ADVERTISEMENT

The Kavanaugh debate has come unhinged

Invincible ignorance. This was bull shit, you all got played. You gleefully participated in a political character assassination and now your pride won't let you admit that, despite your "better media", you were lied to.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her lawyer and told him, “You know what, I don’t feel good about something.”

First, she said she wouldn’t have just left Ford at the party without accounting for Ford’s ride home. “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s going to get home,” Keyser said. …

Keyser said she doesn’t remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains she didn’t even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

“Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just doesn’t make any sense,” Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who “wanted me to remember something different” — suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line — and that she told the FBI about that.

That would have made Ford 0-4 on her witnesses. And the FBI was involved, and their involvement found all sorts of witness tampering of the kind that Keyser described. In the case of Ramirez it took 6 days of coaching to "remember" what happened to her and her list of witnesses was even more tenuous than the 4 people who said that Blasey-Ford was full of shit....her own family thought she was bull shitting for crying out loud.


Sure, Jan. I’m not replaying this entire episode with a forum full of men. But I’ll just say that if you actually believe what Kavanaugh said about Renate , boofing, and the Devils Triangle, well then, you just aren’t too bright.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohio Guy and T.M.P.
Nobody that has been turned up has corroborated anything that has been thrown at Kavanaugh...that includes some of the people who were supposedly his "victims". Anyone participating in this now is willfully taking a dump on a guy because of politics. Nothing more and nothing less.
Which makes one wonder why the NYT published what they did. They knew the alleged victim didn't remember the alleged incident. The info was second-hand. This is not the way the NYT should do business. There is going to be some serious backtracking.
 
Sure, Jan. I’m not replaying this entire episode with a forum full of men. But I’ll just say that if you actually believe what Kavanaugh said about Renate , boofing, and the Devils Triangle, well then, you just aren’t too bright.

So you admit the claims are likely bogus, you’re more upset about what was written in his yearbook.
 
Last edited:
It’s hilarious you all fall in the lemming Fox News lemming line. Pay no attention to the most important part of the story.Pounce on the secondary part to disclaim the entire story. Once again, the FBI had 25 witnesses to the allegation and they were told NOT to investigate. By whom? And they chose not to investigate a witness of an additional allegation.

Exactly the same scenario with you and the MSNBC crowd. Don't throw stones in glass houses or you risk being rightfully called a hypocrite.
 
BK is slime IMO but the Dems may screw the 2020 pooch if they insist on these rabbit holes as opposed to telling voters like me what they will fix, how quickly and how it will be paid for. Pandering to the folks on this forum isn't the key...they have you. They need me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01 and SNU0821
BK is slime IMO but the Dems may screw the 2020 pooch if they insist on these rabbit holes as opposed to telling voters like me what they will fix, how quickly and how it will be paid for. Pandering to the folks on this forum isn't the key...they have you. They need me.
No, they don't need you. And they probably won't get you, no matter what they do, so trying to get you only alienates people they can get.

Democrats need to be Democrats. There are a lot of versions of "Democrat" they can be, but the only losing version is the one that is spelled R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.
 
No, they don't need you. And they probably won't get you, no matter what they do, so trying to get you only alienates people they can get.

Democrats need to be Democrats. There are a lot of versions of "Democrat" they can be, but the only losing version is the one that is spelled R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.

Yikes, you think they win with without moderate independents? Hell, I help my nose and voted for HRC.

Confident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01 and SNU0821
You sucked it up and voted for Hillary?

Which Dem would you consider voting for this year?

Serious question.

I did, and then self-loathed until I could shower with a wire brush and bleach.

I have kept up here (abundantly) on who I like and don't like thus far. Review the debate threads or many other posts.
 
Nobody that has been turned up has corroborated anything that has been thrown at Kavanaugh...that includes some of the people who were supposedly his "victims". Anyone participating in this now is willfully taking a dump on a guy because of politics. Nothing more and nothing less.
Instead of going on talk shows to discuss the book, these writers need to lock themselves in their house and hope this blows over. Some of this is unbelievable
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
It’s lining up that Warren will be the nominee. A wire brush and bleach isn’t going to do it after you vote for her. The good thing is you will be voting for the loser again.

Not yet sure I would vote for Warren, she is growing on me a bit.
Not at all sure she would lose.

You seem ahead of yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baileyiu
It’s lining up that Warren will be the nominee. A wire brush and bleach isn’t going to do it after you vote for her. The good thing is you will be voting for the loser again.

You voted for Trump and continue to support Trump and Warren is wire brush worthy? That’s hilarious.
 
She appeals to the batshit crazy socialist left base of the party. I think she’s the nominee. I can’t wait to see her riding in the Dukakis tank.

https://images.app.goo.gl/kWXeti3phc2rhXA16

She wouldn’t be my first choice either. But Trump man. We can debate policy. We can’t debate corruption, graft and anti democracy. Let’s just get back to normal and go from there. That means Trump has to go. Now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Sorry but the far left agenda the Dems are embracing isn’t normal either. Look at what Goat told Cousin who voted for Hillary. Basically we don’t need you. We shall see.

Edit btw thanks for a response that was reasonable with no insults thrown my way.

I don’t know what you consider far left agenda, but if it’s MFA and a Green New deal, for example, these pie in the sky agenda items will never become law. There is no way they make it through the Senate.

On the other hand, everything that the Trump administration is doing is actually happening. We are routing military personnel through a small Scottish airport and putting them up at Trumps hotel. The head of DNI is stonewalling the Intel committee with regard to a whistleblower complaint. Oversight committee subpoenas are blatantly being disregarded. We are crapping on our allies and propping up authoritarians. We may end up in a war to defend Saudi Arabia. This is just in the last week. How do you overlook this?
 
The problem for the Times is that this came out of the opinion section and not the news. There is nothing wrong with an editorial section of a paper, but it should not be breaking news. And it should always be identified as opinion material and not news. Just like Hannity isn't news on Fox. The Times needs to be much more careful in this regard because, as we see in this thread, people do not distinguish between opinion pieces and news pieces. The entire paper looks bad when this happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
The problem for the Times is that this came out of the opinion section and not the news. There is nothing wrong with an editorial section of a paper, but it should not be breaking news. And it should always be identified as opinion material and not news. Just like Hannity isn't news on Fox. The Times needs to be much more careful in this regard because, as we see in this thread, people do not distinguish between opinion pieces and news pieces. The entire paper looks bad when this happens.
Naw, that has nothing to do with it. It was just plain stupid, sloppy, amateurish. If you're going to throw out red meat, you don't edit out the qualifier.
 
I don’t know what you consider far left agenda, but if it’s MFA and a Green New deal, for example, these pie in the sky agenda items will never become law. There is no way they make it through the Senate.

On the other hand, everything that the Trump administration is doing is actually happening. We are routing military personnel through a small Scottish airport and putting them up at Trumps hotel. The head of DNI is stonewalling the Intel committee with regard to a whistleblower complaint. Oversight committee subpoenas are blatantly being disregarded. We are crapping on our allies and propping up authoritarians. We may end up in a war to defend Saudi Arabia. This is just in the last week. How do you overlook this?
A quibble: Regardless of whether MFA or GND stand a chance, the most vehement opponents won’t grapple with the basis for the proposals to begin with and don’t act in good faith on such topics, including science denialism. Reasonably addressing the merits of MDA and GND with opponents thus is unworkable and not a productive exercise. Compromising on solutions (regardless of whether it’s some market-based proposal or something more obviously objectionable to the opponents) —or even conceding to inflammatory labels — is no solution at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
It’s lining up that Warren will be the nominee. A wire brush and bleach isn’t going to do it after you vote for her. The good thing is you will be voting for the loser again.
I'm still waiting for her to say, "in order to implement MFA we will have to raise taxes on middle-class families."
She can't get herself to say it but everyone knows it has to happen in order to attempt to pay for the proposal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
At least grumpy old socialist Bernie admits he will tax the middle class. In the next breath he tells them they’ll get all back plus with lower costs.
By all rights they should be. The economy of scale and the wages paid instead of spent on health insurance and the out of pocket costs eliminated should end up offsetting the tax bump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baileyiu
At least grumpy old socialist Bernie admits he will tax the middle class. In the next breath he tells them they’ll get all back plus with lower costs.
Tax or premiums - both are costs to the middle class + co-pays & uncovered (denied) claims
 
By all rights they should be. The economy of scale and the wages paid instead of spent on health insurance and the out of pocket costs eliminated should end up offsetting the tax bump.
It all depends. It's estimated that a Bernie's MFA (and Warren's isn't much different) will require doubling federal spending. That means if we actually plan to pay for it (a big if), those that pay taxes will have to pay double in taxes to obtain that much revenue. That's simple math. The majority of those people will be net losers in this deal regardless of how much they pay in premiums. Not to mention that Medicare as it's structured now isn't even fiscally sustainable. It's going to be a very hard sale for any Democratic Presidential candidate to make. I think it and the other "free stuff" propositions are the things that would enable Trump to win again because the costs of these programs scare the holy crap out of most Americans and those costs will be widely advertised.

I'm not a fan of employer based insurance, I think that we should allow negotiation with drug companies for better prices, and I don't think we should allow people to go bankrupt over healthcare so we should have a catastrophic healthcare coverage. However, we can get to all those things without shocking price tags and equally shocking tax increases.

I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I'm not going to vote for any of the "free stuff" Democratic candidates either. I know you don't think you need my vote, but I know many Republicans like me that would vote for a solid Democrat on the center left like Biden over Trump. Democrats can win the election and they can also lose it. I hope they choose wisely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
It all depends. It's estimated that a Bernie's MFA (and Warren's isn't much different) will require doubling federal spending. That means if we actually plan to pay for it (a big if), those that pay taxes will have to pay double in taxes to obtain that much revenue. That's simple math. The majority of those people will be net losers in this deal regardless of how much they pay in premiums. Not to mention that Medicare as it's structured now isn't even fiscally sustainable. It's going to be a very hard sale for any Democratic Presidential candidate to make. I think it and the other "free stuff" propositions are the things that would enable Trump to win again because the costs of these programs scare the holy crap out of most Americans and those costs will be widely advertised.

I'm not a fan of employer based insurance, I think that we should allow negotiation with drug companies for better prices, and I don't think we should allow people to go bankrupt over healthcare so we should have a catastrophic healthcare coverage. However, we can get to all those things without shocking price tags and equally shocking tax increases.

I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I'm not going to vote for any of the "free stuff" Democratic candidates either. I know you don't think you need my vote, but I know many Republicans like me that would vote for a solid Democrat on the center left like Biden over Trump. Democrats can win the election and they can also lose it. I hope they choose wisely.


Have no fear..... now Uncle Bernie wants to implement nationwide rent control and spend $2T on public hosting projects (as those were such successes in the past).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
It all depends. It's estimated that a Bernie's MFA (and Warren's isn't much different) will require doubling federal spending. That means if we actually plan to pay for it (a big if), those that pay taxes will have to pay double in taxes to obtain that much revenue. That's simple math. The majority of those people will be net losers in this deal regardless of how much they pay in premiums. Not to mention that Medicare as it's structured now isn't even fiscally sustainable. It's going to be a very hard sale for any Democratic Presidential candidate to make. I think it and the other "free stuff" propositions are the things that would enable Trump to win again because the costs of these programs scare the holy crap out of most Americans and those costs will be widely advertised.

I'm not a fan of employer based insurance, I think that we should allow negotiation with drug companies for better prices, and I don't think we should allow people to go bankrupt over healthcare so we should have a catastrophic healthcare coverage. However, we can get to all those things without shocking price tags and equally shocking tax increases.

I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I'm not going to vote for any of the "free stuff" Democratic candidates either. I know you don't think you need my vote, but I know many Republicans like me that would vote for a solid Democrat on the center left like Biden over Trump. Democrats can win the election and they can also lose it. I hope they choose wisely.
Actually, the "simple" math says you're wrong. Americans pay, on average, $11K/year out of pocket for medical care. They pay, on average, a little over $8K/year in federal taxes.

So, if we doubled everyone's taxes, and it pays for MFA, then the average American is ahead by about $3K, before moving beyond the simple and into the complex (further gains from increased wages vs offset savings from continued out-of-pocket expenses even in an MFA world).
 
It all depends. It's estimated that a Bernie's MFA (and Warren's isn't much different) will require doubling federal spending. That means if we actually plan to pay for it (a big if), those that pay taxes will have to pay double in taxes to obtain that much revenue. That's simple math. The majority of those people will be net losers in this deal regardless of how much they pay in premiums. Not to mention that Medicare as it's structured now isn't even fiscally sustainable. It's going to be a very hard sale for any Democratic Presidential candidate to make. I think it and the other "free stuff" propositions are the things that would enable Trump to win again because the costs of these programs scare the holy crap out of most Americans and those costs will be widely advertised.

I'm not a fan of employer based insurance, I think that we should allow negotiation with drug companies for better prices, and I don't think we should allow people to go bankrupt over healthcare so we should have a catastrophic healthcare coverage. However, we can get to all those things without shocking price tags and equally shocking tax increases.

I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I'm not going to vote for any of the "free stuff" Democratic candidates either. I know you don't think you need my vote, but I know many Republicans like me that would vote for a solid Democrat on the center left like Biden over Trump. Democrats can win the election and they can also lose it. I hope they choose wisely.


Our family's premiums were in excess of $26k last year (counting employer + employee share).... I'm not convinced that MFA is the proper way forward, but I think you might be underestimating the extreme cost of HC.... since much of it is hidden to the end consumer.

The cost is the cost.... whatever insurance wrapper you put it in doesn't change that (all that much).
 
Last edited:
Actually, the "simple" math says you're wrong. Americans pay, on average, $11K/year out of pocket for medical care. They pay, on average, a little over $8K/year in federal taxes.

So, if we doubled everyone's taxes, and it pays for MFA, then the average American is ahead by about $3K, before moving beyond the simple and into the complex (further gains from increased wages vs offset savings from continued out-of-pocket expenses even in an MFA world).
Our family's premiums were in excess of $26k last year (counting employer + employee share).... I'm not convinced that MFA is the proper way forward, but I think you might be underestimating the extreme cost of HC.... since much of it is hidden to the end consumer.

The cost is the cost.... whatever insurance wrapper you put it in doesn't change that (all that much).
Every other developed country employs some form of "socialized medicine", and their per capita costs average about half of ours. But like so many conservatives, Aloha "knows" that this is unpossible, so if we adopted "socialized medicine", he "knows" it would cost us even more than we pay now [because reasons]. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
By all rights they should be. The economy of scale and the wages paid instead of spent on health insurance and the out of pocket costs eliminated should end up offsetting the tax bump.

I want to see this concept modeled by economists without agendas. The issue I see are the outcomes for people with years of no material medical expenses. For them...currently the premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed but the deductibles haven't hit them. The tax increases might hurt more than the premiums. Then there is the whole R & D element that has driven global healthcare technology primarily through the US. Theoretically, that gets dampened and that is not good.
 
Actually, the "simple" math says you're wrong. Americans pay, on average, $11K/year out of pocket for medical care. They pay, on average, a little over $8K/year in federal taxes.

So, if we doubled everyone's taxes, and it pays for MFA, then the average American is ahead by about $3K, before moving beyond the simple and into the complex (further gains from increased wages vs offset savings from continued out-of-pocket expenses even in an MFA world).
To get that figure you have to include the full deductible. Those that don’t use healthcare, or only go to the doc occasionally for routine matter or check up (heck, I haven’t even been to a Doc in over two years) are either paying nothing or a co-payment. The majority of people don’t reach a fraction of the deductible. They are not “paying” 11K per year. In the other hand, you will be paying your taxes. Those of us that pay taxes will have to pay twice as much to pay a doubling of our expenses. At a time we don’t even want to pay for our current expenses and are on a pathetic to insolvency, do you think it’s going to sale to double our spending and double our taxes. I think Sanders and Warren our Trump’s best bet for re-election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
Our family's premiums were in excess of $26k last year (counting employer + employee share).... I'm not convinced that MFA is the proper way forward, but I think you might be underestimating the extreme cost of HC.... since much of it is hidden to the end consumer.

The cost is the cost.... whatever insurance wrapper you put it in doesn't change that (all that much).
Your out of pocket isn’t that much, but maybe you’re tax increase will be less less than what you’re paying. Your employer will likely continue to pay as much in their share of taxes required to pay for MFA. There will be winners and there will be losers. They’ll have to convince the majority of Americans that they’ll be winners or to tolerate losing.
 
And lied about under oath. There's precedent for impeachment for that.
I think we need to focus on impeachment inquiries and hearings and possible/probable impeachment of the President. BK is a distraction from what really needs to be done. On top of that it seems that latest story is turning out to be not so credible and we take a big chance of screwing up Democrats' credibility by pursuing BK based on that. We need to focus on the head of the snake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNU0821
To get that figure you have to include the full deductible. Those that don’t use healthcare, or only go to the doc occasionally for routine matter or check up (heck, I haven’t even been to a Doc in over two years) are either paying nothing or a co-payment. The majority of people don’t reach a fraction of the deductible. They are not “paying” 11K per year. In the other hand, you will be paying your taxes. Those of us that pay taxes will have to pay twice as much to pay a doubling of our expenses. At a time we don’t even want to pay for our current expenses and are on a pathetic to insolvency, do you think it’s going to sale to double our spending and double our taxes. I think Sanders and Warren our Trump’s best bet for re-election.


Yes but I'm sure you still carry health insurance. I have gone to the doctor twice in the last decade.... yet still pay in excess of $7k/yr for a high deductible policy for myself. Yeah, my employer pays for 90% of it, but that's irrelevant economically. It's part of a compensation package, that in reality I pay for via lower wages. My wife's policy for her and the kids is $20k.... in premiums (ignoring deductibles, co- pays.... just the premiums).

Saying I don't use up that money because I don't actually consume health care most years is like saying my homeowner's insurance doesn't cost me anything because my house doesn't routinely burn down. You are making the perfect example of how hidden HC costs actually are in our system. Just because you aren't writing a check doesn't mean you aren't paying.

The one important disclaimer is that $27k/yr is all tax free compensation. That would need to be addressed in any MFA (or other socialized system)
 
Last edited:
No, they don't need you. And they probably won't get you, no matter what they do, so trying to get you only alienates people they can get.

Democrats need to be Democrats. There are a lot of versions of "Democrat" they can be, but the only losing version is the one that is spelled R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.
Good for us we don't have a Republican running and all of them are better than Trump. :D I love a lot of the policies Warren and Bernie are touting. Especially M4A because I think it's necessary and inevitable but it's all good with me if one of the other candidates wins our nomination if that's what needs to happen to beat Trump. Every candidate will take us closer to where we need to be and farther away from where Trump would take us and that's most important. I think we have candidates that will get some of those Trump hating Republicans votes and I don't think any of our candidates aren't going to get the Democrats out because Trump. We might need them to win.
 
You guys keep right up with those impeachment inquires. You’re assuring yourselves Trump will be re-elected. I don’t like Pelosi but she has more brains in her little toe than Nadler has in his entire body. Nadler is a complete joke. Maybe he will have the Mueller report close the next hearing. The televised hearing this week was a joke. Every witness they call should treat them like the jokes that they are.

Why not do real legislation to show the country an alternative to Trump?
Impeachment is the right thing to do because Trump has apparently done criminal things. I'm convinced he has committed crimes. The obvious one is cashing in on taxpayer money with stays at his properties. If it costs the election to impeach I could live with it because I want our politicians to do the right thing for our country and not the thing they think they need to do to get elected. But I really don't believe that it would hurt our chances. I think it might help the chances of most Democrats and our Presidential nominee or be a neutral factor. I believe Americans would see it as the right thing to do. My biggest fear is that Trump gets reelected because impeaching him will still be the right thing to do but it will be easy for Republicans to make it look like it's only revenge for another election loss.
 
Impeachment is the right thing to do because Trump has apparently done criminal things. I'm convinced he has committed crimes. The obvious one is cashing in on taxpayer money with stays at his properties. If it costs the election to impeach I could live with it because I want our politicians to do the right thing for our country and not the thing they think they need to do to get elected. But I really don't believe that it would hurt our chances. I think it might help the chances of most Democrats and our Presidential nominee or be a neutral factor. I believe Americans would see it as the right thing to do. My biggest fear is that Trump gets reelected because impeaching him will still be the right thing to do but it will be easy for Republicans to make it look like it's only revenge for another election loss.
Sometimes you just need to put things to a vote. Until we do, we don't really know some answers. If America doesn't support having any governing principles, it's probably worth knowing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT