Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

The thing about the reporter is also quintessential Trump. It's ticky-tack shit, but his campaign manager clearly grabs her and does so with considerable force. It should be nothing. She raises with it with Trump, probably wants some sort of apology -- probably settles for off-the-record -- and it goes away..."Hey, didn't realize I grabbed your arm so hard, my bad."

But the notion of Trump apologizing for anything or acknowledging any wrong is preposterous. So, instead it's a total smear job on her -- she gets fired. And NOW she's pissed. And now you get charges -- the DA would never file them if she didn't file a complaint.

All of this could have been so easily avoided with even a modicum of basic human decency and/or a measured response. But that ain't Trump.

[iam416]

LOL, Hanni. Let's see him be "presidential" under duress. Jim Harbaugh is more likely to ignore a veiled anti-M tweet.

Giving a speech...whatever.

Anyway, it is what it is. I'll retain my Independent card a little longer.

[Hannibal]

Trump doesn't grovel and throw his campaign manager under the bus for a bullshit incident. More Republicans should follow that example. But they don't, and that is why they will continue to lose.

[iam416]

Yeah, that's what it is. Your about 3 "cuck" usages short in that post, BTW.

[Mike]

Hanni, if Lewandowski doesn't know a who a beat reporter is from one of the most far right slappy news sites, then he's at least really bad at his job.

[CGVT]

I would go as far as considering Nationalizing it if regulatory approaches proved to be ineffective.

This is where we need to go with health care. I doubt that we will see it any time soon, however.

[Da Geezer]

Mike:

Here is what Michelle Fields actually wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/10/3276486/

She clearly said that she was almost thrown to the ground. And Hanni is correct about how the story changed when the video came out. Further, the other reporter, Terris, had an audio recording of the event and was setting up to say that Fields had almost been pulled down.

Only Politifact seems to think that "pulling down" was not part of her original story. I want to see her say under oath that her bruises were caused by Lewandowski. The question is: Does the video look like she was pulled down?

[Hannibal]

LOL, Hanni. Let's see him be "presidential" under duress. Jim Harbaugh is more likely to ignore a veiled anti-M tweet.

Giving a speech...whatever.

Anyway, it is what it is. I'll retain my Independent card a little longer.

Then tell me what you define as "Presidential" mode. You said he doesn't have one. If you define it as "dignified and elegant", then I disagree That speech is one of many examples. The press conference that he gave on his jet a couple of days ago is another one. He has been talking for a few weeks about uniting the party to defeat the Democrats. But he should have gone there a long time ago. He should have dropped the "little Marco" and "Lyin Ted" crap a long time ago. Maybe your argument is that he will never be able to stay there consistently because he has the wrong temperment? You might be right about that, unfortunately. It takes a certain kind of personality to break taboos and offer up politically incorrect truths, and that makes it a double-edged sword. That's one area where I think that working the establishment to find a happy medium would have helped him tremendously but that ship has sailed.

[Mike]

Geezer, thanks for that. Additional info is always welcome. It seems she's making a mountain out of a mole hill but the Trump campaign's response has been ridiculous as talent so aptly points out. They should heed Don Canham's advice to never let a one day story turn into a two day story.

[iam416]

Hanni:

I guess I view "Presidential" mode as most clearly illustrated as behavior under adversity. How do you respond to crisis? How you respond to critics? How do respond to fair/unfair accusations?

Our current President's mode is generally understated calm or, if in response to critics, condescending mockery -- but, nonetheless, in an annoying matter-of-fact tone using some for of factual + demagoguery approach -- as the situation warrants. As I said, it annoys the shit out me, but I'd still say it's at least in the "Presidential" ballpark.

I've yet to see anything...and I mean literally anything...that suggests Trump will handle these types of situations in a way that I find "Presidential." To anyone "surprised" by Trump's handling of Mrs. Cruz -- why? That's EXACTLY WHO HE IS. Have you not been paying attention?????

I think I've given him a fair chance. As I said, I support a number of the things he's pushing and I would appreciate his value if he ended up being an issue candidate that didn't win the nomination but left his mark on political discourse. As an aside, Perot, as batshit crazy as he was, was sort of like this -- he made a "balanced budget" an issue and the Rs picked up the ball and ran with it. They ignored him on NAFTA. Anyway, if that's all he was, I'd like his candidacy. But he's going to the nominee. And I really think he's ill-suited for the job. There is, IMO, no "other Trump" waiting around the corner. There's no Dignitary Trump waiting to surprise us all. We've seen what we're getting.

JMO, Hanni.

Also, as another aside -- I do think it's ok to own up to one's mistakes w/o being "weak" and handle non-issues discretely and professionally w/o being weak.

Anyway, I have two beliefs now: (1) it would be better for Trump to lose in Cleveland; and (2) if he's the nominee he will get beat badly....by a bad candidate.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I think he looks very Presidential....not Donald...Homer...

[Da Geezer]

Jeff said:

What is driving pricing is unrestrained profit motivation and competition among them on the part of health care delivery entities. You fix this be redesigning the delivery system at the patient care level. I would go as far as considering Nationalizing it if regulatory approaches proved to be ineffective.

First, regulation by the federal government is partial nationalization. There is a virtual monopoly in health care insurance in most states, certainly in Michigan.

Further, as someone much closer to death than you, rationing does not hold the appeal that it once did. That is what the "death panel" is about.

Controlling health care delivery has always been a primary goal of the socialist/communist agenda. Both China and Russia clearly stated that it was paramount in controlling the populace, as did Castro in 1960. When someone disagrees with the statists, that person is simply sent to a mental hospital as part of their "medical" care. There is currently discussion of prosecuting anthropogenic global warming deniers. Perhaps they are just mentally ill and need hospitalization.

The best reason not to have government be the monopoly provider of health care is human liberty. The idea that there were millions of folks not getting health care before the ACA is one of the great lies of the Act. Where I live, it is about a 40% poor population. When the poor, be they legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen, would need health care, they would go to the hospital and receive immediate treatment. They would then be billed, and would often not be found. The resulting loss to the provider was then passed on in higher costs to those who were insured, and this was reflected in higher health care insurance premiums. The health care of the uninsured was paid for by the insured. As far as transfer payments are concerned, that was an honest and transparent system. With national health insurance, there is no way of accounting how much of the taxes people pay is actually going to health care, and that is a substantial problem.

I've never met a person who was denied care in an ER because of their economic status.

[Hannibal]

Hanni:
Anyway, I have two beliefs now: (1) it would be better for Trump to lose in Cleveland.

Unfortunately, I"m starting to feel that way too, even though as Oracle accurately pointd out, I am a Trump slappy. And it's not because I hate Hillary -- I really don't. It's because an election that involves Trump will be intepreted as a referendum on Political Correctness (essentially) and if he loses then certain subjects will be off limits in politics forever.

[iam416]

To be clear, I think it would better FOR TRUMP if he lost in Cleveland. I think it would also be way better for his causes, too -- one of which we share very much the same thoughts on.

[Mike]

Geezer, uninsured people showing up to the ER and having that cost spread out amongst the insured was/is part of the problem. It's not a solution.