are those Mexican drug lords ever going to get their product by a fence? I’m sure they’re stumped now. How are you going to put a “big beautiful door” in a fence? 45 is a raving lunatic obsessed with crowd size and hand size. Oh, and young girls including his own at times. Mr. Reality TV struggles with the reality part daily.
ACA repeal is just ONE example of how TrumPresident will follow the Will of The People.
Republicans just approved several Cabinet member nominees without Dems present to vote as payback for their (Dems) delays and obstruction.
The nuclear option is on the table for the Gorsuch vote. But, to date, 7 Dem Senators up for re-election in RED states recently won by TrumPresident have already pledged to vote FOR Gorsuch.
Libitterals: the SCOTUS will have 5 or 6 Conservative Justices for the rest of our lifetimes, and no obstructionist efforts or protests by Libitterals can stop it. Elections have consequences.
TrumPolar, doesn’t the extra 7 give a 2/3rd majority to approve a very fine Justice who got a unanimous vote when he was approved for the Appellate court including Chucky Shmucky? Ron is probably proud of his favorite son Senator for obstruction. Talk about a crybaby sore loser, it is him.
ACA is certainly flawed, but why doesn’t Trump and his regime explain the details of their replacement program? The Republican critics of ACA have had 8 years to perfect their replacement.
You mean like how Obama told us all his plan? His TRUE plan???
Oh, you mean like “You have to pass it to know what’s in it” (but don’t read it because it is over 2000 pages) or my all time favorite……..”If you like your health plan you can keep it”
No explanation for Republicans was deemed necessary by Obama, Reid and Pelosi Galore (“We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”).
Are you saying you’re a hypocrite?
No explanation is forthcoming from Republicans now because there are several plan proposals that have to be considered and pieced together for the best solution to a HYUUUUGE mess left behind by Obama and the Dems who previously controlled BOTH chambers of Congress.
CAN YOU POST ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINDLESS LIBITTERAL TALKING POINTS?
CAN YOU POST ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINDLESS LIBITTERAL TALKING POINTS?
Says the guy who JUST posted a mindless conservative talking point with the out-of-context Pelosi quote. Hypocrite.
It’s not a mindless conservative talking point. It’s a call out that has resonated with embarrassed Libitterals like you.
TrumPolar, you’re the one who swore that Trump was going to reveal the new plan an January 20th. Do you remember that? You said just wait until January 20th. Now, put up or shut up. We don’t need any more of your lies.
So, he didn’t follow the plan ETA outlined by one of my associates/ colleagues in the know. Big deal. That doesn’t invalidate the plans or my point.
More details are being put into the plan, which requires state by state legislation. Dem controlled states are most likely the source of the delay. Tort reform for med mal and changes in licensing of HI cos. by state must be aligned before any plan is put forth before Congress. Blame the foot dragging, obstructionist Dem governors and legislatures in Blue states for the delay.
Continuing to argue based on a soft deadline is a sign of immaturity and frustration by Libitterals. The meltdown continues, yet unabated by the eventual realization of the inevitable replacement plan that will gradually, over a few years, fix most of the mess left behind by Obama, Jarrett, Pelosi-Galore, Reid, Gruber, Emmanuel, and the other ‘amateurs’.
Finally, NO ONE reading these boards has a RIGHT to know anything about the Replacement plan. NO ONE. So, due to the veracity of attacks, I won’t reveal anything else about HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS until the planS are revealed in the near future.
Citation on state by state legislation.
find it yourself or wait until Republicans are good and ready to publicize their plan. IOW, Go Fish!
Classic troll move – make an unsubstantiated claim and when someone asks for evidence to support the claim you just made, demand they find it themselves.
I’m sure if we reply with “I couldn’t find anything to support your argument” Yogi would post “You don’t know how to google, you’re checking fake news sites, and I don’t have time to teach you how to find things. (insert multiple insults here).”
Tort reform is required for med mal insurance reform and savings that will decrease health care costs.
Licensing of health insurers must also be changed, state by state, to increase competition and availability of coverage.
So, state by state legislation is needed for two components of ‘health insurance reform’.
Why is that so difficult for Libitterals to comprehend and accept as a FACT of legal procedures?
Since it has now been explained above, I’m not going to track down ANY info about state by state legislative actions being planned. Libitterals who don’t have any work to do can search for details – – – which are not being publicized now…. LOL!
You won’t reveal anything because you DON’T HAVE anything, just as you didn’t have anything back in December.
They don’t need state approval in order to pass their “plan”. All they have to do is vote on the “plan” in Congress, where they have full control, then send it to the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief’s desk for his signature.
It IS a mindless conservative talking point, unless you posted that with the knowledge of what she said before that sentence which was basically “the plan will be amended during the house & senate review, so we can’t know all the details of the plan until those unknown amendments have been voted on.”
Did you understand that subtle context existed when you posted the comment? If not, you are just posting mindless conservative talking points.
If you REALLY think she didn’t provide the bill to the House of Representatives & the Senate for a full review of the entire plan before there was a vote on it, you do not know how government works.
SAYING it is a mindless conservative talking point doesn’t make it so, but certainly proves you are a Libitteral who is frustrated with MAGA via TrumPresidency..
reposted:
Of course, CONGRESS saw the bill before they voted on it. Duh!
Did the AMERICAN PEOPLE see anything?
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
Play your little Libitteral word games with som
else who is stupid enough to fall for your verbal tricks.
‘with nary’
SAYING it is a mindless conservative talking point doesn’t make it so, but certainly proves you are a Libitteral who is frustrated with MAGA via TrumPresidency.
Of course, CONGRESS saw the bill before they voted on it. Duh!
Did the AMERICAN PEOPLE see anything?
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
Play your little Libitteral word games with someone else who is stupid enough to fall for your verbal tricks.
‘with nary’
Why is this troll allowed to rant, spam and insult on here all day?
Send an email to IJ staff about Confused, actu (banned?), Ron, etc. if they annoy you with their all-day rants and spam.
I am confident NONE of my posts will get me banned. I actually kind of hope someone reports me and makes the IJ staff review my posts AND those of whomever reported me to figure out who should REALLY be banned.
No one cares to ban you; your posts are amusing.
BTW: who should be banned? Why don’t YOU report them to IJ?
I didn’t vote for Hillary nor Obama and voted Republican in the last 8 mid-term elections — calling me a liberal is an “alternative fact”.
Also, I didn’t just SAY it was a mindless talking point, I took the time to explain it to you.
Let me ask you quite simply – are you just quoting that one sentence without trying to understand the context based on what she said immediately before and after that line?
repeated:
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
REPEATED A SECOND TIME BECAUSE SORE LOSERS CANNOT FACE TOUGH QUESTIONS AND CENSOR THEM WITH BOTS:
repeated:
Please answer YES or NO, rather than throw in some more meaningless trivial details about “how government works” just to prove you are ‘right’ and Pelosi was ‘right’ to do what she did regarding a bill impacting 1/6th of the US economy – without nary a citizen seeing what was in it before Congress voted on it.
‘with nary’
Confused, I agree you shouldn’t be banned because you never have anything substantial to add to the conversation, don’t know anything, don’t do your own research and constantly ask people for links. You also have trouble using Google.
All he can do is regurgitate what he hears on Fox, you are dealing with a Birther, treat him accordingly, especially when it comes to your expectations.
All he can do is criticize someone as being a mindless robot who repeats what he / she hears on Fox News (don’t watch Fox myself, but hear things second hand) or Rush or Beck or Laura or Savage or …. or is a Birther, or is a follower of Palin or Bachmann or some other fringer. Treat him as you would anyone who cannot debate on facts AND has to make personal attacks on those who are in power or their supporters.
@ Boonedoggle – I agree that they should have been working on a replacement for a long time. Since they didn’t, I don’t want them rushing through and putting together a substandard law just to say “they replaced it”. They need to get it right and make sure no one who finally bought healthcare loses it.
Boondoggle is only capable of repeating Libitteral talking points and has nothing substantive to offer for a solution, while being hypocritical about the Republicans revealing their plan AFTER Obama, Reid, and Pelosi hid their plan to sink the US Health Insurance industry in favor of a Single Payer Plan.
repost;
Boondoggle is only capable of repeating Libitteral talking points and has nothing substantive to offer for a solution, while being hypocritical about the Republicans revealing their plan AFTER Obama, Reid, and Pelosi hid their plan to sink the US Health Insurance industry in favor of a Single Payer Plan.
“The federal government has spent more than $60 million promoting the open enrollment period,” Lloyd said in an e-mail. “HHS has pulled back roughly $5 million of the final placement in an effort to look for efficiencies where they exist.”
60 Million. WOW.
For those waiting until the last minute, they need to accept the responsibility to sign up and not rely on a “reminder ad”.
integrity, don’t think there is much interest in signing up for something that is going bye bye soon. Spending money promoting sign up is a total waste.
Based on some of the comments from the right, the goal for the Trump Administration and Republicans is to be just like the Obama Administration and Democrats. Way to aim high, guys.
Why not hold your elected officials to a higher standard?
As I have been saying, there has never been a replacement plan and the Republicans have been lazy and incompetent.
Ron, you supported a lazy, incompetent for two elections and you have the gall to criticize someone in office 1 week. Enjoy your blizzard this weekend.
More trolling
@Ron; your hyperbole and lies about the Trump Admin and Republicans is tiresome. Get a new act.
There are many possibilities being discussed to replace ACA. The fact is that there cannot be a sustainable fix to the problem through ONE Congressional bill. State legislators are being brought in to fix things in their states.
Multiple steps are involved. I laugh everytime I read posts like yours because I’ve seen some of the proposals to fix things, and MANY of the things that must be fixed were due to ACA.
Costs will be addressed over time, and not through a single bill.
Libitterals can on now say “Where is the Republican Plan?” The answer is … in state legislatures. Figure that out, if you can.
Polar InauguRussianBear,
When did I lie? Please make your case based on what I have posted and what the “truth” is/was, not how you interpreted what I said and alternative facts.
Lie = Trump’s goal is to be like BHO Admin.
When did I say that? What I said is that the posters’ goal for the Trump Administration and Republicans to be just like the Obama Administration and Democrats.
I said this because the only defense you have provided for President Trump, his administration and the Republicans in Congress so far is to point out how similar their actions are compared to President Obama, his administration and Democrats in Congress.
Word games; play them with someone who is naive enough to fall for it.
So, your excuse for your poor reading comprehension skills is to say I was playing word games?
Nice job pivoting Kellyanne.
So, your defense for lying is to say others have poor reading and comprehension skills. Poor attempt to deflect your lies and being caught.
I DID NOT LIE!!! You misinterpreted a simple statement regarding the right’s inability or unwillingness to hold President Trump and Republicans accountable for their actions/inactions.
I still cannot believe I had to clarify what I posted to anyone who I assume possesses a reading comprehension level above the 3rd grade.
I will try to type slower and use smaller words in the future.
Mis-rememberer, Mis-rememberer, pants on fire!
Hmm. Just doesn’t have that same flow without using ‘liar’.
“… to hold him unaccountable for past actions…”
Would that be just like Obama didn’t want to hold FULLY accountable (to an adjudicated court sentence) the criminals he pardoned?
This is about the current people in power. Stop living in the past.
Yes, Ron… Obama is a failed ex-POTUS.
But YOU and other Libitterals started discussing PAST LIES by Trump. Further, you won’t trust anything he will say in the FUTURE. EVERYONE has lied in the past, including you, so you must be a hypocrite if you want people to believe what you are NOW saying.
Now that you’ve been boxed into a corner on that issue by me, you want to discuss something else… to avoid further mention of the flaw in your logic, or your hypocrisy. Got it!
You are the one who is picking and choosing when we should and should not hold a candidate and/or elected official accountable for their lies, not me.
Did you miss my other post where I stated, “If he (President Trump) decides to start telling the truth, I will forgive his 249 Mostly False-Pants on Fire statements in the past.”
So, you are holding him accountable for his past lies UNTIL he does something in the future that you like. That means you will ALWAYS hold him accountable for his past lies.
Did you ever lie in the past? If not, you are ONE TO JUDGE Trump. Otherwise, you need to let go of past lies just as you have let go of your past lies… or be a hypocrite. Your choice.
Ron can’t debate on the basis of facts.
So, he censors the opinions of others whose opinions are polar opposites to his /hers.
BOTs ahoy!
And your proof is…?
No. That’s not the plan of TrumPresident. Lying won’t fly anymore.
There’s a new sheriff in town who won’t let the Liberal Mainstream Media feed The People fake news any longer, and who will push for truths over lies.
You mean like..
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Just because you believe the lies, or excuse them because they support your narratives, does not make them truths.
I don’t care if Trump lied in the past.
I care to see progress on fixing the mess left by Bitter Barry.
“Lying won’t fly anyone”
immediately followed by
“I don’t care if Trump lied”
wow
We have to give him credit for being honest for once, right?
I am starting to think it may be Kellyanne Conway posting.
“anymore” vs. “past”
WOW!
Word games; play them with someone who is naive enough to fall for it.
So Trumppo-liar-bear doesn’t care if Trump lied in the past. Wonder when they will figure out the past was just 1 minute ago.
@Celtica, Confused, and Ron;
If you’ve EVER lied in the past, I shouldn’t trust you in the future. OK?
Oops! Logic flaw by Libitterals!
Yes, we all have lied in the past. But Candidate/ President-elect/President Trump has been proven to lie in about 70% of what he has said. He will even deny that he has said things that are recorded.
Go ahead, keep blindly supporting and trusting our president. Unlike you, I believe people should earn trust.
I’m still waiting for the Libitterals who posted word game replies to answer my question about trusting them NOW and in the future if the EVER lied in the past….
I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for a direct reply to my question…. which would prove their hypocrisy and using past actions to discredit someone’s future actions while not doing so themselves.
I wonder what is the source of the 70% lies/ lying history of TrumPresident. Huff & Puff POSt? NPR? PBS? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? CNN? …. uh, most likely to be CNN, based on their growing feud with TrumPresident. But it may be sourced from any of the LYING Liberal Main Stream Media members.
I’ll trust anyone going forward who promised to MAGA and who is doing just that right now.
I will apply Ron’s approach to people who lied in the past… to Ron only.
I will give the benefit of the doubt to others, given my faith in ALL humans to improve themselves, and to MAGA.
Since I am not a Liberal, Libbiteral or or whatever lame insult you like to throw around, I know it was not me to whom you were referring.
I cited my source already, and it’s none of the above.
If he decides to start telling the truth, I will forgive his 249 Mostly False-Pants on Fire statements in the past.
OK, Politifacts is the source. But how reliable are they? and did they actually do the poll?
You realize that several fact checkers are biased leftward, don’t you?
Example:
” My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.”
— Donald Trump on Sunday, January 29th, 2017 in a statement.
Politifacts rates this as mostly false.
Missing in their assessment is the importance of the word ‘similar’ in Trumps’ statement.
Please refer to a dictionary to learn the meanings of ‘similar’ and ‘same’.
“
TrumPolar, Ron just loves to use his pet word games and has been doing it for years. Bob calls him out every time and he can’t stand the heat and eventually goes away only to return on the next article to do the same thing. He is an Obama lover who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand the biggest disaster of a law ever passed.
Everyone remembers Obama coming out after his first shellacking in the mid terms and saying – “maybe we just didn’t explain it well enough”. I am afraid the folks did “get” all the lies and did understand it well enough and that is why it was rejected then and now.
More trolling
BO Care economics are amazing!! How was it ever considered solvent? The young person’s premium supports the old person’s medical expense. The older person does not pay a higher premium, Medicaid pays less of their expenses, and young people are subsidized by the federal govt and pay lower premium. They in turn have a very high deductible and insurance they can’t use. They don’t go to the doctor cause they can’t pay the subsidized premium, much less a 100% of the cost of the doctor visit.
So the federal govt is paying premiums for insureds of all ages, insureds are paying premiums they can’t afford for insurance they can’t use. The insurance companies are strapped for cash cause they have to apply a higher percentage in patient care. Maybe they need better accountants????
The federal govt should save money, remove BO Care from every record except what not to do in the future and assist the elderly with their medical benefits. Hospitals and doctors will go after the young for their major medical expenses as they’ve always done. My insurance premium goes down, yours goes down and our deductibles return to a level below the value of my first car.
The simple answer is that it was disguised by its authors to obfuscate the long term goal of Single Payer, government control of ALL of Health Care Industries, replacing the entire health insurance industry.
IOW, it was DESIGNED TO FAIL. IT nearly succeeded, but didn’t, thank God and thanks to US voters.
Polar, it was interesting seeing Ron’s favorite Senator bawling in front of the camera this weekend because Trump was doing the right thing vetting people trying to come here from the Middle East. Democrats have been totally thrashed in just a few months and are now exhibiting wuss syndrome.
“…vetting people trying to come here from the Middle East”
You say that like we don’t currently have a multifaceted vetting process already in place. Although I’m sure you’ll post that it’s not good enough, do you know the hoops those folks already have to jump through to get approved for entry?
No hoops at all for Syrian refugees. Look it up someplace other than Huff & Puff POSt.
No hoops at all for Syrian refugees before Trump? Wow. How ignorant are you?
https://www.google.com/search?q=syrian+refugees+extreme+vetting+usa+before+2017&oq=syrian+refugees+extreme+vetting+usa+before+2017&aqs=chrome..69i57.350j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
It looks like at least 39 Syrian refugees voted thumbs up on Confused’s post above. Hooray for Confused and his BOTs, er, Syrian refugee friends!
Yogi – are you still of the opinion that Syrian refugees did not go through the “extreme vetting” process?
Hi Confused. It seems your posts in these comments sections aren’t being vetted properly. So, I will provide that service to the insurance community….
Google searches yield a broad range of results, many of which are not credible. The ranking of items in Google search lists are not indicative of credibility of the items at the top versus lower in the list. Ask Google to disclose their criteria for ranking the results on any search using their ‘engines’. Let us know what they tell you. Thanks.
Yogi – are you still of the opinion that Syrian refugees did not go through the “extreme vetting” process?
As you posted earlier today “I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for a direct reply to my question….”
You can bash google’s results and raise concerns of their rankings all you want, but are you intentionally ignoring the numerous first-hand experiences of Syrian refugees explaining what they dealt with during the extreme vetting process?
Wake up Confused. Obama was letting them in in masses with no vetting at all.
I see Agent has not googled “syrian refugees extreme vetting usa before 2017”, or at least hasn’t read the many first-hand experiences of what those folks had to endure to enter the country while Obama was President.
Anyone who feels this action is morally just might as well just spit in Jesus Christ’s face.
You must be referring to a ‘deposed by term limits’ tyrant and his party allowing foreigners to enter the US without proper vetting or ANY vetting, to endanger the lives of American citizens.
If so, this action is both morally proper and long overdue.
clarification: ‘this action’ = proper vetting of potential immigrants seeking refuge from an abusive regime.
reposted:
You must be referring to a ‘deposed by term limits’ tyrant and his party allowing foreigners to enter the US without proper vetting or ANY vetting, to endanger the lives of American citizens.
If so, this action is both morally proper and long overdue.
reposting:
clarification: ‘this action’ = proper vetting of potential immigrants seeking refuge from an abusive regime.
Sen. Schmucky Schumer: “Boo hoo! I am upset that Trump is doing what I actually suggested be done in 2015.”
Here is ONE link to ONE such story, from November, 2015, by Minority Hypocrite Party leader Schmucky Schumer:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/schumer-2015-pause-syrian-refugee-program-may-be-necessary/
Do a search on: ‘Chuck Schumer vetting immigrants 2015’ for more such stories about ‘Chucky Changing Fundraising Narrative Schumer’.
Rasmussen is a credible polling source, accepted by both sides of the political aisle.
Attention, Libitterals: for the amusement of Conservatives posting here, please try to discredit the following poll results:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Rasmussen-terrorist-voters-ban/2017/01/30/id/771122/?ref=yfp
I am not a liberal (didn’t vote for Obama or Clinton, voted Republican in the last 8 mid-term elections) but Rasmussen’s poll only asked 1,000 people.
Even if we only count “potential voters” as those who actually voted in the last presidential election (138,884,643), Rasmussen polled 0.00072% of those who voted last election
0.00072% of actual voters were polled. This is not a large enough sample size to extrapolate that their findings are indicative of the entire American voting public, let alone all Americans.
Polls do not require a full accounting of all members of a pool to be valid. Of course, statistical variations are possible, and may skew a poll. But a poll with such a WIDE difference between one choice and the polar opposite, with the specific sample size, is highly accurate. The underlying truth for the whole population is not likely to be at variance with the polled sample results.
The 24% gap in the Rassmussen poll results (57% vs 33%) for a poll with a MoE of +/-3% at 95% implies virtually no chance the poll results are incorrect as regards public opinion on the matter.
Yours are Straw Man Arguments which are not worth discussing any further, either due to you ‘baiting the discussion’ with incorrect assumptions, ignorance, lies, or all three.
“The underlying truth for the whole population is not likely to be at variance with the polled sample results.”
Unless you know the demographics of who was polled, this statement is impossible to verify.
Say they polled 1,000 conservatives – this WOULD vary from the whole population as liberals weren’t polled.
Say they polled 1,000 white christian males – this WOULD vary from the whole population as other religions and genders weren’t polled.
Tell us what demographics were polled to support your argument that it’s a fair sample size reflective of the entire country.
Go ask Rasmussen for details.
They DON’T poll people in a biased manner. If you believe they do, it is YOUR duty to prove so, rather than introduce it as a possible reason to invalidate their poll.
You are now arguing for the sake of arguing. Find an idiot to continue such a line of discussion; I’ve got other, important things to do other than discredit you and your claims.
Yogi “…please try to discredit the following poll results”
Confused “1,000 people does not make a statistically significant pool that accurately reflects all Americans belief on the topic”
Yogi “I’ve got other, important things to do other than discredit you and your claims.”
Don’t ask for reasons the survey is invalid if you are not willing to discuss the reasons the survey is invalid.
No one but a handful of Libitterals are claiming the Rasmussen poll is invalid. Let me invalidate that by using the Libitterals argument against them….
One or two Libitterals represent a FRACTION of the percentage of the .00072% stated in the Libitterals objection to the R poll. Thus, those few Libitterals claim is one based on TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. QED
PS If you 1, 2, or 3 Libitterals NOW want to claim that a small sample size cannot be credible, please prove why that doesn’t apply to the Rasmussen Poll, which is based on MANY MORE people polled than 1, 2, maybe 3 Libitterals objecting to it’s credibility.
Ooops! Last sentence should read ‘…can be credible…’
not ‘…cannot be credible…’
reposted:
TrumPolarBear says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 41
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
No one but a handful of Libitterals are claiming the Rasmussen poll is invalid. Let me invalidate that by using the Libitterals argument against them….
One or two Libitterals represent a FRACTION of the percentage of the .00072% stated in the Libitterals objection to the R poll. Thus, those few Libitterals claim is one based on TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. QED
PS If you 1, 2, or 3 Libitterals NOW want to claim that a small sample size cannot be credible, please prove why that doesn’t apply to the Rasmussen Poll, which is based on MANY MORE people polled than 1, 2, maybe 3 Libitterals objecting to it’s credibility.
reposted:
Ooops! Last sentence should read ‘…can be credible…’
not ‘…cannot be credible…’
reposting:
No one but a handful of Libitterals are claiming the Rasmussen poll is invalid. Let me invalidate that by using the Libitterals argument against them….
One or two Libitterals represent a FRACTION of the percentage of the .00072% stated in the Libitterals objection to the R poll. Thus, those few Libitterals claim is one based on TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA. QED
PS If you 1, 2, or 3 Libitterals NOW want to claim that a small sample size cannot be credible, please prove why that doesn’t apply to the Rasmussen Poll, which is based on MANY MORE people polled than 1, 2, maybe 3 Libitterals objecting to it’s credibility
replacement:
Ooops! Last sentence should read ‘…can be credible…’
not ‘…cannot be credible…’
Psst; Libitterals:
BOTs can ALSO be used to re-post deleted posts, selectively.
Censorship is the tool of losers.
TrumpPolar, Trump correctly said Schumer was crying “Fake Tears”.
Mexico has a wall on their southern border with Guatemala.
Mexico opposes a wall on their northern border, with the USA.
Libitterals oppose construction of a Wall on the US-Mexico border on the basis of false narratives and ignorance of facts.
Libitterals who now continue to oppose a Wall, after being informed of the Mexico/ Guatemala border wll, are displaying their hypocrisy on this matter.
OMFG. There is no Mexico/Guatemala wall.
Wrong.
Confused is right…there’s no wall between Mexico and Guatemala:
https://www.quora.com/Does-Mexico-have-a-wall-on-its-southern-border
Thank you for the confirmation, Al. I hope Yogi is willing to post a link which he believes supports his argument that there actually is a wall.
Confused,
If you open my link, you’ll see where he was given his misinformation. Either that, or I imagine Drudge, Breitbart, The Pill Popper, or Sean Hannity talked about it yesterday.
http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/
Hahahahahahaha, oh man. This is just rich. Yogi, we are all done with your alternative facts. You have just as much credibility, no, actually, less than your favorite cohort out here. You guys, I tell you. Keep being you, I’ve never laughed so hard with other insurance professionals before. AWESOME!
The Trumpanzees love their alternative facts.
Quora. Snopes. Sites with a bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala%E2%80%93Mexico_border
READ CAREFULLY.
WALL is not the operative word.
FENCE is equivalent to WALL as it serves the same purpose.
FENCE DOESNT run along the ENTIRE border. It only runs near populated areas.
The BASIC POINT is valid; Mexico has a FENCE to prevent ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from Guatemala.
OK, Libitterals – – – argue the MAIN POINT now…. and use all the Libitterals’ favorite lefty sites you want… LOL!
We just disproved there is no wall all along the border as you suggested. We, too, have walls in areas along our border. So, your point again is? It’s moot anyhow, Yogi. If Mexico jumped off a bridge, I wouldn’t suggest we do.
Further, Yogi, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Someone who suggested there is a wall later to find out they are completely wrong could’ve edited your source to show there are fences in populated areas. Why don’t you go down there and get us some photos?
TrumPolar, don’t let these trolls get the best of you. I pulled up the info and what you said was true.
Remember when their other hero Slick Willy said – It depends on what the definition of is is. That is their mantra.
re-posted:
TrumPolarBear says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 76
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala%E2%80%93Mexico_border
READ CAREFULLY.
WALL is not the operative word.
FENCE is equivalent to WALL as it serves the same purpose.
FENCE DOESNT run along the ENTIRE border. It only runs near populated areas.
The BASIC POINT is valid; Mexico has a FENCE to prevent ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from Guatemala.
OK, Libitterals – – – argue the MAIN POINT now…. and use all the Libitterals’ favorite lefty sites you want… LOL!
again:
Mexico has a wall on their southern border with Guatemala.
Mexico opposes a wall on their northern border, with the USA.
Libitterals oppose construction of a Wall on the US-Mexico border on the basis of false narratives and ignorance of facts.
Libitterals who now continue to oppose a Wall, after being informed of the Mexico/ Guatemala border wll, are displaying their hypocrisy on this matter.
again: there is no wall. A wall is not a fence – ask any contractor. Please try to use the correct words to describe things in the future.
The Great Fence of China! How in the heck are those Mexican drug lords ever going to get their product by a fence? I’m sure they’re stumped now. How are you going to put a “big beautiful door” in a fence? 45 is a raving lunatic obsessed with crowd size and hand size. Oh, and young girls including his own at times. Mr. Reality TV struggles with the reality part daily.
We have all the materials for a great wall. On 11-8-17, 60 million Democrats sh – – bricks.
Now you’re able to see into the future too? Please tell us what will happen in 10 months.
Snopes? rhymes with?
Boats
Hopes
Folks
Chokes
ACA repeal is just ONE example of how TrumPresident will follow the Will of The People.
Republicans just approved several Cabinet member nominees without Dems present to vote as payback for their (Dems) delays and obstruction.
The nuclear option is on the table for the Gorsuch vote. But, to date, 7 Dem Senators up for re-election in RED states recently won by TrumPresident have already pledged to vote FOR Gorsuch.
Libitterals: the SCOTUS will have 5 or 6 Conservative Justices for the rest of our lifetimes, and no obstructionist efforts or protests by Libitterals can stop it. Elections have consequences.
TrumPolar, doesn’t the extra 7 give a 2/3rd majority to approve a very fine Justice who got a unanimous vote when he was approved for the Appellate court including Chucky Shmucky? Ron is probably proud of his favorite son Senator for obstruction. Talk about a crybaby sore loser, it is him.
More trolling
How do you like your fascism, Comrade Agent? Forever?
Just like the Republicans for 8 years. It looks like they don’t like the taste of their own medicine.