Poll: Trump At 46 Percent Favorability — Surpassing Obama At This Point In Presidency

new Gallup poll shows Donald Trump’s presidential job-approval rating hitting at 46 percent. While one can fairly note that the popularity is still lagging considerably behind a booming economy, it is also notable that President Barack Obama was at 44 percent in Gallup polling at this time in his presidency.

The polling shows a couple things that I find fascinating about this presidency. First, there remains a sharp disconnect between the views of journalists and activists in the Beltway and the just of the country. When you travel outside of the city (or most major cities), there is considerable support for Trump. This leads to the same anti-establishment dimension that led to the last election surprise.

The second issue is more difficult for Trump. Despite leading a huge economic growth period, Trump remains below 50 percent. More importantly, polls show people hardened on both ends on Trump. There is now a huge group of voters committed to voting against him. This figure has been tracked in the 40 and even 50 percentile. Ironically, it was the problem that Hillary Clinton had in her election. The Democrats nominated the least popular Democrat in the country — and the ultimate embodiment of the Washington establishment. She began with a significant number of people who would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Trump’s confrontational approach has appealed to his base for the primary while alienating the swing voters in the general election.

Trump is now facing a rock hard opposition that means that he has to virtually sweep the table to win again. Nevertheless, this poll shows that he is not nearly as unpopular outside Washington as he is inside it.

329 thoughts on “Poll: Trump At 46 Percent Favorability — Surpassing Obama At This Point In Presidency”

  1. Now back in the USA where the socialist foreigners haven’t had much since 1909 and they chose to depart from being a part of our country and it’s system of government they haven’t been worth mentioning.

    Given they have their own little pout fest waaayyyyy off to the extreme left one has to run more realistic polls.; One’s that recognize the Center of our Representative Constitutional Republic is the Constitution and the Oath of Office they violate upon taking clearly excludes them.

    But no they can’t get around the fact that the Founders rejected Democracy as a system and nine rejections later rejected all things democratic except a very very few portions which became the word Representative.

    Did that stop the socialist from continuing to drift full speed ahead until our Constitutional Republic was waaaayyy over the horizon? Not a bit it was easier to lie to themselves and move their center over to land of national, international and progressive socialism.

    Not being satisfied with the term Democrat they have rejected the whole concept of Democracy and being Democratic. Not that it ever existed in our Constitutional Republic.

    The excuse? It’s hard to be a bad much less traitorous American when they were never a part of US to begin with.

    Just remember measure everything by the standards of the Constitutional Center and continue to reject the last and least useful parts of the Evil Empire of Socialism. As if watching it fail for the better part of a hundred years wasn’t reason enough.

  2. Comrade Obama comes in far down a long list of failures by his ideology. Obama at one end along with the dude in Venezuela and the likes of Stalin, Mussolini, Mao and Hitler at the top. By Socialist standards does it really matter if they were International, national or progressive?

    1. On the other hand, President Barack HUSSEIN Obama was not only the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces since Harry Truman, but prior to his marriage, he undoubtedly had bountiful “access” to the white women.

      this is to “ya, but I try not to care if they get the fat ones” mikey

  3. Wait.

    An ineligible, feckless “empty suit” garnered 44%?

    That dudn’t make any sense! How’d that happen?

    Who’s voting; who’s “entitled” to vote?

    The Greeks created democracy under a restricted vote – the Romans replicated the Greek model.

    We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    Merriam-Webster SINCE 1828

    republic noun
    re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
    Definition of republic

    b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

  4. “Marky Mark’s NPD”

    Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
    A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they’re not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.
    Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder centers around talk therapy (psychotherapy).


    Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:

    Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
    Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    Exaggerate achievements and talents
    Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
    Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
    Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
    Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
    Take advantage of others to get what they want
    Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    Be envious of others and believe others envy them
    Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
    Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office
    At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:
    Become impatient or angry when they don’t receive special treatment
    Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
    React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
    Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
    Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
    Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
    Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

    ***When to see a doctor***

    People with narcissistic personality disorder may not want to think that anything could be wrong, so they may be unlikely to seek treatment. If they do seek treatment, it’s more likely to be for symptoms of depression, drug or alcohol use, or another mental health problem. But perceived insults to self-esteem may make it difficult to accept and follow through with treatment.

    If you recognize aspects of your personality that are common to narcissistic personality disorder or you’re feeling overwhelmed by sadness, consider reaching out to a trusted doctor or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.

    *** Emphasis

    1. Haha. Excellent. What are the odds that this google-eyed weirdo doesn’t even grok that he’s describing to a T, his hero–the day glo bozo; leader of the guillible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make?

      this is to “I had to hoard my meds and trade them for internet time again” georgie – paulie

  5. Can Trump Count On Farmers Next Year?

    Administration Policies Have Not Been Helpful To Rural Interests

    Economists in the Agriculture Department’s research branch say the Trump administration is retaliating against them for publishing reports that shed negative light on White House policies, spurring an exodus that included six of them quitting the department on a single day in late April.

    The Economic Research Service — a source of closely read reports on farm income and other topics that can shape federal policy, planting decisions and commodity markets — has run afoul of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue with its findings on how farmers have been financially harmed by President Donald Trump’s trade feuds, the Republican tax code rewrite and other sensitive issues, according to current and former agency employees.

    The reports highlight the continued decline under Trump’s watch in farm income, which has dropped about 50 percent since 2013. Rural voters were a crucial source of support for Trump in 2016, and analysts say even a small retreat in 2020 could jeopardize the president’s standing in several battleground states.

    “The administration didn’t appreciate some of our findings, so this is retaliation to harm the agency and send a message,” said one current ERS employee, who asked not to be named to avoid retribution.

    For example, two ERS researchers presented a paper at an economic conference in early 2018 that indicated the GOP tax overhaul would largely benefit the wealthiest farmers — generating negative press coverage that staff members said irked senior officials at USDA.

    Then, in August, Perdue stunned members of the roughly 300-member research service by announcing plans to bring ERS under the control of USDA’s chief economist, who reports more directly to the secretary. Equally significant, he said the USDA would move the agency out of Washington to a location closer to the U.S. heartland.

    Edited from: “Economists Flee Agriculture Dept. After Feeling Punished By Trump”

    Today’s “Politico”

    1. Peter, Is there a single on-the-record quotation in that article? How would anyone know that Politico didn’t just make it up out of whole cloth? Where are the working papers with the regression analyses which supposedly demonstrate this?

      Value-added in agriculture in real terms fluctuates a great deal, year to year according to market conditions. It declined by 26% between 2013 and 2016. Were there any articles in Politico about what a disaster the administration had been for agriculture?

  6. Neither the evidence provided by the Special Counsel nor my statement have anything to do with mere impeachment. Federal statutes of limitation are sooo loooonnngg. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

    this is to “huh! but hannity swore he’d be king after he was president!” kurtzie

  7. It’s as I said before, when politicians are too busy attacking President Trump, they are for a time no longer attacking ordinary Americans or drumming for elective wars against other nations. For that alone we should extend some gratitude toward the president.

    1. Darren, elective wars like Yemen..?? Even congressional Republicans are asking why we’re supporting Saudi Arabia’s mindless war in Yemen. Yet Trump refuses to cut off support.

    2. Brilliant Darren. Meanwhile your leader just vetoed a bill passed in both houses which withdrew our support of SA’s war in Yemen. But hey, maybe it’s the tax cut and the wall our kid’s will be paying for you like. Impossible to think you like a lying and ignorant braggart who’s infantile need for attention attracts it from other people in office who actually give a …. about the country. Ourkids will pay for the lowered bar for behavior he’s setting, Guess what? When the bar is lowered, everyone gets to cross it regardless of party. Obama putting his feet on the Oval Office desk and saluting with a Big Gulp in one hand, somehow don’t equate with private meetings in that office with Russians only or making fun of POWs.

      1. Truth be known, one can only handle so much baseness from others who: hide behind anonymity; Cannot express themselves cogently; think strictly via emotion; and have neither respectability nor posses a modicum of honor by acting with complete lack of common decency toward others.

        For me it is increasingly self-evident that of the sixty-thousand plus subscribers to this blog, the number who comment here are statistically irrelevant. Though I find it both engaging to read those who offer interesting points of view and perspectives via their experiences in life, the punishment-reward factor in dealing with the minority of those here having nothing worthwhile to say but yet do everything possible to be irritating and insulting no longer makes it worthwhile.

        The obvious nature of people who lack substance or ability results in that they require others or others’ platforms in order for them to be heard above the bleating of those similarly stationed. And if I leave a comment here it will serve as fodder for dishonorable individuals to grandstand and levy insults. I am no longer willing to provide a platform for individuals such as these who disrespect me and others who give insights and commentary auxiliary to what our host provides through his articles.

        So declare your pyrrhic victory. I’ll expend my effort by blog maintenance and article writing. I’m no longer going to provide a venue for sophomoric attitudes.

        Several years ago our host recommended to us weekend contributors that people who own blogs can either write articles for the greater audience or spend all their time fighting people who behave like trolls–“you cannot do both”. He was just as correct then as he is today.

        I do not have as much time as I did in years past to write the number of articles as I did then so I commented more frequently but had less articles. When one does something solely for personal satisfaction and a duty for the common good there isn’t much personal incentive–but when one receives insults continually in doing such things we have to ask ourselves “what is the point” when I can instead do things that actually pay money or benefit my family directly and not receive any disrespect in the process.

        There is another factor that deals with my personality. I’m not going to let AOL and chat-room caliber trolls dictate the responses I provide or the articles I write. If they want to continually make asses of themselves that is their nature and it is their problem. It’s none of my business or concern. But I will NOT provide them a platform to bray above the morass of within they wallow.

            1. The quality of the discussion would be much improved if two people were banned.

              1. Openly jawboning the referee per usual. You can’t win without cheating. Winning is your birthright. Ergo, cheating must be mandated by The Laws Of Nature and Nature’s God.

                Contributed by The L4D–Put The Bandages Back On Your Eyes–Project

              2. Since they are paid trolls their employer has a mechanism to acquire new IP addresses and get around a block by Darren.

                Darren has better things to do than babysit an increasingly popular legal blog run by the likes of an intellectual legal giant like JT.

                For David Brock and others of his ilk, having an army of paid trolls to “Correct the Record” is serious business. That people with chronic mental illnesses exhibiting the Dark Triad of Sadism, Psychopathy and Machiavellianism exist is the real problem.

                Sadly data exists that indicates the rate of personality disorders is increasing. Chilling

              3. The absurd-one wrote: “The quality of the discussion would be much improved if two people were banned.”

                You and who else?

        1. Darren, your example of insult free posting is truly inspiring. No doubt the high standards of he who you praised above is your inspiration and thanks to him, that bar just keeps going up an up.

        2. “If they want to continually make asses of themselves that is their nature and it is their problem. It’s none of my business or concern.”
          “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Good words from Napoleon and Darren.

        3. Darren, I’m sorry that the comments section takes all the fun out of blog authors commenting themselves. It’s rude to insult the host and guest authors, and the comments are sometimes rude in general.

          I hope you continue to write articles for the blog. Time is precious, and should not be wasted reading hurtful jabs.

        4. Smith will not even allow the words Page 91 of Volume II of The Mueller Report (PDF Pg. 303) to be posted on this blawg–ley alone actually allow Page 91 of Volume II of The Mueller Report to be posted on this blawg.

          Smith is a censor. Smith is corrupt. Smith has no honor. Smith has only the word honor. Smith merely mouths his most precious word.

          Contributed by The L4D–Page 91 of Volume II of The Mueller Report (PDF Pg. 303)–Project

        5. Smith said, “The obvious nature of people who lack substance or ability results in that they require others or others’ platforms in order for them to be heard above the bleating of those similarly stationed.”

          Smith types his sentences whilst striding on stilts so as to be heard above the bleating of those beneath Smith’s station.

          Contributed by The L4D–Smith Thinks He’s Gulliver–Project

  8. Turley says: ” When you travel outside of the city (or most major cities), there is considerable support for Trump. This leads to the same anti-establishment dimension that led to the last election surprise.”

    No, Jon, “the last election surprise” was due to a Russian-led social media campaign that used polling data provided by the Trump campaign.

    Also, at this point in his Presidency, Barak Obama was dealing with the worst recession since the Great Depression, instead of the present economy, so Trump is doing much worse. More false equivalency served up as daily affirmation for the Trumpsters.

    1. if we be wrong and mislead, then you should be glad. your adversaries are stronger if they are realistically well informed. since you believe “Trumpsters” are fools “served up” by Turley, then you should be glad he offers what you think is misinformation. what kind of strategist wants the foe to be intelligent?

      but this betrays that you are overly emotionally connected to these outcomes and don’t consider them dispassionately. hence your insults, fatso, etc etc, all such histrionics

      perhaps it is you who struggles now with your vain hopes of impeachment, dashed on the rocks by Saint Mueller failing to deliver?

      1. On the contrary, the true American patriot, war hero, protector of justice and defender of the rule of law, Robert Mueller, most assuredly delivered. The goods won’t be signed for until January 21, 2020, however. I’ve not met many prosecutors who give free passes to criminogenic charlatans. What is that ticking sound?


        to “but hannity pinky swore only democrats are criminals” kurtzie

        1. ha ok whatever tick tock bzzzz times up no impeachment wake up mark

        2. “Robert Mueller, most assuredly delivered”

          Mueller ran away. Unusual for a marine.

          1. Manafort breached his cooperation agreement as a result of Trump’s JDA Omerta and the systematic abuse of the pardon power to suborn perjury, tamper with witnesses and tamper with evidence, too.

            Contributed by The L4D–allan-doesn’t-know-enough-to-capitalize-Marine–Project

            1. Manafort was convicted and is still in jail. His conviction was for crimes committed long before Donald Trump decided to run for the Presidency. Trump had nothing to do with Ukraine but it appears Hillary Clinton did.

              Investigation targets claim of Hillary Clinton-Ukraine collusion
              Probing ‘illegal intrusion’ in 2016 presidential election

              A Ukrainian government official told The Hill he has ordered an investigation into an allegation that Ukrainians colluded with Hillary Clinton to sway the 2016 election in her favor.

              The strategy allegedly was to release “black-ledger files” on the financial maneuverings of then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in Ukraine.

              Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko promised a probe of a claim by a member of the Ukrainian Parliament that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, Artem Sytnyk, tried to manipulate the U.S. election.

              1. Allan, you just regurgitated a disinformation campaign that Paul Manafort created out of thin air and bought and paid for from his Ukrainian cronies.

                Manafort pled guilty to all of the charges in the D. C. trial that was thereby avoided. That trial included the FARA violations that Manafort committed in 2016 while acting as Trump’s campaign manager and then some.

                Contributed by The L4D–Try To Catch Up, Try To Keep Up–Project

    2. No, Jon, “the last election surprise” was due to a Russian-led social media campaign that used polling data provided by the Trump campaign.

      Natacha thinks Trump won because of $100,000 worth of Facebook ads.

      Purveyors of Nigerian e-mail. You have a couple of marks on these boards.

      1. The $100K in Facebook ads is a claim by Eric Trump that has already been debunked. The Russian interference was much deeper than that, but you’d have to tune into some other news source besides Faux News to learn about it.

        And, Jon Turley, the 2% polling difference is within the error range, AND Obama had a crummy economy on his hands, unlike Trump, so this is false equivalency. BUT it is true that Trump has set a record for consistently low polling numbers in the history of presidential polling.

        AND there is nothing emotional about citing actual facts. This claim of opposition histrionics is also a Faux News talking point to make you Trumpsters feel superior.

          1. “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, another Faux News nugget, is yet another attempt to make Trumpsters feel superior and to deflect against accurate media reports of Trump’s daily lying and leadership failures. After all, isn’t someone who criticizes Trump crazy, deranged, or to be charitable, just plain wrong?

            To me, TDS is an emotional illness in which people are so devoted to a white supremacist racist misogynist xenophobic idealogue that they are incapable of perceiving malignant arrogance and narcissism, consistent lying, lack of leadership, they won’t admit the fact and implications of cheating to win the presidency with the help of a hostile foreign power, and are willing to be misled as to facts that are staring them in the face, like the multiple instances of obstruction of justice laid out by Robert Mueller. Trumpsters are in the extreme minority and are the ones who are wilfully blind to the truth. To me, Trump is the biggest existential threat to American values in decades, and there is something wrong with people who won’t stand up for the principles this country was founded on.

            1. “To me, TDS is an emotional illness”

              Natacha, Honey, there is hope for you. I hear TDS is treatable. Get some help.

              1. I know of no pharmacologic agent on the market, currently approved by the FDA, that will benefit her. However there are other treatment modalities that might help though Obamacare does not cover them ordinarily. Exceptions can be made of course with prior approval

            2. But he’s mean to the darker types, so that excuses being a criminogenic traitor to the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make down in toad swaller, B.F.E.

              A response to Natacha’s well-spoken missive.

                1. Linda Blair was “Born Innocent” before she was raped by a lion raised in captivity in juvenile detention and then William Friedkin merely whitewashed the post-traumatic stress as demonic possession.

                  Contributed by The L4D Holy Water Schmoly Water Project

        1. Natacha said: “AND there is nothing emotional about citing actual facts. This claim of opposition histrionics is also a Faux News talking point to make you Trumpsters feel superior.”

          Well said; but in their heart of hearts, you know they don’t really feel superior. Small-minded, irrational hatred of others reveal a deep-seated (and probably well-founded) insecurity about their own very real shortcomings.

          To Natacha

          1. We don’t feel superior. We are superior. It’s not about “feelings”…get it ? 😉

            PS Hate is hate. The words you spew out hating on Trump and Trump supporters is still hate. That makes YOU the hater. Get it?

            1. Superior at what? There’s no such thing as being just-plain superior without any properties or attributes being predicated to the self-proclaimed superiority. Fill in the blank, if you can. Superior at _____? If you, can’t, then I will fill in that blank with a five letter word that starts with the letter “N” and sounds just like TBob or Allan, or Gnash and the rest.

              Contributed by The L4D Noise Suppression Project

              1. L4D and “noise suppression”.
                Those words don’t fit well together from one who puts in hours- long shifts every morning.

                1. TBob says: May 8, 2019 at 12:11 AM

                  “We don’t feel superior. We are superior.”

                  Notice the first person plural pronoun, “We.” TBob is not claiming to be superior as an individual. TBob is claiming to be a member of a superior group. There’s a name for that kind of Noise. It involves static interference with radio waves. For some reason its not called Fritz Noise. Fritz Noise would be too individualistic. So “they” gave it a “color name,” instead. Guess which “color” “they” named that supposedly “superior” “Noise” after???

                  Contributed by The L4D–What You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You–Project

                2. one who puts in hours – long shifts

                  “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others,” the researchers, from the University of Manitoba in Canada, wrote in the study. “Sadists just want to have fun … and the Internet is their playground”

                  IOW, they insult, lie, demean, be the prototypical online bully the Left denounce because they are paid to troll and it is reflective of their Dark Triad personality disorders

                  They are here to troll until Darren and JT hire someone to continually block the IP addresses of these trolls. Since they are paid trolls, getting new IP addresses is part of the job benefits

                  This is our new public square.

              1. Above, in which Allan acquires self-knowledge as though by means of satori.

          2. Here’s the thing Mark, and Natacha, as Einstein said, you can’t solve a problem on the same level of consciousness that it was created. Trump was elevated into office on the wings of Love, not Putin. Hating him and his supporters is never going to defeat him. Why? Because Love trumps Hate. Get it?

            PS Did reading this just make your head spin like Linda Blair when holy water landed on her? Thought so… 😉

            1. Haha. Excellent stuff yet again. Scanning your word salad merely reveals that the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who still support the day glo bozo would rather talk about anything else except the barrage or criminality, incompetence and corruption which cascades daily from ground zero of charlatan fraudster-traitors. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

              this is to “that ticking sound keeps getting louder” t-hott bobbie

            2. Trump is the lion raised in captivity from “Born Free” who raped Linda Blair in “Born Innocent” while they were both in juvenile detention. There’s no other way to explain Trump’ comb over. And there’s no amount of Holy-Schmoly water that could ever make Trump’s head spin without poking Melania’s eyes out in the process.

              Contributed by The L4D TBob Alou La Loves Trump’s Baby Project

      2. The Facebook ads directed viewers to Russian operated social media accounts that reached 126 Million people in an election decided by only 77,000 voters in just three states each of which states was described in granular detail in Tony Fabrizio’s 767,000 worth of sophisticated in-house Trump polling data that the linchpin of the conspiracy, Paul Manafort, gave to Kilimnik and Deripaska, who were briefed by Manafort on how to use that data as well.

        Contributed by The L4D–“Gut This”–Project

    3. At this point in his presidency, the U.S. was about 2 years into a substandard recovery.
      The recession ended in 2009…..June, I think.

      1. Yeah Tom, that crash wasn’t substandard however. It was the worst since 1929, which too 12 years and a WW to “recover from.

        Smart people will note that the rest of the developed world came out of this crash much slower than the US, other than Geremany which was only slightly faster.

        1. My comment corrected a previous comment that the U.S
          was in a recession two years after it actually ended.
          I didn’t dispute the magnitude of the 2008 meltdown.

        2. It is a fallacy that Obama is responsible for today’s booming economy, or that the long, slow recovery was not his fault.


          “Obama-nomics was not a success. It neither generated strong growth nor promoted income equality. As demonstrated by the rise of the democratic-socialist wing of the Democrat party, the failings of Obama-nomics have not been fully appreciated. By revising history, President Obama is encouraging wrongheaded policies, such as single payer health care and a $15 minimum wage, that will have devastating impacts on economic growth and will harm the lowest-income families the most.”

          Think about it for a moment. Trump unwound much of Obama’s economic policies. And yet, the economy boomed. If it was Obama’s policies that were responsible for this fantastic economy that Trump just inherited, and did nothing to earn, then undoing Obama’s policies would have reversed it. That is not what we have seen. We see market responses to each of Trump’s actions, both good and bad.

          1. Nice filler Karen from the party that brought us the crash and preached budget austerity once it happened, the strategy that many of the slower recovering nations used. now they don’t GAF.about budget austerity with one of their own in office and the economy already strong.

            Her article fails to compare our response to these other nations, all of whom we left in our rear view mirror except Germany which was next to us. Meanwhile, numerous independent studies and from the CBO.and Moody’s credited the stimulus (1/3 of which was tax cuts, and unlike the GOP tax package, not targeted at states on a partisan basis) with part of our fasst recovery.

            Once again Karen goes where she can read what makes her feel good, not what makes her smart, and it shows



            1. The Republican Party pushed the subprime market that created the financial crisis? It was Republicans claiming for years that home ownership was a right, and poor credit should be no barrier?


              Are you unable to admit that the Democrat idea to push banks to offer mortgages to people with low income and bad credit had an entirely foreseeable disastrous outcome?

              As long as we are unable to admit when our policies have poor, unintended outcomes, we’ll never get any better. I have been enamored of ideas at the poll, myself, only to be disappointed at how it turns out. That’s why I’m more careful now.

              Will you be more careful?

              1. Karen, you speak of the CRA, which only federally regulated banks had to follow. 80% of the sub prime loans before the crisis were with private mortgage companies not under those regulations, but state regulations of which there are 50. In fact, CRA loans performed at a much higher rate since they had strict requirements for both lenders and lendees. Another fact to keep in mind was that something like 1/2 of the crisis loan failures were made not to first time or even 2nd or 3rd time home buyers, but to speculators.


          2. Karen, Honey, every time you mention Obama or Hillary, you are pivoting again. No, Trump is not responsible for Obama’s recovery. Economists are in agreement on this point.

        3. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-trump-booming-economy/

          <BLOCKQUOTE?Let's see if we have this right.

          For eight years, President Obama presided over the worst economic recovery in modern times. For six years, he blamed Republicans in Congress for thwarting his spending agenda and hampering growth. In his last two years in office, he claimed that 2% growth was the best we could hope for. And in his last year in office, while the economy was again stalling out, Obama claimed that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation would only make things worse.

          But now that we're in the midst of a booming economy — which kicked in after Trump reversed almost all Obama's economic policies — we're supposed to believe that it's Obama who deserves all the credit.

          Yep. That's precisely what Obama and his Amen Chorus in the press want us to believe.

          Do you know how I have remarked that what distanced me from the Democrat party is how their policies often harm the very people they purport to help? The 2008 market meltdown is an example.

          Democrats proclaimed that owning a home was a human right. They said it was racist and unfair that more minorities had bad credit, and therefore could not afford to buy a home. The lending institutions that insisted on A paper, and a demonstrated ability and willingness to repay debt, needed government to tell them how to run their business.


          For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government’s authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing.” Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts.

          His most successful effort was to impose what were called “affordable housing” requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy–in other words, prime mortgages–but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

          Who was driving the subprime loans? Democrats. A Democrat majority under Bush kept pushing that subprime loans were some sort of right. Democrats drove subprime lending, and Republicans and fiscal conservatives failed to stop it. Any effort to do so was labeled the usual racist, hates the poor, etc ad hominem, until they toed the line. They “helped” people with bad credit go from renting, to owning, to being foreclosed upon. Then they blamed the banks for predator lending that the government itself encouraged. Houses were described as piggy banks and equity unused was wasted. It’s the same rhetoric that claims that the US government can go on into infinite debt without consequence.

          Democrats “helped” us out of affordable health insurance and into the current health insurance catastrophe. They’ll keep pushing until we have single payer, which is running out of money all across the world. When you don’t have copays and deductibles making people self limit and only go to the doctor when needed, it’s no skin off their nose if they go in for a splinter. Therefore, single payer countries limit access to care with long wait lines. The wealthy still get better health care because they either used a concierge service to pay privately or they flew to the US, a phenomenon that the Left won’t acknowledge.

          Democrats devastated the economy with their efforts for subprime mortgages. There is a reason why people with low income and bad credit history should not be offered more credit until they build up their credit worthiness. Then they devastated the health insurance industry.

          Now their support for Socialism is back on the rise, having forgotten the lessons they should have learned from their support of Socialism before.

          The trend is undeniable. Democrats say they want to help, leave you worse off, and then won’t admit how they hurt you. It is so alienating. If they would just acknowledge what went wrong and adjust, I would respect that, but it’s all gamesmanship to get votes.

            1. Anon:

              Answer me this. Why did private mortgage companies start relaxing underwriting guidelines and offering subprime loans, when all of their data indicated that these had a high risk of default? Why would any bank do that?

              I know the answer. Do you?

              1. Karen, the private mortgage companies were not banks and did not operate under the same rules.

                “….Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

                Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

                Federal Reserve Board data show that:

                More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
                Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
                Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
                The “turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,” the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday…..

                Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

                During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data….

                only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don’t, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

                These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans….”


                1. Anon – private mortgage companies sold mortgages to Mortgage Backed Securities and Collaterized Debt Obligations. These were historically safe investments, because A paper underwriting meant that the loans were made to low risk borrowers.

                  The Democrat driven subprime market boom meant that subprime mortgages flooded MBS and CDOs and led to collapse.

                  This was foreseeable. That is why A paper lending developed in the first place. It is responsible to lend to someone with a history and ability to repay it, and irresponsible to lend money to those whose history and income show an inability to repay it.

                  Are you aware that subprime mortgages are returning again to borrowers with low FICO scores? What do you think will be the result?

                  Remember what Einstein said about only fools repeat the same experiment expecting a different result.

                  Declining underwriting standards lead to default.

              2. http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/
                This part of the politicians role in that 2008 mess is often, and conveniently, overlooked.
                The whitewash of people like Barney Frank does not hold up.
                We have oversight committees in Congress and regulatory agencies for a reason.
                When those politicians and agencies look the other way in the face of reckless lending, or actually encourage it, it’s pretty hard to pretend that it didn’t happen.
                I think there is also a question on the table for you, Karen, about ObamaCare.
                I don’t think you’ll have much of a problem answering it.😉

                  1. The problem with the McClatchy article is that it virtually ignores the government’s…..the FEDERAL government’s….influence in regulating ( or not regulating) financial institutions.
                    That is simply not true. There are oversight Committees in both houses of Congress that are supposed to regulate and oversee banking practices.
                    There are federal institutions like the FDIC that give federal guarantees of depositers money when a bank goes under. They are not, or need not be, a “passive insurerer” allowing the banks they insure free rein.
                    The Federal Reserve Bank has a great deal of influence over the banking industry.
                    And, as mentioned, there was Fannie May and Freddie Mac soaking up subprime mortgages that banks re-sold to them.
                    It is a fantasy to claim that the banking industry is just another private business regulated only by the states.The federal government has a huge amount of influence and control over that industry.

                    1. The link below gives some details about the federal government’s role in the the banking industry.

                1. Tom, what Anon says is garbage and a waste of time. He repeats the same left wing drivel and neglects to respond to any information that contradicts that drivel. He then repeats the drivel. He is incorrigeable. He is human drivel.

                  As far as healthcare Anon thinks he is an expert because his wife is a PA or something like that. He should put his wife on. She cannot do a worse job.

                  1. As far as healthcare Anon thinks he is an expert because his wife is a PA or something like that.

                    Trust nothing the trolls write. If Anon claims to be a male, has a wife, has a relative, knows a PA…its all flak to manipulate you.

                    Sadism. Psychopathy. Machiavellianism

                    1. Estovir, almost for certain Anon is male older and seems to have grandchildren. (Ask Absurd he knows it likely for the same reason)

            2. Freddie and Fannie had little impact on the sub prime bust, which was overwhelmingly the readily of private mortgage companies crashing.

              Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for as much as 1/2 of the secondary mortgage market by 2008. The two companies were haemorrhaging red ink. Unlike the banks, which were given bridge loans which they paid back in a few years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given an 11 digit sum of money to remain in operation. For all the babble about ‘bailouts’, the only institutions of note actually bailed out were Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and some components of the auto industry. The vast bulk of the money puke went to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. AIG was the only recipient on that list not a Democratic Party client.

              A crucial milestone on the road to disaster arrived in 2003, when Freddie Mac slashed underwriting standards. Nearly all of the properties which were underwater by 2009 were purchased with loans initially extended after this decision. Paul Krugman was playing the fool in 2008 claiming the GSE’s didn’t purchase subprime notes when they’d been doing just that. There was tremendous anxiety about the composition of the pools underlying the mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their securities at the end of 2008 were trading at 22% below par, something which had an impact on the quantum of bank capital as banks held 10% of their assets in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issues.

            3. I watched people like Barney Frank and others berate lenders for not doing enough to promote minority home ownership.
              If the average income for Hispanics and Blacks is 20-30% below the national average, on the whole, they would not be deemed as creditworthy as those with higher incomes.
              Actors like Rep. Frank, as well as regulators, gave a green light for lenders to issue high risk, subprime mortages.
              Freddy and Fannie repurchased a lot of this junk, so in serving as a dumping ground when these loans were re-sold by the banks to these agencies, they were an active participant in this subprime mortagage mess.
              And the ( supposed) oversight committees in Congress and the regulators stood by and watched it happen.
              The unregulated derivatives market ….CDOs and CDSs…..magnified the problem.
              There is a superb PBS Frontline documentary, The Warning, that is available online.
              Anyone who wants to spend 60-90 minutes watching it will get a very good review of the c.20+year series of blunders that led up to the 2008 meltdown.

              1. Tom, it is as if Anon didn’t live in the US when all this was occurring.

              2. NB, Frank’s boy toy was one Herb Moses, who held a senior position at Fannie Mae.

                Frank abandoned a graduate program in 1968 and landed a job at Kevin White’s city hall. He was on public payrolls until he retired from Congress 43 years later. He completed a law degree in 1977, but never practiced. He knew nothing of the business world. To him, businesses were people you shake down.

                The whole premise of the Community Re-investment Act and anti-discrimination law applied to banks is crap.

                A social worker I once knew (whose job was counseling alcoholics) said in his line of work, he had two allies: banks and the criminal justice system. He explained that the activities of both were an antidote to the self-deception in which his clients habitually engaged. “Banks, they don’t care about your problems. They just want their money.”

                The premise of the CRA etc. is that lenders will systematically forego profitable business opportunities out of stupidity or spite. People are often spiteful and stupid, but it’s a reasonable wager loan officers and underwriters understand their business better than do lawyers, social crusaders, politicians, and crapulent old queens. (Just as car salesmen know their business better than Malcolm Gladwell, whose never sold anything but his own words).

  9. Comparing Clinton’s post-impeachment numbers to Trump’s post Mueller report numbers is a bogus comparison. In Clinton’s case, the main stream media was defending him. In Trump’s case, the MSM has been calling him guilty since five minutes after the polls closed.

    Take away Hillary’s votes from NYC and Los Angeles and she would have lost the popular vote. That’s not a reason for doing away with the Electoral College — it’s the primary reason for KEEPING it.

    1. Hmmm. So the reputable media has been pointing out the criminogenic tendencies and bald-faced obstruction of justice by the day glo bozo. Funny how smart people can recognize a con when they see one; others, I guess not so much.

      this is to “and I alway buy the magazines from the door-to-door guy, too” rsa

  10. There was something going on when 1st lady Hillary Clinton got hold of 900 FBI confidential files. And made an enemy list. HRC finger prints were all over the FBI files….In 1993

    Then Chief of staff, Leon Panaetta said that “obviously a mistake was made”

    The White House was caught off guard by the disclosure that FBI files of such Republican luminaries as former Secretary of State James A. Baker III; Gingrich’s press secretary, Tony Blankley; Kenneth Duberstein, chief of staff to former president Ronald Reagan; and Marlin Fitzwater, former President George Bush’s press secretary, were obtained by the White House personnel security office in late 1993. Those FBI files were all delivered to HRC!

    1. IIRC, they were delivered to Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca. Establishmentarians like Meg Greenfield said, “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

    2. https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/11/06/the-five-most-infamous-rahm-emanuel-moments/

      “The most infamous Rahmbo [Rahm Emmanuel] story of them all is the one that begins with the dinner the night after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Among those present at the dinner table was ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, who watched while an overwrought and clearly exhausted Emanuel began ranting at a long list of Clinton “enemies.” As he shouted each name, he stabbed the table with his steak knife: “Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead!” Apparently, others joined in.”

  11. Bill Clinton’s Approval Was In The Upper 60’s..

    In Months Following Impeachment

    Like Trump, Bill Clinton presided over a strong economy. Yet Clinton’s approval rating, immediately after the impeachment drive, was at least 20 points higher than Trump’s after the Mueller Probe. Therefore Trump’s current numbers look rather tepid by contrast. He ain’t no Clinton, that’s for sure.


    1. Yet Clinton’s approval rating, immediately after the impeachment drive

      Thank you for exposing the real reason the Democrats will never initiate impeachment proceedings. 🙂

      1. Olly,
        I think the Democrats will keep the impeachment option in storage as an “insurance policy” if Trump is re-elected.
        Absent a yet-to-be discovered “smoking gun”, they would not succeed. But if there’s a consensus among the Democratic leadership that they can hobble him, I think they’d go for it in the wake of the 2020 election.
        The impeachment talk in Trump’s first term started before he was even inaugurated, so we might so a replay of the calls for impeachment right after the 2020 election.

        1. Guys, it’s too late. They can’t deliver on impeachment.


          Pelosi is against impeachment.
          IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN

          they are going for the nagging investigations to try and hobble him

          what do they call the flies around a horse’s backside? pissants

          the Dem leadership can’t go for a kill so they have decided to be pissants

          1. They can’t deliver on impeachment.

            That was my point. Democrats will be happy to function as a boat anchor to this administration as long as they do not initiate impeachment proceedings.

          2. cant deliver in impeachment

            Stop being reasonable and rational.
            Encourage them to impeach Trump. Goad, coax, cajole Dems to continue to act batsheet crazy. They are winning no one to their side, the MSM did not learn anything from their embarrassing performance these past 3 years, and they are so filled with blood curling rage, they meet the profile for losing their lives. Let them. Implore them. Why would you dissuade them?

            You continue to dialogue with the trolls as if they were reasonable human beings while all they are doing is playing with your mind.

            Work efficiently not exhaustively.

          3. OT: Kurtz, in case you think Iran is relatively benign


            Iranian plot on U.S. possibly thwarted due to Israeli intelligence – report

            The information was handed to the US before National Security advisor John Bolton publicly said Iran will face “unrelenting force” if it attempts to harm the US.

            The United States received information from Israel concerning an alleged Iranian plot to attack American interests in the Gulf, Axios reported on Monday.

            National Security advisor John Bolton publicly warned on Sunday that Iran will face “unrelenting force” if it attempts to harm the US, in an unusual statement.

            In the same statement the US announced that it would deploy the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln to the region.
            According to the report, intelligence provided by Israel’s Mossad agency was at least part of the reason for the warning and the move to deploy the aircraft carrier. The information was allegedly passed to a U.S. team headed by Bolton two weeks ago by an Israeli delegation led by national security adviser Meir Ben Shabbat.

            It wasn’t clear what Iran’s plans would have been, but it might have attempted to hit a US target in the Gulf, or one of its allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia or UAE.

            Saying that “Iranian temperature is rising” due to US sanctions, an unnamed Israeli official said Iran is looking into attacking US interests in the Gulf.

        2. Tom, should we presume that the 4 years Republicans spent on Benghazi was in no way related to politics? Like they had no intention of damaging Hillary before the 2016 election?

          Go back and look at Hillary’s public approval after she left the State Department. Her numbers were in the 60’s, I believe. Republicans quickly determined that those numbers had to be brought down through years of investigation.

          Yet Republicans squeal like pigs when Trump is subjected to investigations that he brought on himself by popping-off at the mouth.

          1. Peter,
            Given Hillary’s blunders as Sec. of State, it’s difficult to account for an approval rating in the 60s.
            The Benghazi hearings were not the primary cause of Hillary’s declining poll numbers.
            Her “extremely careless” manner of dealing with official, sensitive State Department …..the email scandal….was one reason.
            The relentless attacks by Trump were an additional factor.
            I don’t know how involved she herself was in the “it was the video” nonsense. Susan Rice was the lead stooge in that trial balloon.
            Suspicion that Hillary was involved in that farce probably did not help her over time.

          2. Peter, you aren’t disturbed that Hillary lost an acting Ambassador on her watch as SOS? We havent lost once since Cyprus in the 70s. Whether or not she provided adequate security is thus self-apparently a serious question which was worth investigation. That it was political yes of course it was but was it a substantive and valid concern? yes it was equally so.

            I think John Kerry did a better job. Instead of fomenting wars like Hillary who gloated over the assassination of a foreign head of state, he helped craft diplomatic solutions that reduced its likelihood.


            a despicable half-witted version of Caesar’s Veni, vidi, vici. Madam you are no Caesar!

            1. Kurtz, Ambassador Stevens was well aware of the risks he faced in Benghazi. Yet he chose to keep his security entourage light. Stevens made that decision because locals told him a large entourage would look ‘arrogant’ and send the wrong message. Stevens, one should note, was long familiar with Benghazi. For that reason he may have felt a false sense of security.

              1. For that reason he may have felt a false sense of security.

                Never forget every American going in harm’s way for this country expects they will not be abandoned by our military. So the ambassador did have a false sense of security; he just didn’t realize it was his boss and his President that would turn their back on him when the SHTF. And then they proceeded to peddle a bald-faced lie to this day.

                1. Olly, the (Republican) Congressional committees investigating Benghazi could not find any direct blame to pin on either Hillary or Obama. That’s why they moved on to the email issue; Benghazi wasn’t working.

                  1. Hillary’s “extremely careless” homebrew server and and handling of State Dept. correspondence was discovered during the course of the Benghazi investigation. While Hillaryites would have preferred that her “carelessness” be overlooked, it doesn’t work that way just because a group wants to shield their favored political candidate.
                    The FBI was the primary investigative agency in the email scandal. She was treated with remarkable leniency throughout the course of the investigation itself.
                    You can watch an exchange by Rep. Will Hurd with Comey for an interesting perspective on Hillary’s cavalier attitude re State Dept. correspondence.

                2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/28/house-benghazi-report-clinton-attack-military
                  Finger pointing is the one certainty we csn count on in the aftermath of events where something goes really wrong. I thought the idea of a rapid- response military capability was to arrive at the scene of a crisis FAST, and support Americans in danger. Or Americans who are under a sustained attack for hours.
                  Leon Panetta, as Defense Secretary, made an asinine comment that the military was not a 911 agency to rapidly respond to an attack like the one in Benghazi.
                  It was no secret that the the overthrow of Gaddafi unleashed choas and allowed terrorists groups to flourish. That was particularly true in Benghazi, and the British, the U.N., and others pulled their people out of Benghazi prior to the 9-11 attack on the Americans.The date of that attack was likely not a coincidence.
                  Amb. Stevens evidently did turn down an offer from the military for more secucurity. But at the same time he was requesting increased security from the State Dept.
                  The argument over why he never got that increased security became a political football, and I think Hillary said she never saw that request.
                  So it looks like the military did offer increased protection for the Benghazi complex, and Stevens declined that offer because he wanted the State Dept. to provide it.
                  Even so, it seems that the military, with it’s carriers, and relatively close base in Italy, would have had a rescue/ reinforcement team ready. The British and others knew that Benghazi was an extremely high-risk area and had already pulled their personnel out. I would have expected that the military would have been capable of getting on scene within a relatively short timespan, but this went on for 6-8? hours, as I remember it. And there seemed to be A. a lack of preparation to get there FAST, and B. failing that, an ability to get there within a few hours.
                  The date on the linked article is June, 2016. Well before the 2016 November election. That’s why I said earlier that Hillary was not damage so much by the Benghazi hearings as so she was by the email scandal and Trump’s steady attacks on “lying, crooked Hillary’s.

                  1. Tom,
                    The Benghazi attack, as horrible as it was, was made exponentially worse by the cover-up that followed. No rational person would ever place blame on the victims of this attack. I saw the investigation as a necessary process to make sure this $hit-show never happened again.

                  2. Olly,
                    The final report largely blamed the State Dept., but not Hillary specifically. That department us is held to be prinarily responsible for the protection of its diplomats.
                    Realistically, there should be contingency plans for the military to respond fast in reaction to a protracted battle involving an embassy or consulate.
                    I add this to what I wrote previously because of the actual conclusions of the Benghazi Report, which seemed to “go light” on the military’s apparent dithering while the Benghazi battle was going on.
                    Contrary to a comment excuse made, the funds were available for State to beef up security at the Benghazi outpost. Since there was no proof that Hillary saw those requests, so people below her at State got tagged with the blame for not processing those requests.
                    The initial cover- up attempts/ talking points were pretty pathetic. We were a few months from the presidential election, and the last thing the Obama Administration wanted to do was to draw attention to the fact that they’d unleashed a major terrorist threat in Libya the previous year by playing a major role in dislodging Gaddafi.

              2. that all may be true but Hillary was the boss and facilitating stupid arms transfers


                if i was arguing against myself I would say, ah, but the Republicans have encouraged stupid arms transfers for decades just as that article indicates, just like the Democrats have. Hillary was just another MIC yes-lady

                to which I would reply, but does that make it ok?

                benghazi helped wake a lot of normal people up to the misadventures that can ensue when the US destabilizes “oppressive regimes” and the situation goes into total anarchy

                some of those people voted for Trump; but some also now look to strong antiwar Democrat candidate Tusli Gabbard to make the case. and she did denounce further mischief in fomenting civil war in Syria on many occasions. unfortunately it seems Democrat/ mass media leadership hates her guts and will bury her.

            2. Kurtz, there were 10 investigations including 6 by the House. None found Hillary guilty of anything beyond being the one in charge. The Obama administration, including Hillary accepted the recommendations of the blue ribbon investigation. Meanwhile, Congress, led by Republicans had cut the budget for security in previous years at our embassies,.so blame should go all the way around.

              1. well then Hillary was “exonerated” of responsibility perhaps for the tragic Stevens incident but she was not “Exonerated” of being pro war which is part of what got her whipped at the pols.

                1. Someone gave the military the order to stand down and someone relieved a succession of officers from their posts thereafter and someone saw to it that State Department personnel received only a phantom punishment.

                  Not that partisan Democrats care about any of this.

              2. Beyond being the one in charge. The buck stopped way down


                in this partucular case. She was “just” the one in charge.

          3. Of course politics was involved. It would be wrong however to say it was all politics. The prior administration was largely shielded from oversight by the AG’s and a friendly MSM. The only way to get to the truth was through congressional investigations. Even then, regardless of what ever truth could be discovered, accountability was nearly zero.

            This administration has had the opposite experience from day 1. Oversight was placed into Mueller’s hands and with a MSM that has relentlessly been on the attack. Congressional Democrats didn’t need to do anything. Mueller was going to deliver Trump’s resignation or impeachment on a silver platter and the 2020 election would be a mere formality. But what was once a guaranteed outcome has left the Democrats exposed. All they have at this point is pure politics.

            1. Do you mean this hearing, that proved that Obama lied to the American people about a terrorist attack and instead jailed a filmmaker for insulting Islam?


              The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

              Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
              The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
              Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
              According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
              On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
              After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
              Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
              The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
              A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]
              Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

              “Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”

            2. The Benghazi Hearings proved the State Department messed up, leading to the death of our people. It messed up in relying on local militias in an unstable nation to guard our embassy. It messed up in not providing help during the attack. And it messed up in withholding information from the American people, lying about a video, and withholding information from the committee.

              The Hearings proved everything it needed to.

              Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

              “In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

              The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

              During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
              The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
              When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
              In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]

              Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
              In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
              Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]
              Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:

              “President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”

              Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:

              “One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”

              Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.

            3. The report damned the State Department, and by extension, Hillary Clinton, as well as the Obama Administration. Lying to the American people about a terrorist attack on American people is a Big Deal.


              “The decision by State Department senior officials to leave the Benghazi Mission in an undefined status left it without typical security measures and a dedicated funding stream that would otherwise apply to official overseas posts. Benghazi’s security posture was further eroded by other factors such as constant equipment failures and insufficient quantities of personal protection equipment. Furthermore, notwithstanding the insuffi- cient number of Diplomatic Security Agents sent to Benghazi, interven- ing factors such as problems with the Libyan visa system further limited the number of Diplomatic Security Agents deployed to Benghazi.

              The Benghazi Mission’s requests for even the most basic security measures were impacted by the lack of dedicated funding made available by the State Department. Senior officials within the State Department were well aware of the funding implications associated with continuing the Benghazi Mission into 2012.”

              “The Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground described the impact the lack of funding had on the Mission.
              I was told that the only way that we can get you security up- grades is if they basically don’t cost anything and we can, sort of, you know, steal a couple bucks here and there from other pots of money, that there is no budget for Benghazi.10”

    2. Bill Clinton had the ability to speak in simple language towards people’s daily concerns. Trump does that well too.

      Obama was a little too pie in the sky to connect with a lot of the sorts of voters who at one time might have voted for Bill but at another time may have voted for Trump

      The Bill Clinton connections may have devolved upon Hillary, but his style did not. She failed to connect with men most of all

      A man’s vote counts as much as a woman’s does, “Equality” and all that

      1. Trump can’t get re-elected without running against politicians who are no longer eligible for office. So say Trump voters right here on this blawg. Every day now it’s Obama this, Bill Clinton that. But both Obama and Bill Clinton already served two terms as President. What sense does it make for Trump to campaign against Obama and Bill Clinton? Well . . . Trump’s voters can’t stop talking about Obama and Bill Clinton. So Trump is still working on rallying his base. I’m using the term “rallying” loosely. If Trump ever stooped kvetching about Obama and Bill Clinton, Trump’s “base” would evaporate like the morning dew.

        Contributed by The L4D–That’s-How-Dumb-It-Gets–Project.

        (Now In Celebration Of The Return Of P. Hill)

    3. Peter, welcome back. Your strident allies have failed to deliver much worthy grist for the mill in your absence.

      1. Kurtz, I just snuck in for a moment. Estovir should along pretty soon to bury this thread beneath layers of culture war crap.

  12. what i get from the Meuller report having now glanced at it, is that they really dont like trump using twitter, and are punishing him for his commentary, and trying to deter him from using it

    which means of course, he should keep on using it, because the apparat don’t like it

  13. These same polls gave Hillary a 99% of winning. How soon we forget. It’s comical, really.

      1. Oligopolistic forces. And there was always a large mass of independent radio stations. The Fairness Doctrine inhibited them from issuing robust commentary.

        1. yes right oligopoly thanks
          monopoly is one big supplier, oligopoly is a few big suppliers

        2. Out of sheer curiosity, upon which syllable does absurd place the stress in the word oli-GOP-olistic?

          1. sadism
            [sā′dizəm, sad′izəm]
            Etymology: Marquis Donatien A.F. de Sade, French writer, 1740-1814
            1 abnormal pleasure derived from inflicting physical or psychological pain or abuse on others; cruelty.

            psychopathy (sī-kŏp′ə-thē)
            1. A personality disorder characterized by deceitfulness, manipulation, grandiosity, lack of empathy or guilt, and often aggressive or violent behavior. It is sometimes considered a subset of antisocial personality disorder.

            Machiavellianism is the term some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. Machiavellianism is one of three interpersonally aversive personality traits that collectively constitute what is known as the “Dark Triad”; the other two traits being narcissism and psychopathy. These features include shallow affect and a poor emotional attachment to others, an agentic self-focused approach to life, deficits in empathy, and low levels of honesty and humility.

            Trolls Just Want to Have Fun

  14. One wonders how much of Trump’s disapproval rating is the result of the abuse of power by his political opponents. There was the Russian hoax which defrauded the FISA court in order to spy on and destabilize the presidency, and, by extension, the United States. There were the repeated false allegations of anti-semitism and racism. There was the collusion of the mainstream media to defraud voters. Examples are selective editing in which they removed Trump’s statement that he was expressly not calling racists in Charlottesville fine people, but rather was talking about the peaceful protesters who just didn’t want the statue removed. They don’t report that Obama broke records for people on food stamps. Do those who watch only the mainstream media even know any of Trump’s accomplishments or how great the economy is going? Then there is social media working to meddle in the next election. The harassment, silencing, de-monetizing, and deplatforming of conservative or right wing figures. Then there is academia, where professors abuse their position of authority in the classroom to spread their personal politics, and where harassment of conservative students is encouraged.

    What would the polling numbers be if participants had just the facts, and not the meddling from those in power over public opinion? On the one hand, he made terrible statements about Ted Cruz’s wife, McCain’s time as a POW, and Gold Star families. He has a history of cheating on his wife, and ex-wives, and Melania enjoys quite a bit of popularity. On the other hand, our economy is booming. Unemployment lows are breaking records. Black and Latino unemployment are at record lows. People are thriving. The country is doing well. What would people think about the President if they were left free to form their own opinion, free of the constant influence of Silicon Valley, the media, Hollywood…? Perhaps they would think he had personal flaws, but that the country was better off.

    Right now, we see Democrats unwilling to accept the results of an election nearly 3 years ago. They are trying to get rid of the Electoral College and disenfranchise most of the country in order to take dictatorial control of the country. Mueller didn’t come through. Barr didn’t lie about the Mueller report, so now they are trying to punish Barr. He’s indicated he is going to investigate how the whole thing got started, including spying on a presidential campaign, so now Democrats have to destroy him for their own survival. When Diane Feinstein’s personal driver turned out to be a Chinese spy, she was informed immediately so that she could fire him and deny him access. That didn’t happen with Trump. The only person proven to have paid Russian spies for false information against a political opponent in an effort to defraud voters wasn’t investigated at all. Her victim was. There is still rhetoric from those who are either painfully naive or partisan hacks that Trump is a Russian asset. That belies all actual evidence. You can’t just say that because you don’t want him to be President. You vote, every 4 years, just like the rest of us.

    1. good questions and I think we all can see the powers that be which are arrayed against him and us.

    2. OMG! Do you ever quit with this Hannity and Faux News crap? Trump’s disapproval is due to the simple fact that, setting aside Russian assistance, he is unworthy to be President. He is arrogant and egotistical to a degree that most sensible people find repulsive, he is not patriotic (paid a doctor to falsely clam bone spurs to get out of military service; criticized a Gold Star family and a war hero–John McCain), lack of leadership (multiple business bankruptcies; just how many agencies have no leader and just how many people have left his Administration? — record numbers), history of constantly cheating creditors (forces people to sue him to get paid), proven track record of racism (look up the HUD scandal he keeps lying about; calls African countries sh**hole), bragging about assaulting women (Billy Bush tape doesn’t lie), caging small migrant children to punish their parents for seeking asylum, lying constantly, literally every day (“Mexico will pay to build the wall–trust me”), plus he is a tax cheater.

      He has rightfully EARNED the scorn of most Americans, and most of the civilized world, truth be told. No, the main stream media are not lying by reporting the truth about him. The reason that media other than Rush Limbaugh and Faux News are “main stream”, is because they report the TRUTH, instead of the daily pro-Trump slop served up by Faux and Rush. How, exactly, are news media meddling to defraud the American public? Do you know that NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC and other media don’t constantly tell viewers not to trust Faux News? Why do you suppose one of the major themes of Faux News is to indoctrinate disciples like you into believing that other media are not trustworthy? People DO have the facts. The ones being indoctrinated are people like you. Faux and Rush spin the truth, and you suck it up like baby milk.

      I feel compelled to correct the Kellyanne Pivot explanation for Charlottesville. No, Trump was not talking about the Robert E. Lee statute. That lie was concocted after the fact to create cover for the words he used which they are trying to take out of context. He WAS talking about the White Supremacists who murdered Heather Heyer when he said there were good people on both sides. The tapes don’t lie. Faux News and Kellyanne Conway lie.

      Specifically, what are Trump’s “accomplishments”? The fact that the economy is doing well has little to nothing to do with him. It has continued on the positive trajectory created by Barak Obama who turned around the worst economy since the Great Depression. An economy on any given day is a snapshot of a larger trajectory that is multi-factorial. Trump is being deceitful by claiming credit he doesn’t deserve. What, exactly, has he done vis a vis the economy?

      You speak of unwillingness to accept the results of the election, another Faux News talking point. The results were that HRC won and Trump lost. But for key precincts in a handful of key states, the results would have been different. It is no coincidence that those precincts in those key states were targeted by Russians using polling data provided by the Trump campaign. If he were a patriot and put America ahead of his ego, Trump would denounce this interference, sanction Russia and take strong measures to stop it from happening again, but he won’t because that would be admitting he didn’t really win. Instead, he attacks American intelligence and sides with a Communist dictator. There was a time in America when this was unthinkable. Oh, and he lies about Kim Jon Un dismantling N. Korea’s nuclear program just because he, in his magnanimity, simply asked them to.

      You dare to accuse Democrats of “dictatorial control” when we have a POTUS who openly admires Communist dictators and openly aspires to be like them. The Electoral College was put into place to placate slave owners. Now, it is used to give rural voters greater sway in elections than urban dwellers, so that each rural vote cancels multiple urban votes, which is just wrong and un-Democratic. Most people believe in “one person–one vote”. The Electoral College defeats this, but Trumpsters love it.

      Barr is indeed a liar, and has thrown away his reputation to protect Trump against prosecution for the crimes he committed. Yesterday, hundreds of former and current federal prosecutors issued an opinion that Trump absolutely did obstruct justice and should be charged with multiple felonies. Didn’t Faux News report this? If they did, I’m sure they tried to spin it to Trump’s advantage.

    3. The marked unpopularity of the day glo bozo has little or nothing to do with the reputable media, who .merely report the facts. Rather, on this planet, it’s most assuredly because we true American patriots who revere our beloved country don’t desire that a criminogenic charlatan continue undermining the rule of law, American security and common decency while corrupting the government and degrading the presidency. Oh, and so sorry to report to you and your ilk; the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, but Mueller most assuredly delivered. The goods won’t be signed for until January 21, 2020, but you can always hope the federal magistrate will release him with an ankle monitor until the first guilty verdict comes in. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

      this is to “but why didn’t I hear this on inforwars or hannity!” karen

  15. Trump won what Hillary could not do on two losing attempts

    Obama is ticked at Hillary for failing to articulate his suck-esses in spite of being boy to Eric Wingman Holder

    All these explain why Time Magazine felt it necessary to plaster Nancy Pelosi on the cover of their recent “100 Most Influential People” issue

    because they need to stroke each other

    it is a wonder the leftists don’t have trouble accessing antibiotics that work to treat their bacterial resistant STDs from blowing and bending over for each other.

    How else to explain Anon, L4D, Natacha, Anonymous and the newest David Brock trolls on these forums? they are held in isolation to quarantine their syphilis induced dementia which is why they post on here 24/7

    1. gosh they drive me nuts, but that’s defamation per se to accuse someone of vd. lets try and keep it civil! even if they are not

    2. Dr. E. E. Newbie said, “How else to explain Anon, L4D, Natacha, Anonymous and the newest David Brock trolls on these forums? they are held in isolation to quarantine their syphilis induced dementia which is why they post on here 24/7”

      Now there’s your new poster boy for the tin-foil hat convention. There is a grand conspiracy to exploit patients with syphilitic dementia to troll GW Law School Professor Jonathan Turley around the clock. But wait. There’s more. This grand conspiracy is NOT run by Dr. Oliver Sacks of L-Dopa “Awakenings” fame. No. The grand conspiracy is being run by David Brock formerly of right-wing nut-job fame. And there are a whole five of these demented syphilitic patients “quarantined” right here on Res Ipsa Loquitur.

      Unless, of course, Dr. E. E. Newbie is somehow mistaken about the contagious period of syphilis continuing on well into the full-blown dementia phase of syphilis. Perhaps it is time for Dr. E. E. Newbie to present his license to practice medicine in cyberspace as well as whatever diplomas the tin-foil hat convention may have bestowed upon this imposture of medical science.

      Contributed by The L4D–MA Says Dah-Yummm-Ole-(Whatever “The Microwaves” That Might Mean)–Project

  16. What you’re not acknowledging is that public opinion isn’t responsive to external circumstances because it’s increasingly made up of cultural dispensations. (See Ulster for an example of party preference driven by ascribed identity). About 90% of the people arrayed against Trump would be arrayed against Mitt Romney. The difference between the two men is that one is messy and vulgar (while the other is not) and that one is willing to call bulls!it in regard to the scams of the Capitol Hill nexus and the courts and the other is not.

    1. Absurd,
      Is it Mitt who is “messy and vulgar”😉? You did not specify which one it was.

    2. yes and that has won a lot of people over to Trump especially outside the “Beltway”

      i have couple annoying federal employee types in my family that are nominal Republicans who have always tucked their tails between their legs at the mere mention of his name. How can one become so weak and craven? Lots of bullying, in most cases.

      Trump is strong, gives hope to the weak, those of us out here in flyover, marginalized grunts and nobodies, while those who consider themselves the pretty people hate him. OK! I can live with that.

      “Charlie didn’t get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death, or victory.”

      Out here, we deplorables have a mentality like Charlie. See? And Trump is our Uncle Ho. The whole Hollywood-University-federal apprat overstructure is the corrupt RVN and the globalists are the US colonialist powers behind it.

      Trump will sweep the table again. But if not, there’s no going back, anyways. The lines are drawn. Will the urban megalopolises be able to hold the heartland? For now that electoral college is the only thing really holding us together. Take that away, and we have a clear choice to rebellion.

    3. Actually, one is a serious adult with principles who cares about the well being of others and the country. Despite their faults, and difference of opinion, that is true of all presidents within my memory.

      The other is an infantile egoist so insecure he compulsively boasts about things he had nothing to do with, so disrespectful of the truth and others that he constantly and obviously lies, so selfish that he acts without any concern for the consequences to others, most of whom lack his resources, and such a narcissist he can’t stand to be out of the public eye for even a day, and in sum, a rude pig of a human who decent people would not let in their house.

      But hey, he’s the leader of most on this board, a fact they’ll deny a few years hence, and a comment on their decency.

      1. Actually, one is a serious adult with principles

        There’s a reason his detractors among Republicans called him ‘Windsock Romney’

      2. Obama, “a serious adult with principles?” His deliberate lie, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” that enabled Obamacare to pass. Millions of people lost their health insurance. Unsubsidized insurance is unaffordable to the middle class individual policy holder, thanks to that “serious adult.” Cancer patients lost access to top treatment centers because he lied. Employers have a harder time paying for employee health insurance. A great many full time employees had their hours cut to part time because of this tremendous increased cost of labor. It became harder for someon to quit working for a company and start their own, because they couldn’t afford to lose the insurance.

        The repercussions of his humanitiarn crisis are still felt today. Even Bill Clinton admitted, on camera, that Obamacare makes it hard to put food on the table, and the coverage is bad. It’s a worthless plastic card if the best doctors won’t accept the pay cut.

        Obama hurt people. Can you imagine that feeling, in the pit of your stomach, realizing that the insurance that you had and loved would have paid for you to go to a top cancer hospital, but Obamacare took that access away from you?

        Serious adult with principles must mean something very different and Machiavellian to you than it does to me. You do not harm the American people in order to destroy the private insurance industry, and gain support for single payer. Polls showed that people wanted to keep private insurance. They were for the most part happy with it. That’s why he had to lie and give false assurances he knew weren’t true at the time. Take advantage of the “stupidity of the American public.” He had to make insurance unaffordable in order to increase public support for single payer, and it worked. What a savage thing to do.

          1. Wait, I lost the thread then. Wasn’t he talking about Trump’s approval compared with Obama’s at this point in their presidencies?

        1. Literally millions more have health care now than before Obamacare and I have an employee who’s life was literally saved by it.

          However, policy differences are debatable. A lying scum bag is not. Karen’s confusion of those policy disagreements with character probably explains her obvious inability to judge a real scumbag when he appears, as long as she thinks she agrees with his “positions”, such as they are. Feeding his ego is Trump’s only real position and anyone unable to see that is morally blind.

          1. Anon – literally millions of people have health insurance that good doctors and top cancer treatment centers don’t accept. Millions lost insurance that most doctors and top cancer treatment centers used to accept.

            Get it? Who cares if you have a really, really, really expensive insurance card if it’s not accepted?

            You are supporting a policy that harms people, both financially and physically. This policy takes cancer treatment away from those who otherwise would have access to it. It tightened the drug formulary and removed off formulary drug benefits, so if you have MS, you not only have to now pay out of pocket for some top medicines, but it won’t count towards your max caps.

            You know the facts. I’ve given them to you. You are just ignoring them, along with many other loyal voters who just refuse to get informed. Good intentions don’t matter if you hurt someone. You guys have got to start doing your research prior to 2020. We’ll never get this situation improved without bipartisan support. If Democrats learned more about how badly this hurt people, and started howling over it, it would have been fixed. We have got to start working together. Stop ignoring and enabling the problem.

            Health care has to be affordable and high quality. Obamacare is neither. Learn what the real problems are about Obamacare, instead of defending something you’ve never experienced, roll up your sleeves, and start helping to change it. Tell your friends, too.

            1. Karen, those are not facts. Health insurance premiums and deductibles have been skyrocketing since at least 2000, and the rate of increase declined with the ACA. Don’t make post the numbers. As I noted, one of my employees literally was saved from a chronic debilitating disease by three ACA. I don’t know who you work with, but I work with a lot of people who didn’t or don’t have health care insurance and that’s scandalous. Every other developed country in the world provides universal care and spend on average 60% of what we do per capita. This is not rocket science. PS My wife is a life long medical care provider, so I know both the facts and the anecdotes. I question what you know beyond the GOP talking points you seem to memorize.

          2. Allie Stuckey discussed her issues with Trump, compared to what Democrats were offering, and how that formed her choice.

            Call names, or try to understand someone’s position. It’s a choice.

          3. Anon – answer me this. You will probably just leave when pressed, but I hope you don’t.

            I had an Obamacare individual policy for years. I’ve spoken about it. If it was good, and I was better off, then wouldn’t I want it to continue? Why would I fight against something that should have saved me money, had better coverage, and should be accepted everywhere?

            You tell me, Anon. Why do I fight against Obamacare?

            The best debate classes teach you that you must first thoroughly understand where the other side is coming from before you even consider disagreeing, let along debating the matter.

            I understand that you think that Obamacare improved healthcare access for the poor. Now, you tell me. Why do I have a negative opinion on Obamacare?

            I am not someone writing about a policy in the abstract. I lived it. So, why do I have a problem?

              1. Oh, Anon. You either don’t understand what I asked you to do, or are being stubborn. The first rule in debate is to thoroughly understand where the other side is coming from. You have to know their position as well as your own. I made an effort to understand why you support Obamacare. You either won’t or can’t explain why I do not support Obamacare, which means that you are ignoring a cumulative oeuvre of my posts explaining exactly why.

                Are you unable to repeat a single one?

                Then I will explain it to you in a series of posts to accommodate the links. After that, should you claim ignorance of Obamacare’s serious failings, then it will be considered willful blindness to facts and a callousness to those harmed.

                1. I had a PPO with a major insurer. It was affordable, and my deductible was $500. It was not catastrophic but covered everything. Every doctor I went to accepted it. Health care was accessible and affordable. Obama said I could keep my plan and my doctors, but he deliberately lied. He knew at the time it was a lie. That lie cost me my plan and my doctors. As someone with asthma, having access to quality doctors is critical. The lie was proven and admitted by Obama.

                2. When Obamacare passed, my premium doubled and my deductible went up 1100%, immediately. That trend continued, and a family deductible is now $12,000. Obamacare individual plans have cadillac level premiums and catastrophic level deductibles. It is not affordable to the unsubsidized middle class.

                3. Not one single doctor that I have gone to has accepted Obamacare individual policies. Zero. Nada. None. I used to take pictures of signs posted in the doctors offices to send to my doubting Liberal friends who claimed that I must be mistaken. Obamacare represents a 30% payout, and doctors didn’t want to take that cut. Neither did top cancer hospitals. It also required vast amounts of paperwork that required more staff, and increased costs even more. I paid exponentially more for a plan that was not accepted anywhere. I used to call around and ask doctors if they accepted Obamacare. The only people who accept it are the high throughput factory models. It’s like going to county. The poor did not get access to quality professionals, and instead are limited to the same county hospitals they could go to on Medical. I have myriad articles about doctors and hospitals not accepting Obamacare. Here are some examples: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/04/doctors-hospitals-wont-accept-obamacare-marketplace-plans. http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2015/08/01/aca-database-are-there-any-plans-to-force-doctors-to-accept-obamacare-plans/

                1. Karen, of course you realize that your premium is so high in order to pay for those that have subsidies. Even the lightly subsidized are subsidizing the ones more heavily subsidized. Thus your premium should be substantially lower if all they were covering was your risk. When that happens healthy individuals refuse to buy insurance including in the past when some had to pay a penalty. That money comes from those that are healthy and don’t utilize many resources. That becomes a death spiral and a failure of the program which is the end result of Obamacare’s poorly drawn up plan.

                  1. Anon, my taxes already paid for people to be on Medical and Medicaid.

                    Those premiums and deductibles for Obamacare are not doable for the middle class.

                    Obamacare requires the mandate to buy insurance to keep it afloat, even with unaffordable prices.

                    It’s been years since I looked into it, but from what I recall, Romney’s plan indicated that if you could afford health insurance, and you did not buy it, then the state was not going to cover your costs if you had high medical bills. It took away the free ride from those who didn’t want to buy health insurance but were able to do so.

                    You said that you support Obamacare, and believe it helped people I have provided you with a long, though by no means exhaustive, list of why it is a net negative, especially for the unsubsidized middle class. The poor did not get any better health care than they already had under Medical. The middle class took a substantial hit to the quality of health care they had access to, and it grossly impacted their financial security. Employees were cushioned from much of the effect, which is why Obama was not run out on a rail. If employees felt the same effects as what Obamacare did to the unsubsidized middle class individual policy holders, then there would have been riots and the dang thing would have been changed.

                    But it’s so very easy to blow off hardship caused to a minority of people.

                    You have failed to address my points, but rather are explaining how subsidies worked as a red herring.

                    Do you admit that there are sincere criticisms of Obamacare, and that individual middle class policy holders were gravely injured? Do you understand my position, or are you going to continue to blithely ignore all of the facts that I have presented, including how deftly ignoring the true out of pocket costs, and focusing on subsidized policies, allows analysts to mislead voters and claim that costs actually went down, when the opposite is true?

                2. Well, other than that Karen S., if hat do you and others that that have been screwed over by ObamaCare has against it?😉

                  1. Numerous typos,Karen S. …. Other than being screwed over after ObamaCare was passed, what do you and others in the same boat have against it?

                    1. It is interesting how those who have never experienced the horrors of an individual, unsubsidized Obamacare policy can wax poetic about its many benefits.

                      If it’s so great, then those supporters should voluntarily give up their own policies and go on it. Try it for a year and then check back in with us.

                      Anon et al just will not address the facts. It’s an emotional argument. He wants to help the poor, politicians claim it helps the poor, so facts be damned so he can feel better. Emotional arguments are illogical.

                      Loathsome trolls inevitably post some tiresome string of Hannity, Fox, Trump, Russia, liar, orange…all trying to get a rise out of me, but I just scroll on by without bothering to read. It’s always nonsense that doesn’t have anything to do with the issue at hand, like a disjointed string of Tourette’s epithets. It’s Obamacare that gets to me. I was saved from this catastrophe, but I grieve for those trapped in Obamacare’s system. What are people supposed to do who have cancer and the good treatment centers don’t accept their policy? How many have lost their chance at a remission they would have otherwise had? Politicians meddled in access to health care, and people can die. It’s inexcusable.

                3. Karen, a program like the ACA can be analyzed by both anecdote and by data. I don’t challenge your experiences, but it is not consistent with the data – I’ll get to that later – and I have an anecdote I’d like to relate.

                  One of my employees was in his early 50’s and beginning to show signs of what would later be diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis, a debilitating, incurable, and relentless disease. He enrolled in the ACA, and for the 1st time in his life began to see a regular doctor. That doc referred him to a specialist who ran tests and ultimately prescribed Humera, a very expensive but effective drug. My employee makes $13 an hour working for me – he is a laborer and go-fer driving my old truck – and wanted to keep working. It’s all he’s ever done. He pays about $75 a month for ACA coverage and I don’t know what his share of the Humera drug is, but it is affordable. I know this information is accurate because I saw some of the paperwork and I am his only source of income and he confides in me. There are literally millions – almost 20 million – people previous;y without insurance who now are covered.

                  It is an established fact – I’ve posted the data and sources – that health insurance costs have been exploding since at least 2000 and the rate of increase has slowed since the ACA. Likewise, deductibles have been going up for all types of health care and this trend also preceded the ACA. That you think increased premiums and deductibles were caused by the ACA is just false, though the nature of your previous coverage may have been sub-standard by the new coverage requirements may explain your experience. The ACA did change the basic allowable coverage to include coverage for pre-existing conditions and certain minimum requirements as well as allowing parents to carry their kids until age 26.

                  There are problems with the ACA and any reasonable person knowledgeable about programs of this size would anticipate the need for reform over time. The mandate – which would have led to more of the young with fewer health problems in the pool – was knocked out, GOP led states have opted out of creating their own pools as well as expanding medicare, and due to politics – duh – many of the cost savings measures in the bill were cut because they were not popular, though some stayed and are working. A public option would have helped as well as some Dem presidential candidates are arguing for that Meanwhile the GOP, which has largely controlled Congress has done nothing – no replacement presented – except attempting to kneecap the program. It is still largely popular with voters and the GOP is wise to back off. Reforms will come over time and hopefully they’ll be meaningful.

                  In the meantime, remember that the rest of the developed world pays on average 60% of what we do per capita for health care while providing universal coverage. We can’t continue to afford our system, but even if we could, we are in the middle of that pack of countries in results and patient satisfaction. We are getting nothing for this money, except rich docs who turn down patients they can’t richer on while stacking us like cord wood in the waiting or exam room. F..k them. It will take us a while to get a sensible affordable system, but it is not optional.

                  I eagerly await your post if you wish to respond. If I fail to answer, slap me upside the head and point me to it. Thanks for reading.

                  1. Anon, if I remember correctly Karen had 11 separate points on the problems with the ACA. Your rhetoric is easily noted by its length and its absence of detail or direct rebuttal. Perhaps you should go statement by statement. Where you claim Karen lacks proof and is providing anecdote you don’t provide proof either and many of her anecdotes are backed up by renowned experts that do direct comparisons instead of the conflated op-ed comparisons you have continually used.

                  2. “My employee makes $13 an hour working for me – he is a laborer and go-fer driving my old truck – and wanted to keep working. It’s all he’s ever done. He pays about $75 a month for ACA coverage and I don’t know what his share of the Humera drug is, but it is affordable. ”

                    Anon, your employee is paying $75 per month when he should be paying $600 (who knows the real amount.) Where does that $600 come from? It comes from Karen whose premium climbs because that is how the ACA pays the costs. They have Peter pay Paul and Karen is Peter while your guy is Paul.

                    You are like what everyone refers to as the despicable Walmart or Amazon that pays so little the taxpayer has to supplement their healthcare costs (in this case it is Karen), food costs with food stamps, housing costs with low income housing and other costs as well. In other words you get to use this mans labor but you don’t pay for it completely. The rest of the country does. Tell us how you are any different than the large corporations that have employees that remain on the public dole?

                    1. This may come as a shock to Allan, but there are millions of Americans who can’t afford to pay $600 a month for health insurance. I assume from his comments then that Allan is in favor of the minimum wage going up to at least $15 an hour to remedy this situation. In the meantime, Allan and other Americans benefit in the form of cheaper goods and services which are subsidized by the low wages paid to those like my employee who cannot – without programs like the ACA – otherwise survive.

                      It is probably also news to Allan that in “economics” there are things called “markets” where prevailing “wages” are paid as determined by “competition” within the “market”. So for instance, if I decided as an “employer” to pay my laborer/go-for and other “employees” above”market” wages, I would soon be out of “business” due to failure to pay my other “bills” on the competitive “pricing” which I received from “clients”.

                      Read up on this stuff sometime Allan. It’s fascinating.

                      PS The subsidy to the insurance company for people like my employee is not from other ACA covered patients. The increase in Karen’s insurance costs were almost certainly due to changes in her policy, and, she would have noticed increases yearly going back at least 15 years, or was somehow or another getting a real deal.

                    2. “This may come as a shock to Allan, but there are millions of Americans who can’t afford to pay $600 a month for health insurance. ”

                      This comes at no shock to me at all and that is why I believe in certain solutions that reduce costs rather than increase them as the ACA has done. What I do find shocking is all the virtue signalling that you provide but when the rubber hits the road you are one of the people that is refusing to pay a liveable wage where the individual has to rely on the taxpayer and a rise in premiums for those healthy individuals on the ACA. Many of them are families and you are depriving those families of needed capital doing exactly what you blame the right for doing. You fit in well with Jeff Bezos of Amazon who is a billionaire and whose company survives because his employees are assisted by the taxpayer.There is no difference between him and you except his company is much bigger and yours is insignificant.

                      You are wrong in your interpretations of what I believe. I am far more sympathethic to the poor and working class families than you. You blindly close your eyes to increasing numbers of illegal immigrants that keeps you from having to pay more than $13. I would rather pay $.25+ more for a head of lettuce so that wages are not artificially kept down, while social services needed by American families become insolvent due to illegals whose costs increase the taxes on poor Americans.

                      “t is probably also news to Allan that in “economics” there are things called “markets” where prevailing “wages” are paid as determined by “competition” within the “market”. ”

                      I am very familiar with markets something you don’t seem to understand. Your policies create market failures so that real prices are unknown and not paid to laborers. You get away with a lot of money due to the fact that you underpay your workforce. That is what Scrooge was accused of. If you didn’t pay a higher wage and the taxpayer wasn’t paying to subsidize your business your worker could not survive and you would have to pay more than $13. You are the problem not people on the right that understand economics. You are the one that doesn’t understand economics and act as a parasite to the system. You worry about going out of business, but that is not what happens. What happens is market forces intervene and if your price to build is more worthwhile to the consumer than other things they will pay your price. You don’t understand markets at all, but I can teach you.

                      “PS The subsidy to the insurance company for people like my employee is not from other ACA covered patients. The increase in Karen’s insurance costs were almost certainly due to changes in her policy,”

                      Double talk. You don’t even know what you are saying. The ACA has increased premiums, deductibles, out of pocket costs while reducing the availability of the best doctors and hospitals. It has also caused lines.

                    3. “This may come as a shock to Allan, but there are millions of Americans who can’t afford to pay $600 a month for health insurance.”

                      Anon, no shock at all and that is why I advocate policies that lower costs rather than raise them like the ACA did. In the meantime you are taking advantage of the law which permits you to live at a higher socio economic level while your employee is likely underpaid and being subsidized by families and poor people. Instead of looking for sensible policy you virtue signal while you close your eyes to what is happening.

                      “It is probably also news to Allan that in “economics” there are things called “markets” “

                      Not at all, but you have proven that your understanding of a functioning free marketplace is near non-existent. There are things that cause market failures and you seem to support most of them while benefitting from them at the expense of working class families. You close your eyes to immigration which causes a market failure and holds wages down so you can profit off the unliveable wage you provide. Then you depend on the taxpayer and working families to support your employee. Nice gig you have there. Karen and others pay for your employees healthcare and the working class pay for all sorts of social services that frequently are denied to them or reduced.

                      You aren’t that much different from Walmart and Amazon which does the same thing only you are relatively insignificant so you don’t garner the outrage Walmart and Amazon do.

                      “if I decided as an “employer” to pay my laborer/go-for and other “employees” above”market” wages, I would soon be out of “business” “

                      Your business would either survive on its own of fail if your business wasn’t competitive with people’s search for the best way to spend their money. What you are actually saying is that your business is not competitive and is a failed business but for support through government action. I don’t think so but you know better than I. This demonstrates that your knowledge of economics and free workable market places is minimal. Far from your suggestion that I read up, I could teach you economics but you are not the type to learn.

              2. #4 Any study that claims that out of pocket costs decreased under Obamacare are taking advantage of a little known fact. Many costs do not count towards Obamacare max caps, and are not included in those studies. They tightened drug formularies and removed off formulary benefits. Many medicines are no longer covered, and when you pay out of pocket, it doesn’t count towards your max cap…nor is it included in those fraudulent articles discussing how great out of pocket costs are. Doctor networks are tight, and when you pay out of pocket to see a good doctor, that doesn’t count.

                #5 Obamacare itself caused medical costs to skyrocket. The initial jump was the most horrific, as my personal experience attested. Any increase after that would initial hit would be statistically smaller, as it compares with over a 1000% increase. For instance, going from an initial deductible of $500 to $6000 was an enormous jump, but $6000 to $12,000 is relatively less. Neither the $6000 nor the $12,000 were defensible. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwhelming-evidence-that-obamacare-caused-premiums-to-increase-substantially/#7126089915be

                Two scholars at the renowned Brookings Institution, Loren Adler and Paul Ginsburg, have published an analysis finding that “average premiums in the individual market actually dropped significantly upon implementation of the ACA [Affordable Care Act].” This contrasts with a plethora of evidence, including a rigorous 2014 Brookings study, showing that the ACA significantly increased premiums. In this post, I discuss methodological concerns with the Adler and Ginsburg approach as well as evidence that leads most scholars to reach a very different conclusion.

                While I will discuss the relevant evidence of the ACA’s effect on premiums in depth, there are three data points worth emphasizing. First, unlike Adler and Ginsburg’s approach, Brookings 2014 study used actual data and found that “enrollment-weighted premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed…trends.” Second, S&P Global Institute found that average individual market medical costs increased substantially between 2013 and 2015, up an estimated 69%. Third, 2014 insurer data shows that premiums for individual market Qualified Health Plans (QHPs), ACA-compliant plans certified to be sold on exchanges, were much higher than premiums for individual market non-QHPs, mostly plans in existence before 2014 that did not comply with the ACA. Relative to non-QHPs, insurers collected more than $1,000 per enrollee in higher premiums and more than $2,300 in higher premium revenue per enrollee in 2014 after accounting for large premium subsidy programs for their QHPs.

                #6 All of my choices were removed in health insurance. This was a consumer driven market. There was something for everyone. Because of Obamacare, all plans are identical in coverage, with only minor differences in premium and deductible distribution. I would rather save money and have a plan that covered, for example, maybe 15 different types of birth control with a $5 copay. However, I don’t have the right to save money on premiums and deductibles. I have to have 26 choices, and since none of them have even a $5 copay, that jacks up my premium and deductible. Even if I don’t need or want birth control, I can’t save money like I would if I wasn’t paying a $5 copay. I’m paying for that birth control whether it’s prescribed to me or not, because it’s already in my premium and deductible. In the past, if you didn’t use something, you saved money on that copay you would have saved. You are not helpless to save money. Because doctors are not in network, you have to still pay out of pocket to see a decent doctor. I can’t find a plan that covers any of my doctors because such a plan does not exist.

              3. #7 Pediatric Dental. Obamacare required pediatric dental be bundled. You know, for the children. However, I discovered that the astronomical, unaffordable, ridiculous, absurd deductible Obamacare saddled me with had to be satisfied before it would pay any benefits. So, you had to burn through thousands upon thousands of dollars before the plan would pay for anything dental for your child. Something terrible would have to happen to that child for him to financially be able to benefit from any dental coverage at all. But I was forced to pay that premium. I had no choice. I had not right to vote no with my dollars on a plan that didn’t benefit my kid. I was a captive consumer for the pediatric dental racket. I had zero choice. It was all included in the Exchange. Just throwing money down a toilet.

                #8 Nonpayment and the Open Enrollment Period. My bank discovered fraudulent charges, as happen so often nowadays with data theft. My bank account was frozen while I had a new debit card issued with a different number. This interfered with all automatic payments including, to my horror, my health insurance. At that point, I considered Obamacare a catastrophic plan I was forced to buy that was unaffordable. I didn’t know my insurance payment couldn’t go through until I got my cancellation letter. Thinking it would easily be cleared up, I submitted proof that I was the victim of a crime, and that I was willing to pay my premium. It didn’t matter. The ACA is written so that non payment for any reason is grounds for cancellation. Non payment for any reason is not included in special enrollment. I would be without insurance, and unable to buy any insurance anywhere until the next open enrollment at the end of the year. I think it was spring. My son was on my policy. My husband’s was grandfathered. He had been told by every insurance agent he spoke with that his grandfathered policy was far and away better than anything anyone could get on an Exchange for any price. Once Obamacare hit, companies have been increasing the rates on grandfathered policies significantly in order to force people off of them. He didn’t want to risk losing grandfathered status. I spoke with the CEO of the health insurance company, as well as my state’s insurance commissioner. There was nothing anyone could do. Between the ACA and a criminal, I had lost health insurance for me and my child. Luckily, a relative created a telecommunity job for me, as his company was too far away for me to work on site. I was able to get an employer policy. Employers bear the brunt of Obamacare costs, and they pay better benefits, so doctors still accept those.

                I was a stay at home mother involved in adding to my child’s education, also working towards being a writer, an artist, as well as engage in native plant restoration projects, native pollinator entomology, and follow the CRISPR cas9 development. I had so many projects in the pipeline. I could do none of that as the only way I could get insured was through an employer. Now I want to keep that job as long as possible because the alternative is an unaffordable shiny insurance card that is utterly worthless, as no one accepts it.

                Just walk into a doctor’s waiting room and announce that you have trouble getting any doctor to accept your Obamacare individual policy. You will get to know your fellow patients tout de suite. You should try calling up your doctor’s office and announce you are considering letting go of your current plan and getting on an Exchange plan, or perhaps your relative is. See what they say.

                There are many more points I can make on Obamacare, but I’ve got to get back to work. I have made these points repeatedly, to the point they are Pavlovian. Everyone knows what I think about Obamacare. Could you really not cobble together some idea of why I would not support the ACA? Why should I continue to make the effort to explain it to someone when it falls on deaf ears?

                Every time you make some comment that out of pocket costs lowered, I send you a link disputing it with facts. You just ignore it. Every time I supply a link that doctors and hospitals and cancer treatment centers don’t accept it, and why, you just ignore it.

                At some point, you must realize you are basing your opinion on the emotional desire to help people, while ignoring the fact that this bill actually harms people financially and physically.

              4. #10 https://youtu.be/ETVcsPRTSHM

                Bill Clinton admitting how Obamacare is unaffordable.

                #11 The unsubsidized middle class now have to do without health care because of unaffordable deductibles. Instead of making less people have to choose between rent and healthcare, now more people have to do so.


                “But critics counter that the narrative dismisses the concerns of those who haven’t realized the law’s promises. Many middle-class Americans who get no help from the government to pay for coverage – and who rarely use medical care – say the law has caused them financial harm and diminished their quality of life. Finding costs insurmountable, some say they are passing on coverage or using loopholes that offer them access to medical care without crippling their finances.”

                “To 42-year-old Tiffany, one of several people U.S. News spoke with whose last names are being withheld to protect their privacy, the costs of coverage to her and her husband this year were overwhelming: $1,221.20 per month, with an $11,700 deductible. If they were to divorce, they realized, they would qualify for cheaper coverage. Alternatively, Tiffany’s husband, who is self-employed, would need to make an extra $20,000 a year to make up the difference once medication and doctor visits are factored in.

                Though the option of ending their 17-year marriage wasn’t truly on the table, to them it accentuated the lack of options they faced this year. The Columbus, Ohio-area residents already had been unhappy with the plan they bought the previous year, finding that it covered few of the services they needed. Their regular medical needs include providing medication for a daughter with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and another with mild asthma.

                As a family of five making between $115,000 and $125,000 a year, they did not qualify for subsidies. And doctors in the plans available were far away.

                “This year, I just cried,” Tiffany says of the moment she saw how much insurance was going to cost them. “I’m not an emotional person. I was just floored. I completely shut down because there were no options.””

                Republican failed to repeal Obamacare when they had the chance. After running on repealing this catastrophe and humanitarian crisis, it’s like they never expected to a actually have the chance to do so, and were unprepared. It’s kind of like Democrats running on the premise of vote for me and we’ll solve your poverty…and then it gets worse. Republicans ran on the platform of vote for us and we’ll roll back Obamacare so that, once again, you can have a plan you like and afford…and then didn’t. That hurt them in 2018. Conservatives cannot afford voter apathy or hopelessness in 2020.

              5. Solution to Health Care Crisis

                We don’t want or need insurance. We need cost sharing combined with policies to drive down the real costs of health care. It’s not insurance when you want a pre-existing condition covered, which we all do. You can’t have your wrecked truck towed to the insurance company and demand retroactive insurance to pay for the repairs.

                The fact is that modern healthcare is very expensive. It takes 10 years and millions of dollars to get through the FDA clinical trials for prescriptions and medical devices. That’s after the long line of failures that a company invested in. Profits have to cover the costs of failed investigational new drugs and devices, as well as R&D and acquisitions.

                Going through medical school requires the suspension of a decade of your life, devoted to nothing else but study and no sleep. Then you have to intern and, again, get no sleep and work long hours. Then the cost of malpractice insurance in a litigious society is prohibitive.

                It all costs money. Countries like Canada and Great Britain don’t pay their fair share. It’s we who pay for all that R&D. Price limits don’t cover the costs of all the failures, let alone bringing a drug to market. Were medical R&D to be run by the government as non profit, then discoveries would not be made. The government would have never come up with an iPhone or a laptop, nor would they have produced the current level of medical care that has lengthened our lifespans. Government funding may have seeded ARPANET, but the network was among university computers at for profit universities, and what went on that internet was grassroots.

                Remove the employers from the insurance market. It all started as a way to differentiate employers from each other and woo employees. All insurance should be bought by individuals. It’s none of the employer’s beeswax what is either offered or purchased by their employees. There would be no more two tiers of insurance – the healthier pool in the employer policy and the individual policy holders that include small business owners and those too unhealthy to work. Everything is one enormous pool – American citizens and legal residents.

                Return market driven choice. There should be a policy for everyone. You can meet your needs for ethics, economy, and coverage in a variety of choices.

                Increase availability of medical flexible spending accounts.

                Reduce costly paperwork for these cost sharing providers. Streamline claims processing and other forms.

                Make it more possible to save money. For example, offer discounts for those with a healthy lifestyle, such as non smoker, non drug user, with a good BMI. Put it in individual policy holder’s hands to be able to save money.

                Look at ways to reduce the cost of an FDA trial without sacrificing quality.

                Open up hearing aid market similar to reading glasses.

                Use alternative platforms like teleconferencing to communicate with doctors for certain visits rather than having to go to the office.

                Create a personalized database linked to SSN with all medical history and medications. This would also fight doctor shopping and over prescribing, and help in the event of a medical emergency. You don’t need to find out which handful of doctors might have prescribed conflicting prescriptions.

                Use scheduling apps.

                Create an epidemiology blind database to track canary in the coal mine upticks. You should be aware of a sudden increase in positive lead tests in children, or cancer, or outbreaks of Valley Fever without relying on the slow and onerous system of doctors seeing a trend, thinking about it, talking with each other, and eventually it gets reported on.

                Use technology in supply chain and inventory processing.

                Doctors need to be familiar with the overall health and environment of their patients instead of a bunch of specialists chasing symptoms without seeing the larger picture. I have a friend whose asthma was completely out of control. She was on high dose prednisone, with serious side effects, fractures, and an entire cascade of life threatening symptoms. She was regularly hospitalized for asthma. It turned out she had a peanut allergy, and she considered peanut butter on veggies a healthy protein snack. She had to figure that out for herself because her doctors were only addressing each symptom as it came up. It’s now been years since she was hospitalized.

                We should create a team of doctors that work together for patients with such symptoms to get an overall picture of health, a more holistic systemic approach. Our body is a series of overlapping systems all working together. So should our doctors.

              6. Anon – I thought you were ready and waiting. I’ve provided bullet points refuting each of your assertions. I have also explained how analysts can claim that Obamacare lowered out of pocket costs because off formulary drugs and seeing out of network doctors don’t count. In addition, including the subsidized also changes the overall picture. Thus, analysts are ignoring the great financial harm that Obamacare causes to the unsubsidized.

                If you ignore this and continue to praise Obamacare, then you are ignoring facts and great harm to others.

                1. Perhaps, unlike some people, Anon isn’t paid for his comments.

                  And if that shoe doesn’t fit? Many people are “in and out” and don’t care to spend a lot of time here. Life is too short to spend much of it spitting out run-on comments on the internet. What a waste. But some people are paid to do it. You, Karen S.?

              7. Anon, this is why you lack credibility.

                You claimed that one time you addressed my points, but the same thing happened. You made statements, I refuted them, and then you left.

                The next time that you post support for Obamacare, everyone will know you were refuted, and had nothing to say. Voters who are not informed greatly harmed their neighbors. Employees might not have felt the full pain of Obamacare, but their fellow Americans who had individual policy holders did. They took away access to cancer treatment from cancer patients. There is no defending that. Polls showed overwhelming disapproval for single payer, so Obama had to destroy the insurance industry in order to get that support, and he hurt Americans to do it.

                Voters who don’t bother to learn about issues are a detriment to society.

                Perhaps, in future, only those who will be impacted by a policy themselves should be allowed to vote on it, to avoid such abuse. Perhaps only individual policy holders should vote on anything to do with Obamacare to prevent the misinformed and naive from harming their health and financial security.

            1. Why do I fight against Obamacare?

              Obama killed the US Healthcare System. Period

              Many physicians are discussing the recent article by Zdog, (ZUBIN DAMANIA, MD) a physician blogger, who is stating inarticulately how and what a majority of physicians see in university clinics, hospitals, private groups and rural setting. Become familiar with the Obama mandate “Meaningful Use” program.

              The U.S. government introduced the Meaningful Use program as part of the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, to encourage health care providers to show “meaningful use” of a certified Electronic Health Record (EHR). In doing so, eligible providers who do so receive incentive payments.

              Here is the link and summary to Zdog’s article.



              Why Your Doctor Won’t Look You In The Eye
              Does your doctor really care about you?

              We’ve all been there. You go in to see your doctor and instead of being greeted with a smile and eye contact, you’re met with the clackity-clack of typing and the clickity-click of a mouse (or a face underlit by the cold glow of an iPad). The crucial ritual of human relationship and caring is now replaced with uncertainty and detachment as you are sit there, half-naked on the cold exam table in an itchy gown.

              “You’re 56,” I say, speaking to a new patient. “Have you had a colonoscopy?”

              “Yes, I did, right when I turned 50,” she says. “Isn’t it in there?”

              “Well,” I reply, awkwardly. My shoulders hunch over my laptop screen, my hands scrunching to conform to the too-small germ-encrusted keyboard. I click and open a dropdown menu. A long list of folders appears, representing scanned-in prior notes. The folders are differentiated only by date. I start opening them.

              My patient is getting impatient, and I don’t blame her. “Well, can’t you just search for ‘colonoscopy’?” she asks.

              The “Electronic Health Record (EHR)” has little to do with health. It’s a billing and compliance platform designed to serve the walled gardens of health systems, not to provide amazing seamless care, open portable records, and usability for both medical professionals and patients. So every doctor you visit is going to ask you the exact same questions: what medications do you take, what chronic medical conditions do you have, what are your allergies, have you had a mammogram?

              So who suffers?

              You do (of course), but so does that clickity-clacking doctor. Handwritten notes are mostly a thing of the past, and our new physicians have only been trained using electronic medical records. While we’ve eliminated some errors, we’ve introduced new ones. And in the process, we’ve inadvertently sucked the art and joy and humanity out of the equation. Doctors can’t even look their patients in the eye in their most vulnerable moments.

              You may wonder why we all use electronic medical records if they suck so much? Well, we pretty much have to (according to the government’s “Meaningful Use” campaign). When the rest of the world gets an iPhone (from a usability standpoint), we’re given a 1990’s car phone and told, “Make it work, you Luddite.”

              Why can’t we fix it?

              To devise tactics to make the current system “work” is a start, but ultimately it might just be throwing good money after bad.

              How about we stop accepting a broken set of incentives and actually design electronic health record to be useable by clinicians and patients and data analysts? Can we document stuff that matter to clinicians and patients and automate the rest? This means incorporating the patient’s narrative (their story, for gosh sakes) and cutting through the boilerplate bullsh*t and cut/paste crap and useless alerts and garbage “updates.” Let’s start valuing meaningful interactions. Until we get Congress, insurance companies, Medicare, and all of the players involved to change those incentives, nothing will improve. We can complain all we want, but will we do anything meaningful?

              So the electronic medical record vendors built what was asked for, a compliance vehicle, a cash register, with a little patient care stuff tacked on.

            2. Obamacare helped a few while hurting many. Just a couple of entries in no order.
              It caused costs to rise.
              It didn’t solve the healthcare dillema.
              It has caused physicians to enter groups known as ACO’s whose endproduct was conceived to be an HMO on steroids.
              It has caused conglomeration of centers to the disadvantage of the patient.
              Its construction causes a death spiral.

              It has destroyed the physician’s intellectual honesty. The physician population due to Obamacare and other government interventions is becoming intellectually dishonest just like Anon.

              Can anyone see a person like Anon acting like their doctor. ‘You don’t need that pacemaker, it costs too much and we have deemed you not to be worth the expense so take a pill and go to a movie’. ‘That is what mcclatchy says and so do many others that earn their living off of not paying for services supposedly covered by insurance’. …And not to forget how he ends many of his discussions with an insult or “WTF”.

      3. Romney a hedge fund man, Bain capital
        Trump, a real estate developer, hotelier, and a builder.
        Huge differences in what sectors of economic activity they represent,
        huge differences in style.

        Romney to me was a nothing, a big faker. I disliked him. FInancialization, dislike. Slick talker, knew how to appeal to upwardly mobile bootlickers

        Trump, Development of our soil into useful dwelling and commercial spaces, talks turkey, blunt, very much like!

        1. No, Romney was a private equity provider. He provided capital to distressed firms our bought them and liquidated them. He had nothing to do with hedge funds.

          1. ha ha, of course. i stand corrected. not a hedge fund guy, something lower on the scale yet.

            like the guy in Pretty woman. buys them and fires people and sells off the formerly productive assets. a swell job if you don’t mind being a scavenger. a glorified financial junkman, or, rather, “salvage operations”

            well after all, there’s a place in the ecosystem for vultures and ants and bacteria, the grand circle of life and all that

            1. Private equity is the last stop on the line before you get to bankruptcy court. It’s the alternative to court-administered re-organization or liquidation.

              Hedge funds are pools of investor money supplemented with loans (from prime brokers, I believe). I think they typically take long and short positions at the same time. They’re for investors who are not risk averse. A financial analyst of my acquaintance says the trouble with them is that they can be highly leveraged and that hedge fund operators generally have similar trading strategies, so when the market turns, it gets bad for them and their investors quite quickly. Romney wasn’t in that business.

              I’m not sure it should be permissible in law to borrow money to purchase equities other than IPOs. Certainly these entities should not be permitted to be as levered as they have been. My financial analyst friend said the amount of leverage tops out at 40-1.

        2. So Kurtz, you like ignorant lying braggarts? I wouldn’t have guessed that.

  17. “There is now a huge group of voters committed to voting against him.”

    One has to wonder how many of those people are lying. I certainly am, because of the woman I am married to. I staunchly declare my utterly certain intention to vote against Trump, but only because I want to stay married. I am a big fan of the secret ballot.

    1. @Bill-Sorry Bill I’m laughing😂. Maybe she’s lying too and really likes President Trump.

    2. @Bill-Wasn’t it the Wicked Witch of the Dems who said something like men pressure their wives to vote conservative?? Something like that?

  18. Below are links to the DNC and GOP websites. They both still have their 2016 platforms up. The most striking to me was how the DNC preamble seemed to strike such a foreboding tone after 8 years of DNC leadership, while the GOP preamble struck an optimistic chord. The DNC hits heavy on what they and government will do, while the GOP hits heavy on the people doing and less government.

    This is supposedly one of the things the Democrats stand for: Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.



    1. Turley hasn’t read his own blawg in at leas two years. Possibly longer than that. Your opinion of yourself is literally preposterous.

    2. From Merriam Webster–History and Etymology for preposterous:

      Latin praeposterus, literally, in the wrong order, from prae- + posterus hinder, following — more at posterior

      1. Come to think of it, Postovir putting his posterior before his anterior would explain why Postovir claims to be shaking his head.

    3. The NYT has a staff which is probably way over represented with Jewish workers and bosses. I seriously don’t agree that it is antisemitic.

      JT is not a plagiarizer. I often agree with Estovir but I can’t follow these accusations or see the logic in them.

      You and Turley just see the same headlines, which are of interest to us all.

    4. How do you link to a particular comment instead of just the entire blog post? Neat trick. 🙂

  19. Obama was still coming off the worst financial meltdown since The Great Depression at this point in his presidency. Trump has economic growth (mostly from his deficit spending) and he can only manage a measly, few-points advantage. Trump should still be worried.

    1. en·vy
      noun: envy; plural noun: envies

      a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else’s possessions, qualities, or luck.
      “she felt a twinge of envy for the people on board”

    2. If you honestly believe that nonsense about the Great Depression, you clearly didn’t live through it. This was one of many recessions that didn’t come close to those level. It irks me how people use the phrase ‘Great Depression’ to imply that there was parity, which there wasn’t.

    3. MBITRW, production levels stabilized in May of 2009 and no one held BO responsible for the meltdown. And, no, the economic growth isn’t attributable to ‘deficit spending’. The ratio of public sector borrowing to GDP is similar to what it was during the fiscal years running from the 4th q of 2011 to the 4th q of 2017. In any case, production levels are commonly insensitive to fiscal stimulus, just not completely insensitive.

      1. yes what he said!

        POTUS take credit because they will take the blame. Truth is, a lot of things they do have very little effect on the economy. Some of the things they do have more.

        Congress has a slight effect too, in the short run. But its changes to laws, can be far more reaching due to the potential effects of financial regulation and deregulation, taxation schemes, and effects of social engineering.

Comments are closed.