Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:19 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
adkindo wrote:
ribeye wrote:
governator wrote:
ribeye wrote:
adkindo wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.
Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.
Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)
Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.
Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.
Why does it matter? A candidate would run a totally different campaign if the goal was to get the most overall votes.
Yep. Donald could win more popular votes in some states by changing tactics. That could also affect the popular votes in those states he previously campaigned in. Zero sum gain? Dunno.
yeah, trump won fair and square (within the game)... move on
focus on what DNC gonna do instead
Yes, the Donald won fair and square--that is if blatant and repeated lying, having Russia, Wikileaks and the FBI against you is fair and square.
The point is not to belabor who won, but to understand exactly what happened, so as not to overreact and over-correct, to try to figure what is best in order. As this thread shows, Democrats don't seem to agree on that solution.
Oddly, Republicans went through this four years ago and they decided they needed to branch out to recruit minorities, particularly Latinos and Hispanics, yet they did just the opposite, and won "fair and square."
I am not sure comparing Hillary's vote totals to Obama's says much considering both Romney and McCain received more votes than Trump and lost.....except this was just a lower turnout election, which is about the only thing that I expected to happen that actually happened. Most voters did not see the candidates as inspirational.
That might be a valid statement if Romney and McCain did indeed receive more votes than Trump. Truth is, they did not.
I assume he has surpassed them since election night? I think the point is I ceased tracking the vote count once a winner was decided. I can see how the question can come off rude in writing, but I truly do not understand why Clinton supporters are counting popular votes almost 2 weeks later. She could win by 10 million votes, and the electoral college will never go away.
There is only one viable replacement and that is single payer....all the other options like a HSA are a huge joke on themiddle class.
Even if the federal government deposits money directly in to peoples HSA?
The diagnosis for many life altering diseases occurs when people are relatively young (ie, prior to 30 years of age). How are people that young supposed to build up a firewall through a Health Savings Account. And these accounts are meant to work in tandem with extremely high deductible policies which are capped.
25 years old, $150,000 in student loan debt, and receive a Chrohns diagnosis. Insurance caps out @ $75,000, but doesn't start paying until after the first $5000 in medical bills. How exactly is a HSA, a $500 government subsidy, & a capped insurance policy supposed to help that guy reach 50 years old with the diseases average $3000 monthly treatment costs?
Fisrst, it would be better than nothing. I support single payer, but I see some merits in HSA's before we get there. After many years hopefully some people would get to build up a nice balance in their HSA. The figures you have pointed to would still be the same without HSA's. You would be able to put your own money in them and reduce your tax bill. They would also be transferable between family members and possibly friends. I can see the argument that they may not go far enough, but you can't deny that they would help, and many cases help significantly. When the Democrats don't even like single payer you have to start looking at the merit of other options.
Problem with that is everyone eventually faces a medical emergency in their lifetime. Somebody at some point in their lifetime will get a bill for a 6 figure emergency surgery or medical procedure. Once you transfer your funds to somebody else you have nothing. HSA's are a non-starter in my opinion.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29593 Location: La La Land
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:30 pm Post subject:
I think alot of people are underestimating just how long 4 years is. DNC thought they needed a white moderate from the South to run for President after their loss in '04. Needless to say, that doesn't describe Barack well.
Technology and media will be different 4 years from now.
A terror attack, financial crisis, Middle Eastern conflict with US boots on the ground, trade war, major cyber attack are all within the realm of possibility. An increase in protests and hate crimes is inevitable.
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
I think alot of people are underestimating just how long 4 years is. DNC thought they needed a white moderate from the South to run for President after their loss in '04. Needless to say, that doesn't describe Barack well.
Technology and media will be different 4 years from now.
A terror attack, financial crisis, Middle Eastern conflict with US boots on the ground, trade war, major cyber attack are all within the realm of possibility. An increase in protests and hate crimes is inevitable.
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
Anybody can happen in the next 4 years...either a Trump presidency will crush all opposition and he gets an easy re-election....or he screws up so bad he becomes a 1 term president and the Democrats sweep into power and retake Congress. Either way I don't expect a boring presidency.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:36 pm Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
I think alot of people are underestimating just how long 4 years is. DNC thought they needed a white moderate from the South to run for President after their loss in '04. Needless to say, that doesn't describe Barack well.
Technology and media will be different 4 years from now.
A terror attack, financial crisis, Middle Eastern conflict with US boots on the ground, trade war, major cyber attack are all within the realm of possibility. An increase in protests and hate crimes is inevitable.
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
I would expect the CA Lieutenant Governor to look seriously @ 2020....the Dems have been grooming him for over a decade, right?
yeah, i think you're right. It's not enough to keep the profit margin, has to increase the premium
I guess I get lost when people point to the insurance companies. They are not the reason that health care costs have been increasing for decades.
They're part of the reasons, there are so many mouths to feed now. 30 yrs ago, most health care $ spent to pay doctors. Now 8% of health care $ goes to providers (doctors, dentists, physical therapists, chiropractors, nurse practicioners/CRNAs), the rest goes to medical suppliers, pharmaceuticals, imaging study centers, insurance companies employees, hospital administrators, all other employees.
That's why I always said that to try to curb spending without single payer is almost impossible. It's basically asking a free market profit driven model to curb itself
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52705 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:38 pm Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
It's pretty obvious even after two weeks of President-Elect Trump that the longer Trump is in office, the easier it will be. By 2020, there will be a lot of "anyone but Trump" voters on both ends of the spectrum, and Dems will be all in whomever the DNC fields. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:52 pm Post subject:
governator wrote:
adkindo wrote:
governator wrote:
yeah, i think you're right. It's not enough to keep the profit margin, has to increase the premium
I guess I get lost when people point to the insurance companies. They are not the reason that health care costs have been increasing for decades.
They're part of the reasons, there are so many mouths to feed now. 30 yrs ago, most health care $ spent to pay doctors. Now 8% of health care $ goes to providers (doctors, dentists, physical therapists, chiropractors, nurse practicioners/CRNAs), the rest goes to medical suppliers, pharmaceuticals, imaging study centers, insurance companies employees, hospital administrators, all other employees.
That's why I always said that to try to curb spending without single payer is almost impossible. It's basically asking a free market profit driven model to curb itself
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90316 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:00 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
governator wrote:
Opening health care insurance to complete free market will guaranteed continuation of profits. To control cost, you have to control all those industries which I think is impossible without single payer system
Competition increases price?
It is called non discretionary demand. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:01 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
adkindo wrote:
governator wrote:
Opening health care insurance to complete free market will guaranteed continuation of profits. To control cost, you have to control all those industries which I think is impossible without single payer system
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90316 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:19 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
adkindo wrote:
governator wrote:
Opening health care insurance to complete free market will guaranteed continuation of profits. To control cost, you have to control all those industries which I think is impossible without single payer system
Competition increases price?
It is called non discretionary demand.
What is called non discretionary demand?
When you have unlimited and unavoidable demand for something, the incentive to price gouge is strong, and the disincentive is weak. When the seller has what the buyer must have, it is a seller's market. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:30 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
adkindo wrote:
governator wrote:
Opening health care insurance to complete free market will guaranteed continuation of profits. To control cost, you have to control all those industries which I think is impossible without single payer system
Competition increases price?
It is called non discretionary demand.
What is called non discretionary demand?
When you have unlimited and unavoidable demand for something, the incentive to price gouge is strong, and the disincentive is weak. When the seller has what the buyer must have, it is a seller's market.
One could say the same thing about water. The demand is not unlimited, and unavoidable is a term of opinion or at a minimum a term that would not model. How does one price gouge when rates are regulated by the state on an annual basis? Competition or greater supply is what creates buyers market, while demand is increasing or flat.....its the only market force that will create a buyers market.
yeah, i think you're right. It's not enough to keep the profit margin, has to increase the premium
I guess I get lost when people point to the insurance companies. They are not the reason that health care costs have been increasing for decades.
They're part of the reasons, there are so many mouths to feed now. 30 yrs ago, most health care $ spent to pay doctors. Now 8% of health care $ goes to providers (doctors, dentists, physical therapists, chiropractors, nurse practicioners/CRNAs), the rest goes to medical suppliers, pharmaceuticals, imaging study centers, insurance companies employees, hospital administrators, all other employees.
That's why I always said that to try to curb spending without single payer is almost impossible. It's basically asking a free market profit driven model to curb itself
How does one price gouge when rates are regulated by the state on an annual basis? Competition or greater supply is what creates buyers market, while demand is increasing or flat.....its the only market force that will create a buyers market.
Do you get the impression that this is how things are working in the health care market? Set aside economic theory for the moment. When you look at the results of the market, and you see that they differ from what economic theory would suggest, then you need to ask why that is so.
There are several factors in play. There really isn't a lot of competition among insurance companies, and state regulation is ineffective. If a state's rules are unfavorable, the insurance company just pulls out unless the rules are changed. We have this stupid game where hospitals charge ridiculous amounts to insurance companies knowing that they will just haggle to an agreed price. The insurance company doesn't really care about the price, as long as it can pass it along to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. We let pharmaceutical companies gouge the hell out of us while dumping their product overseas at a fraction of the cost -- often a small fraction, too.
This all leads to the counter-intuitive result that the government -- Medicare and Medicaid -- is more effective at cost containment than private insurance. That is 100% contrary to economic theory, but it is nonetheless true. The GOP's ideas for fixing the problems are rubbish, and a lot of people in the GOP already know this. We are most likely going to get right back into the same trap as before: premiums will appear to come down, but in reality you'll pay more for health care because deductibles and co-pays will go up and coverage will go down. Once again, we will have waves of people filing for bankruptcy due to their medical bills, even though they thought they had insurance.
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.
Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.
Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)
Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.
Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.
Why does it matter? A candidate would run a totally different campaign if the goal was to get the most overall votes.
Yep. Donald could win more popular votes in some states by changing tactics. That could also affect the popular votes in those states he previously campaigned in. Zero sum gain? Dunno.
yeah, trump won fair and square (within the game)... move on
focus on what DNC gonna do instead
Yes, the Donald won fair and square--that is if blatant and repeated lying, having Russia, Wikileaks and the FBI against you is fair and square.
The point is not to belabor who won, but to understand exactly what happened, so as not to overreact and over-correct, to try to figure what is best in order. As this thread shows, Democrats don't seem to agree on that solution.
Oddly, Republicans went through this four years ago and they decided they needed to branch out to recruit minorities, particularly Latinos and Hispanics, yet they did just the opposite, and won "fair and square."
I am not sure comparing Hillary's vote totals to Obama's says much considering both Romney and McCain received more votes than Trump and lost.....except this was just a lower turnout election, which is about the only thing that I expected to happen that actually happened. Most voters did not see the candidates as inspirational.
That might be a valid statement if Romney and McCain did indeed receive more votes than Trump. Truth is, they did not.
I assume he has surpassed them since election night? I think the point is I ceased tracking the vote count once a winner was decided. I can see how the question can come off rude in writing, but I truly do not understand why Clinton supporters are counting popular votes almost 2 weeks later. She could win by 10 million votes, and the electoral college will never go away.
It is not Clinton supporters who are counting the votes: It is the election officials. And, whose vote should not be counted? Is one person, one vote no longer valid?
That Clinton is now approximately 1.75M votes ahead (and growing) does matter. She will ALWAYS be the more popular candidate, which will silence those trying to elicit that we have some kind of mandate.
The failure here, was not the people, but the system. When the electoral system was constructed, the largest state, Virginia, was something like 11.7 times larger than the smallest, and the electoral relationship of the largest to smallest was 7 (21 for Virginia and 3 for the smaller states). Today, California is over 65 times larger than the smallest, Wyoming, but with only an electoral advantage of 18 (and the same freeking number of senators). If Cali had the same electoral advantage as did Virginia in 1800, relative to its population advantage, we would have 118 votes, and possibly the election.
The system needs updating to prevent this tyranny of the minority that Madison feared. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
1. The popular vote argument is misleading. The campaign was all about electoral votes. If the rules had been different, the result could have been different. How many Republicans in California did not vote because Trump had no chance to win California and because the Senate race was between two Democrats? We'll never know. What would have happened if Trump actually spent money in places like New York and Massachusetts? We'll never know.
2. The problem is not so much with the electoral college itself as with the excessive weight given to a handful of swing states under the current demographics. I think a lot of people are getting sick of the election being focused on Ohio and Florida.
3. This is the United States of America, not the Republic of America. I have no problem with giving extra weight to smaller states. However, because of the swing state effect, a lot of votes really don't matter much. If you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Oklahoma, your vote is sort of wasted. For that matter, any vote in Kansas or Massachusetts is less valuable than a vote in North Carolina. The net effect is that the electoral college distorts political participation.
4. We are not going to go to a popular vote system until the GOP gets burned. Right now, a lot of GOPers are under the delusion that the electoral college protects conservatives. There is a narrative being circulated that the electoral college prevents the tyranny of urban populations. This is a bunch of rubbish. However, the GOP has benefited from the electoral college twice in 16 years, so some of the idiots have convinced themselves that this is the providential wisdom of the semi-mythical Founding Fathers. The real Founding Fathers would say, "Why haven't you fools fixed this (bleep)?"
5. A more likely reform would be a proportional system. Rules: Winner of the state gets 2 EVs, and the remaining EVs are proportionally allocated between candidates who got at least 15% of the vote, rounded in favor of whoever got more votes. Trump might very well have won under this system. That isn't the point. The point is (1) it gets rid of the freaking swing states, (2) everyone's vote matters, and (3) if a third party can manage to get 15% of the vote, it can collect a few EVs and possibly get some leverage. But see item 4: None of this is going to happen as long as people in the GOP think that the electoral college protects them from the evil liberals in big cities.
Joined: 03 Oct 2016 Posts: 515 Location: Avatar courtesy of Jodeke, my friend.
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:25 am Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
It's pretty obvious even after two weeks of President-Elect Trump that the longer Trump is in office, the easier it will be. By 2020, there will be a lot of "anyone but Trump" voters on both ends of the spectrum, and Dems will be all in whomever the DNC fields.
I think so many of you still continue to allow yourselves to be in denial. So many people keep thinking and writing the same rhetoric. We heard all this before Trump even ran. And continued to hear it all the way through November 8th. They are just words with no substance. Just wishful thinking.
If Trump wipes out ISIS before the 1st term is done, he will be around 4 years after that. No President fulfills all his promises. None. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The public and media is in the business of tearing down everything and everyone no matter what if they are opposite of their particular party. Now Trump is a little unique in that he managed to end the Democrats AND the Republicans for what they use to be. Now, the D and the R are just symbols, they do not have any substance either.
If Trump wants to shock the world, halting the pipeline situation in ND would put a gigantic monkey wrench into all the rhetoric. It wouldn't solve anything politically because politics can be twisted and manipulated. But Trump doing what Obama wouldn't do would really be fun to watch to see how that story could be twisted. _________________ "Believe what you want, you're going to believe it anyway."
1. The popular vote argument is misleading. The campaign was all about electoral votes. If the rules had been different, the result could have been different. How many Republicans in California did not vote because Trump had no chance to win California and because the Senate race was between two Democrats? We'll never know. What would have happened if Trump actually spent money in places like New York and Massachusetts? We'll never know.
2. The problem is not so much with the electoral college itself as with the excessive weight given to a handful of swing states under the current demographics. I think a lot of people are getting sick of the election being focused on Ohio and Florida.
3. This is the United States of America, not the Republic of America. I have no problem with giving extra weight to smaller states. However, because of the swing state effect, a lot of votes really don't matter much. If you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Oklahoma, your vote is sort of wasted. For that matter, any vote in Kansas or Massachusetts is less valuable than a vote in North Carolina. The net effect is that the electoral college distorts political participation.
4. We are not going to go to a popular vote system until the GOP gets burned. Right now, a lot of GOPers are under the delusion that the electoral college protects conservatives. There is a narrative being circulated that the electoral college prevents the tyranny of urban populations. This is a bunch of rubbish. However, the GOP has benefited from the electoral college twice in 16 years, so some of the idiots have convinced themselves that this is the providential wisdom of the semi-mythical Founding Fathers. The real Founding Fathers would say, "Why haven't you fools fixed this (bleep)?"
5. A more likely reform would be a proportional system. Rules: Winner of the state gets 2 EVs, and the remaining EVs are proportionally allocated between candidates who got at least 15% of the vote, rounded in favor of whoever got more votes. Trump might very well have won under this system. That isn't the point. The point is (1) it gets rid of the freaking swing states, (2) everyone's vote matters, and (3) if a third party can manage to get 15% of the vote, it can collect a few EVs and possibly get some leverage. But see item 4: None of this is going to happen as long as people in the GOP think that the electoral college protects them from the evil liberals in big cities.
I have not heard such a narrative "that the electoral college prevents the tyranny of urban populations." If anything, the exact opposite is occurring.
I'm not sure if your idea is good or not, but, at the surface, it appears better than what we have. Still, I think the allocation of senators and house members (how electoral votes are factored) needs adjustment. We should strive for something between the way it is now and proportional representation that would greatly effect the power of the small states. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 27 Jul 2004 Posts: 18248 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:28 am Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
kikanga wrote:
I think alot of people are underestimating just how long 4 years is. DNC thought they needed a white moderate from the South to run for President after their loss in '04. Needless to say, that doesn't describe Barack well.
Technology and media will be different 4 years from now.
A terror attack, financial crisis, Middle Eastern conflict with US boots on the ground, trade war, major cyber attack are all within the realm of possibility. An increase in protests and hate crimes is inevitable.
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
I would expect the CA Lieutenant Governor to look seriously @ 2020....the Dems have been grooming him for over a decade, right?
Gavin Newsom? He can and likely will be the next Governor of our state but I can't envision a candidate who backed such strong gun control measures here appealing to voters on a national level. They aren't going to win back votes in the South and Rust Belt with a candidate like that and they may even lose votes in relaxed gun-control states like Nevada where Hilary won.
Did you happen to notice how many of those anti-Hilary ads in the final weeks of the campaign were sponsored by the NRA? The ads had nothing to do with her stances on gun control either.
Newsom doesn't fit the mold of the Democratic Presidential candidate. Most of them are highly educated and went to prestigious colleges. _________________ "Suck it up. Don't be a baby. Do your job." - Kobe Bryant
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
It's pretty obvious even after two weeks of President-Elect Trump that the longer Trump is in office, the easier it will be. By 2020, there will be a lot of "anyone but Trump" voters on both ends of the spectrum, and Dems will be all in whomever the DNC fields.
I think so many of you still continue to allow yourselves to be in denial. So many people keep thinking and writing the same rhetoric. We heard all this before Trump even ran. And continued to hear it all the way through November 8th. They are just words with no substance. Just wishful thinking.
If Trump wipes out ISIS before the 1st term is done, he will be around 4 years after that. No President fulfills all his promises. None. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The public and media is in the business of tearing down everything and everyone no matter what if they are opposite of their particular party. Now Trump is a little unique in that he managed to end the Democrats AND the Republicans for what they use to be. Now, the D and the R are just symbols, they do not have any substance either.
If Trump wants to shock the world, halting the pipeline situation in ND would put a gigantic monkey wrench into all the rhetoric. It wouldn't solve anything politically because politics can be twisted and manipulated. But Trump doing what Obama wouldn't do would really be fun to watch to see how that story could be twisted.
I think it is WAY premature to say that Trump ended how Republicans used to be. Everyone he is selecting is a good ol' boy or worse, solid Republican.
And I'd be shocked if Trump wipes out ISIS. They, or an offshoot, as well as any number of terrorist organizations, will be around long after Trump. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 03 Oct 2016 Posts: 515 Location: Avatar courtesy of Jodeke, my friend.
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:40 am Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
The Brain wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Tough to predict what will be the right type of candidate for the Dems in 2020.
It's pretty obvious even after two weeks of President-Elect Trump that the longer Trump is in office, the easier it will be. By 2020, there will be a lot of "anyone but Trump" voters on both ends of the spectrum, and Dems will be all in whomever the DNC fields.
I think so many of you still continue to allow yourselves to be in denial. So many people keep thinking and writing the same rhetoric. We heard all this before Trump even ran. And continued to hear it all the way through November 8th. They are just words with no substance. Just wishful thinking.
If Trump wipes out ISIS before the 1st term is done, he will be around 4 years after that. No President fulfills all his promises. None. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The public and media is in the business of tearing down everything and everyone no matter what if they are opposite of their particular party. Now Trump is a little unique in that he managed to end the Democrats AND the Republicans for what they use to be. Now, the D and the R are just symbols, they do not have any substance either.
If Trump wants to shock the world, halting the pipeline situation in ND would put a gigantic monkey wrench into all the rhetoric. It wouldn't solve anything politically because politics can be twisted and manipulated. But Trump doing what Obama wouldn't do would really be fun to watch to see how that story could be twisted.
I think it is WAY premature to say that Trump ended how Republicans used to be. Everyone he is selecting is a good ol' boy or worse, solid Republican.
And I'd be shocked if Trump wipes out ISIS. They, or an offshoot, as well as any number of terrorist organizations, will be around long after Trump.
ISIS is not an offshoot organization. They are a mobile nation. There will always be terrorists no matter what, but the root of ISIS needs to be destroyed. And that root is destroying their most important resource. Oil. _________________ "Believe what you want, you're going to believe it anyway."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
