Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I know. I think the GOP told him they had a plan and he was left without his pants on once he got elected and learned there was nothing.
Yes, some people got some stuff for free. Overturning it would take that away. It's rare that the government takes back something it has been giving out.
Did they really though? Most people being given bronze plans for free can’t afford to meet the deductible to where the insurance actually kicks in. I think this is the biggest flaw with the ACA. Maybe we should continue this in the ACA thread or drop it since I don’t want to get us both suspended.
The 20M added to Medicaid don't pay much of anything.
Business Insider again. They will only come up with one or two conclusions for this result, and they will always be Trump's fault.
You make a fantastic point here and I hope everyone pays attention to it, especially the people who are extremely against Democrats. Both parties like to use certain talking points from each other and use them as fear mongering but we should all know that not every promise made will happen. In fact, very few promises will actually be made by any President. This is why I am not concerned about Democrats taking away our guns or turning the US into a communist nation, they won't get it accomplished even if they actually wanted to.Wait just one second......you are telling me politicians don’t deliver every single promise? Is this new?
Since when is Business Insider biased?
The articles I linked do include commentary, but there are also a number of charts that show things like unemployment rate and income growth through the last couple presidencies. They actually show that things are pretty good, but that they generally aren't a large deviation from pre-existing trends. The article I responded to is a persuasive opinion piece literally drafted by "a senior adviser to Donald J. Trump for President Inc." that intentionally distorts the picture.
So we need 'landmark legislation' to be great? I don't think so. We are all great in here.
Not really, especially since that footage is some of the same footage that has been discussed in the past. Some of it is even dated August.
Republicans will certainly tell you that's what's going to happen. Not only that but if a Democrat is elected there will be a civil war.
Communism isn't inherently some "evil" thing. It's a system of government that works really well in small settings with like-minded members who consent to such form of government (e.g. monasteries are a very positive, real-life example of communism that works). As Aristotle long-ago explained, however, it's a poor form of government on a grand scale because it's very rife to morph into totalitarianism and does not account well for dissenting opinion.
Do you think this is different than Trump promising to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it?
Which two? I'm guess the bathroom thing is one, but I genuinely don't know which other one is perceived to be happening...
There were posters here and so called experts that said the stock market would crash if Trump won.
He probably means real candidates. I await his response to this though because I couldn’t believe Beto said this. It ranks up there with every Democrat candidate raising their hand during the first debate agreeing to give free healthcare to illegals kind of bad.tonydead said:
So in response you posted an article by Junior's girlfriend?supermike80 said:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
What is the basis for claiming that the bias of Business Insider is equal to the bias of Donald Trump Jr.'s girlfriend?
To be fair to Democrats....what's Beto polling at?tonydead said:
That was basically Biden’s entire 60 Minutes interview last night. If you guys have 15 minutes of your lives to waste and want good chuckle watch this guy.lod001 said:
I still have the Paul Krugman election night piece saved for a few laughs-John Blutarsky said:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout
I'm more interested in why he thinks it's a good rebuttal despite not reading it.
Ok well good.
When someone says "bias for bias", and refuse to qualify either side of the equation, I take it that the reader is supposed to interpret that as being code for "a tiny amount of unspecified bias for a large amount of very specific bias".
I just want to get a grasp here of what you find at Business Insider is biased? Every chart I have seen of media bias has them pretty much in the center and fair.
Well 2 reasons..1 is I read the articles
Yeah. from what I can tell, this site seems to be fairly correct, or at least matches my opinions, on whether a site is biased or not.
Which gives it a left-center bias...including high rating for factual reporting. I also looked at their right center list and don't have an issue with any of those either...if listed as a high rating for factual reporting.
Ok, let's try this again.John Blutarsky said:
Thank you for your opinion. If you are Ok with it, I will keep mine. Have a great day!
With a "high" rating for "factual reporting".
Yet, you still insist that they'll only come up with one or two reasons for things and it'll always be Trump's fault based solely on their bias?
