| Author | Message | ||
     Xdigitalx |
I am furious about Obama are and the open enrollment bulletin wording they use. One day my doc is listed. Next day, can't be found. Oh.. And now I am stuck with a policy I do not want. I signed up by deadline, but was told I could change it. Never told I could never change it after Jan 31. I definitely was told I had to sign up by then, spent a week trying to contact doctors, and insurance companies to verify copay etc. Etc. I thought once I was signed up, I could change any time after that on a month to month. Ugh. I want it back the way it was, where my company supplies the insurance. And so seniors do not pay more than they used to. My mother pays 30% more now. Repeal it and/or just revamp it. Could be just a learning curve but obviously released way too soon. Obama jumped the gun on this one. I have no problem if the new Republican president completely eliminates the debacle. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Pi ven_strategy Obamacare isn't supposed to work. It's supposed to make you angry. It's supposed to fail. It's supposed to make you demand free healthcare. Meanwhile it is designed to make very rich the people who bribed Obama. That part works fine. You didn't give Obama over half a million dollars, did you? That's your problem. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I just got off the phone with marketplace and surprised to find a very helpful woman who was able to change my plan to the plan I needed/wanted. After 5-8 days of frustration... I am happy. They have a "kudo's" line to rate the rep... I thought it would be a simple multiple choice, it was a voicemail just for leaving a message which caught me off guard, but I praised her as best I could. | ||
| Aesquire |
Yea! You win. Now if you had donated say thirty million dollars to Obama he would have illegally changed the rules for you and you would have kept your old insurance. At least until he left office and retires on the bribes. ( also illegal but apparently he's already shifted huge sums from his still operating campaign to foreign banks. It's not like he'll ever be brought to justice for his crimes. There's a long standing gentleman agreement that you don't prosecute your predecessor so the guy after you doesn't prosecute you. ) | ||
| Reepicheep |
Nice little tool to see who you line up with. Be sure and choose the "other" options to see the real detailed positions to get a much clearer view. http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidenti al/1823376011 I was 87% Cruz, Rubio, and Carson (within a couple percent) | ||
| Hootowl |
92 trump 91 cruz 91 carson 90 rubio Still voting for cruz in the primary. I think trump is just telling me what I want to hear. Cruz is the real deal. | ||
| Aesquire |
88 trump 88 rubio 87 fiorina 86 cruz 84 carson 83 bush 62 sanders 56 clinton. Which tells me I'm too "nuanced" for quizzes like this. I'll stick to "Which Star Trek character are you?" By "nuanced" I mean most of the time even my own alternative essay answers are not completely right. Plus I had fun doing the "prove you are a human" since I'm not interested in giving them the amount of Furry Porn on my phone, and told them so. ( I'm not interested how much you have either, but feel free to brag ) (Message edited by aesquire on February 05, 2016) | ||
| Aesquire |
Hoot, at this time I agree with you. Cruz has fought for our civil rights before the Supreme Court. If any candidate is going to appoint strict Constitutionalist Justices to the Supreme Court, it's Cruz. And THAT is more important, long run, and short, than who is President. Presidents go away, eventually. The Court lingers on messing things up for decades. It's possible the next President, ( and Obama, still ) can put 4 new Justices in power. If they are Progressive, say bye bye to your civil rights. If Conservative, we can keep arguing about politics. ( 'cause, free speech, etc... ) | ||
| Daddio |
Cruz, 91; Rubio 90. Trump and Jeb 85, but I'm not sure which Trump, since there've been a few; I get the feeling Jeb's just saying what I want to hear. Carson, 84. Any of the above over: Clinton 44 and Bernie 28. | ||
| Sifo |
Cruz 90% Rubio 89% Carson 87% Trump 86% Bush 76% Clinton 20% Sanders 19% | ||
| Gregtonn |
"Cruz has fought for our civil rights before the Supreme Court. If any candidate is going to appoint strict Constitutionalist Justices to the Supreme Court, it's Cruz." This is probably the most important argument for any candidate. SC appointments far outlive presidential terms. I'm not sure Trump has the experience or the inclination to appoint Constitutionalist Justices. G | ||
| Gregtonn |
Oh and: Cruz 93% Trump 91% Clinton 13% Sanders 11% G | ||
| Zane |
Trump 94% Carson 92% Rubio 91% Fiorina 88% Cruz 88% Bush 81% Clinton 41% Sanders 27% | ||
| Aesquire |
Is that preference, or the date they got into politics? | ||
| Ulyranger |
Wow, that poll sux.... Netted me 94% Trumpet and 85% Cruz, just wow... Polls are designed to net predictable results. (Hint, I added my own answers on many questions. Guessing those don't register appropriately) Cruz is the only one who I trust to nominate Supremes that will protect our individual liberties, whether you lean left or right. Aesquire, I concur. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Trump 81% Cruz 79% Rubio 76% Carson 69% Fiorina 68% Bush 60% Christie 57% Kasich 57% Clinton 43% Sanders 41% I personally like Cruz and Christy the most. Fiorina should have been in that last debate. | ||
| Aesquire |
While Fiorina's campaign bitching about not being included at first sounds like sour grapes..... why was Jeb there? Was Jeb, who has no chance, a single point higher in some poll? His campaign is in full destruction mode. Pure establishment candidate and tons of money. Mostly going after Rubio ( I hear. I don't see his ads personally ) the pundits think Jeb is going to drag down any non- establishment opponents in the hopes that either he will win a brokered convention or ??? If the last year has taught us anything the only thing worse than the corrupt Republican leadership is the corrupt Democrat leaders. The D's have gone full evil neo-marxist and there is no hope I see to reform them. If we can't reform the R's, & we have this one shot at it, all that seems to be left involves very uncivil rebellion. I was hoping that wouldn't happen in my lifetime. It already is. Civil disobedience in a very quiet and unreported way is growing. Millions of folk in NY state alone are breaking illegal laws and waiting for Storm Troopers to kick doors. | ||
| Ulyranger |
Well, I did it again because I didn't see the expanded questions the first go around. Cruz 93% Rubio 90% Trump 90% Carson 85% Bush 82% Fiorina 81% Christi & Kasich down in the 70s Bernie in the low 30s The Beast came in at 20% LOL Aesquire, in all fairness Jeb did land a few jabs on Trumpster with the eminent domaine issue. He was openly booed last night many times. That double digit polling lead seems a bit artificial to me, but what do I know...... Time for Jeb to go though, writing, wall and all that. Regarding the simmering pot that is NY you again hit the nail squarely. I'm quite sure this is not unique to NY though. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I think all candidates running should be on same stage until they withdraw themselves. -involves very uncivil rebellion ; happen in my lifetime,,,, I don't think it will. If it does it will fail. Or just be similar to what is happening in Ukraine with no end in sight and country split in half or more. Not a very good place for anyone. Then that opens doors for more terror. (eh. just thinking out loud) | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Blake |
Reep, Those policy oriented polls are okay, but they fail to account for the persons honesty/integrity, or trustworthiness, or their record. They're only based on what the politicians say their policy stances are right now. | ||
| Reepicheep |
My oldest (18) and I had that exact same conversation.
He is young, so he scored like 99% for both Hillary and Bernie, but he has no interest in voting for Hillary, because even at the trusting young age of 18, he can tell Hillary has pretty much zero integrity. So there needed to be one more set of questions in there for "what percent are you sure X is lying about what they will do to become president just in order to get elected". More metrics need to be added also of course. What I found the quiz useful for was just filtering down the candidates. I have a tough time matching because I am fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I really could care less about what you do in private, and I will actually work pretty hard to accommodate it without being offended provided it isn't likely to hurt somebody who doesn't understand and consent to the the risks they are taking. | ||
| Court |
Bingo | ||
| 86129squids |
   Court, of course, you're not stupid, and I concur... Bingo. What I wish we had A LOT MORE OF in this country is dialogue, dialectic, less labeling, less "painting", less blaming. I blame Dittoheads and Pacifists. THERE IS GOOD ON BOTH SIDES. And, there are no sides. Only US. | ||
| 86129squids |
Oh, and dangit... More Listening, Less Shouting. Looking forward to 11/8/2016. | ||
| 86129squids |
... Preparing for the onslaught- I learned of the dialectic from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Read that twice, and the sequel twice. Both good, but more flaws in the latter of the two. Wish I had a sailboat. I am neither an mechanic or a Buddhist, but I try. Wiki reminded me that I once wrote a paper on Kant, years ago, and I'm dumber that I look.  | ||
| Reepicheep |
I wish we could reboot the political parties to be "those that feel the need to control others" versus "those that feel the need not to control others". Then within each party you could argue about how you have to violate your principals. For the first, they would have to struggle with letting people do things they don't approve of, like allowing gay marriage and allowing people to hang a confederate flag. For the second, we would have to struggle with not letting people do things they want to do, like outlawing legal cocaine marketing companies and crony capitalism or monopolistic practices. Neither extreme would work, it has to be somewhere in the middle. | ||
| Reindog |
The only way to reform government is to bring our bicameral legislature closer to the people. This can be accomplished by the establishment of a virtual, Webex based Congress. The traditional method of Representatives and Senators physically based in Washington DC has made them the minions of special interests and lobbyists. Our elected officials should spend 90% of their term of office physically in the state from which they are elected so they are physically accessible by their constituency. Lobbyists would have to dilute themselves and travel to 50 states to corrupt, ummm...."influence" our elected officials instead of the centralization of secret money. The technology for a Webex Congress has been here for several years. My company conducts business this way and it is trivial to share information, documents, and video. Full open meetings can be done and private conferences for negotiations are entirely feasible. Our officials would be physically close to the People. Most Representatives do not start off rich and can barely afford the rents of Washington DC which is another corrupting influence. A physical Congress would convene in Washington DC for, say, two weeks a year max and the lodging in a Motel Six would be born by the US Taxpayers. What do you think? | ||
| Oldog |
A physical Congress would convene in Washington DC for, say, two weeks a year max and the lodging in a Motel Six would be born by the US Taxpayers. I like it ! I doubt that the politicoes would though.} | ||
| Hootowl |
The legislature in Texas meets for 140 days. Not work days...calendar days. |
