What is a nationalist?

Just another case of

Pathetic

If ya'll want to pretend Hillary didn't get more actual votes than Trump, go ahead. I know Trump is President elect and he will be president based on our election laws of the land; so he is in fairly. Just don't pretend he was overwhelming voted in with a mandate from the people because he was not. He barely scooted in. That said, I hope for the best and I expect the worst and I won't give up fighting for the concepts I believe in. Personally I hope the minority leaders manage to have a relationship with Trump so that we can stop some of the sweeping new bills of the republican congress, but I don't hold out much hope.

What do you seem to forget are the number of Republican seats won by riding Trump's coattails into office.

Also it's not a mandate for Donald Trump it's a mandate against Obama and the Democrats in as much as Obama has done more to fill Republican seats in gubernatorial elections state legislatures and the Congress than any other president in history.

you are once again, speaking from an orifice that is not the mouth.

The numbers are on my side of the argument... the emotional hysteria is on your side of the argument.

Crooked republicans? It seems like the crooked Dems, you included, want to go against the Constitution and steal the election.

Turn about is fair play

-Al Gore

Pejorative and epithet are different, even though an epithet is pejorative. Meaning, if one wanted to explain why some child is not being invited to a son's birthday party, the explanation can be because he is "___?___." However, an epithet is said to someone with the intent of letting the person know they are held in some degree of contempt. "Jew" has been such a word, here and in Europe. Since it is just a noun, it allows the person saying it to claim no mal intent was meant. Perhaps so; but, if used in an urban area with a large Jewish community, it lets the Jewish person surmise that at best the person likely has no Jewish friends, likely never did have any, and probably never will have any. That sort of points to someone who might just be living in an ethnocentric, religious centric, world of contented exclusion.

Or, the person is in the rural hinterland, and they only know the word "Jew" from the bible?

But, if you feel that being pc is an inconvenience, or goes against your personal image of yourself, that is you. I do not care. It is interesting though that the feelings of the recipient of non-pc phraseology might be of little import.

And, in my opinion, "Italian" came with unspoken inference as the countryman that were most of the Popes. So, if one is anti-Catholic, just mentioning that someone is Italian suffices for circling the wagons, so to speak.

The entire middle of the country was soaked in Red. That is not "scooting" in. While many believe the popular vote should be the only criterion, the problem is that the popular vote is cloistered in a few population centers, reflecting the marginal haves like a prior century. As it once was, only the land owners voted. In that scenario, Trump would have obviously won. But, let's not lament spilt milk. Today's criterion is the Electoral College. So, as they say in the girl's game of potsie, "No Do Overs.""

I think of it as a mandate to stop using the young to pay for the medical bills of the needy.

Yes, the republicans have done their job explicitly, the democrats tacitly: Despite being tribal, social creatures, lets fight that basic impulse and
extradite those less fortunate out of our minds.

This argument of not using tax payer money to take care of others **might** hold water under a different kind of governance, however, 1. That governance does not exist and 2. Those in favour of such a laissez fair countenance expect that society can function effectively without government intervention..

And how I've worded it is part of the propaganda problem. It doesn't start as 'government' intervention. It starts as tax payer money. And before that, it starts as money from you and me, which, ironically, is where the folks against 'government support' argue its supposed to come from!

Social welfare is around for a reason and needed. Arguments against it are unclear. Arguing 'abuse!' is a non starter. As a single complaint, this assumes support of welfare, but not for the abusers. How to get rid of abuse then? Well, you need more government controls, which means more government, which those that argue this, are against. So, how are we to get rid of abuse again?

Both parties seem reluctant to vote for a proper accounting of govt run institutions. Democrats want to throw more money on this than republicans, but both hamstring the effective running of anything not named 'police', 'fire-fighting', military and a few other things (although from time to time, even these things get pillaged in political duels)..
In summary, it is not fair to say the gov't cannot do things right when the right amount of resources are not given to it to give a fair evaluation of efficacy.

Of course, if you're a libertarian and not for welfare of any kind (business or social), I'm not sure I want to see THAT country. Perhaps we would be more third world than anything.

I'm not arguing for 'Obama' Care. I think single payer is the way to go. And why not? Ostensibly we get to decide how our money is used. Your health is critical. Some of you opposed to welfare healthcare wouldn't be alive today without it! Everyone uses it from birth to death. 'Freedom' in the abstract isn't the issue (unless the majority of the country opposes what is on the docket or it is a clear moral issue), we all have to pay for stuff we don't want to. Unless you are libertarian, you have some splainin' to do. And specifics, not abstractions like don't take away my 'freedoms'. What specific freedoms? And what are the consequences on both sides of the coin?

The problem with single-payer healthcare is the government would be the Single Payer. That would involve two things. 1 how long and how difficult and convoluted it would be for doctor to get paid and 2 price controls on what doctors can charge. That of course would lead to mediocre-at-best healthcare.... Because it always does.

So, with all this apparent sophistication and availability of our present system, why is it that the US ranks 30th from the top in life expectancies for both sexes and cumulatively? Ill tell ya, we selecively ignore whole bunches of people and throw them under the bus medically speaking.
Then Congress (firmly in the pockets of businesses and big pharma) WONT let insurance plans negotiate drug prices.

I think youd see that our system of medicine ( has only favored those who can afford the bills. You either have to be financially comfortable or have worked for a govt entity to have medical insurance enough to cover catastrophic events. Lots and lots of people fall below the security line

Your "anti single payer" crap falls upon deaf ears when you look at our past results. You seem to give jack **** about our citizens.
And the GOP never ever has shown any evidence that they are developing a real health care system . I think the new president is coming to understand the several realities of how things work.

First. He is already being confronted by the reality that "King"coal wont be back, not because of the typical gop bs of "burdensome regulations" but because of market pressures. Gas is cheaper and cleaner and easier to get. Thats why NYC biggest power plant converted to gas earlier in the game. Hillary lost Pa by being honest, and Trump picked it up by lying to the voters. (Hes the PT Barnum president)

Second. If he wants to be president of "everybody" hed better not take several tens of millions of people off health insurance. I think this has dawned on him

Third. Hows he gonna pay for his whack at infrastructure?. I suppose when you tweet long and loud enough, slow in the head people think youve come up with a brilliant idea. (Even though the numbers dont seem to work out without additional revenue)

Fourth Hes already backing off his NATO crap.Hes making personal calls to EU and NATO country heads of state. Hes an ignorant fool when he has to be told to look at a neighborhood map of a resurgent Russia.

Your life expectancy figures are directly related to Lifestyle not the quality or availability of Medical Care here in the United States. This is the land of supersize fast food no exercise and obesity in children as young as 10 years old.

And as I have stated in the past I could give a rat's ass what Trump does I only cared about two things not allowing the Clinton crime family to take over the Oval Office and not allowing Hillary Clinton to stack the court with activist jurists. Whatever else Trump accomplishes as far as I'm concerned is just gravy.

Puhleeze. Now youre just making an additional argument for the fact that we have food deserts in poor neighborhoods where fast food is mostly what is affordable.

Youre only diggin yourself in deeper and deeper .

"Clinton Crime Family"--Obviously you dont know who Trump has been associated with in the past 30+ years.
I love it how these fact-free assertions are touted as Trump's "genius"

Hes a used car salesman whose got little talent other than hyperbole.

But he's not Hillary Clinton and that's good enough for me.

It may be that single payer does not work out, but what you stated isn't a necessary logical conclusion. See what I said in my former post about the amount of resources being harnessed equaling success or failure. You get what you put in.

Medicare seems to be a good example:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-medicare-medicaid-50-20150730-story.html

Cost is mentioned. It is pricey, but that isn't inherit in this system. The gov't can control this and perhaps it should. Health isn't like other things. Its not frivolous, its needed from birth through death. Single payer is one way to show we care for our society..

Food deserts? Laughable.
Clinton crime family: wait for it... subpoenas, plea bargains, federal prison...yea!
Talent? Beat out 16 other candidates and Clintons on a shoestring budget and played the media like a $2 fiddle.

seems that the only one whose "settled" out of court to prevent a trial during his administration is Mr Trump.
What more surprises do we have coming after the "Trump University Scam"???. Ill bet he cant wait for his inauguration so that hed be protected by the Constitution.

As a "retired cop" you seem to have either no knowledge or a personal disdain for the rules of evidence.