monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007. But fewer lacked coverage for the full year, and more did without for one or more months during the year. All three numbers are likely to be higher for 2008 due to massive job losses.
Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it, according to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. This is sometimes, but not always, a matter of choice.
Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that figure includes both those who are here legally and those who are not. The number of illegal immigrants who are included in the official statistics is unknown.
Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year, according to the Census Bureau. But this does not necessarily mean they have access to insurance. Even higher-income jobs don’t always offer employer-sponsored insurance, and not everyone who wants private insurance is able to get it.
Forty percent of the uninsured are young, according to KFF. But speculation that they pass up insurance because of their good health is unjustified. KFF reports that many young people lack insurance because it’s not available to them, and people who turn down available insurance tend to be in worse health, not better, according to the Institute of Medicine

Sure, but it really gained steam as of 4/15/2009 when it began to hold organized protests.

And the **** show continues into week three

Quote:

Trump leans on ‘fake news’ line to combat reports of West Wing dysfunction
The president appears especially irked by the growing narrative of Bannon as the real power in the White House.

Politico
But it is not as if we are surprised in this. Another three weeks and we ought to get to a nuclear confrontation with somebody.

Quote:

Sure, but it really gained steam as of 4/15/2009 when it began to hold organized protests.

Yes, as a movement against the ACA, not a movement against Obama as many leftists claim. I was at the Denver rally that year, I know what it was all about.

The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights, not group rights.

Mitch McConnell: Obstruction from Democrats ‘Has Reached New Extreme Levels’

And who makes up the militia? Individuals. And they have they right to keep and bear arms in connection with their role as potential militiamen.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Obama] did that because, I assume, there were two Iraqis who came here, got radicalized, joined ISIS, and then were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers,” she added.

...I am sure your next post would involve some kind of challenge to my manhood or something.

So the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment out of the Bill of Rights that applies to groups and not the individual?

No, it applies to individuals in relation to service in a militia. It doesn't give "the militias" that right, is says "the people".

Quote:

A county Republican official in Michigan has apologized for suggesting that there should be a crackdown on "violent protesters" and calling for "another Kent State."

"Taking a lot of heat for a very poorly worded tweet yesterday," Marquette County Republican Party secretary Dan Adamini tweeted on Friday. "Sorry folks, the intent was to try to stop the violence, not encourage more."

TPM
I love the "it was poorly worded" excuse. But it is a bit better than the more common version, "I was taken totally out of context". He also said:

Quote:

"Violent protesters who shut down free speech? Time for another Kent State perhaps. One bullet stops a lot of thuggery," he tweeted the same day.

Aside from somebody having the idea that Kent State had any positive social consequences or motivations at all, the thing to concentrate on here is his use of "violent protesters". In all the protests so far, whether those of a racial context or the more recent anti-Trump, anti-authoritarian sort, the proportion of protesters who were violent was exceedingly small. Where the violence is made the identifying marker of what has gone on (while all the rest is ignored) then the speaker is moving right into the sort of response/rhetoric which is absolutely typical of the authoritarian response.

McGentrix wrote:

Trump is giving the people back their freedom that the federal government has been slowly eroding away over the past 20 or so years.

Examples? You hear this all the time but I've lived here for the past 20 or 30 years — and more — and I really haven't noticed a decrease in personal liberties. I'd really like to know what freedom has been eroded.

And who makes up the militia? Individuals. And they have they right to keep and bear arms in connection with their role as potential militiamen.

No, it applies to individuals in relation to service in a militia. It doesn't give "the militias" that right, is says "the people".

Such a dick, this guy

Quote:

Mitch McConnell: Obstruction from Democrats ‘Has Reached New Extreme Levels’

mediate