Trump has already set Washington University abuzz by bringing out 4 of Bill Clinton's accusers before the debate. Hearing many Republicans think that was a stupid thing to do, but we'll see.

Here we go.

Is Kathy Shelton going to appear?

I SO regret moving from STL. I was a student at WashU. Should be an interesting debate. I wonder if it could tip Missouri to the Democrats if Clinton steals the show.

"One on three. Thank you" LOL.

This debate will go down in history. Truly unreal

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

I guess you got a wax buildup in your ears when he talked about competition? LOL

Select hearing is a skill of the left, just like selective quoting

"Everything he just said was a lie! Go to HillaryClinton.com!!!"

777Jet wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

I guess you got a wax buildup in your ears when he talked about competition? LOL

Select hearing is a skill of the left, just like selective quoting

How does he plan to bring competition?

einsteinboricua wrote:

777Jet wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

I guess you got a wax buildup in your ears when he talked about competition? LOL

Select hearing is a skill of the left, just like selective quoting

How does he plan to bring competition?

Re-watch the debate.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

Wah? It was clear as day! You're gonna have great plans, unbelievable plans! So much competition! Just say the name!

777Jet wrote:

Re-watch the debate.

Classic. For a supporter, you sure are not informed.

MaverickM11 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

Wah? It was clear as day! You're gonna have great plans, unbelievable plans! So much competition! Just say the name!

You must be referring to Hilary's great plan to fix the wonderful Obamacare! LOL

einsteinboricua wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Re-watch the debate.

Classic. For a supporter, you sure are not informed.

I don't spoon feed.

Clear the wax out of your ears and just focus on listening.

777Jet wrote:

I don't spoon feed.

Clear the wax out of your ears and just focus on listening.

"I can't tell you because I don't know myself."

777Jet wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Re-watch the debate.

Classic. For a supporter, you sure are not informed.

I don't spoon feed.

Clear the wax out of your ears and just focus on listening.

You don't spoon feed? You don't do facts or reality either cuz you're not that bright booboo! Notice how you keep yapping nonstop and no one every responds to you? There's a reason.

777Jet wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump: "We have to repeal and replace it with something much less expensive"

OK...any details? No? Then that's not a proposal.

I guess you got a wax buildup in your ears when he talked about competition? LOL

Select hearing is a skill of the left, just like selective quoting

Saying "we'll have competition" isn't a policy proposal, it's a sound byte, friend.

The Republican Party has had 8 years now to come up with a plan vis-a-vis Obamacare, and we still don't even have an outline of one. But we know what Trump would do-strip coverage from everyone who has gained it, strip coverage from people with pre-existings, and let the insurance companies run wild.

One of the two leftist commentators on our leftist news channel ABC called the debate a draw, the other gave it to Trump by a small margin.

Good day, folks!

I've just watched the full debate on the CBC News stream on youtube.

Let me begin with the ending. The guy asked what the candidates respect in each other - a very good question, especially after all these vile happenings during the last few days. And yes, Trump really mastered that question. He said Clinton is a hard worker, does not quit, and she's determined (I'm not citing verbatim). And Clinton, moments before? She only admires his children! And drones on at length on her responsibility to create a future for the next generation! WTF? WTF???

She completely missed the point. Now, Trump may look like a generous man, always willing to hand out a sincere compliment.

Other things that got my attention:
- Clinton explained that her e-mail server was legal, there was no crime, blahblah. The point is: People never want to hear the truth. They don't want to hear a clarification on technical matters, on legality. They want to hear a sincere statement about the moral, not the legal issue. She's a lawyer by heart, not a human being.
- Trump derailed his own train of thought several times, and even flatly contradicted Clinton without giving any reason (e.g. Clinton saying that Russia and Assad were killing civilians, while Trump said that Assad and Russia were only going after ISIS). No, noooo, nooooo...
- It surprised me how calm Trump was, especially during the first half of the session.
- Clinton isn't convincing at all about overturning Citizens United. She's the candidate depending on corporate money, while Trump said his campaign is financed by small donations.
- Huh, Trump said he want to abolish Obamacare and create something less expensive, but yet covers all people. Is he thinking of NHS?


David

flyingturtle wrote:

I've just watched the full debate on the CBC News stream on youtube.

Let me begin with the ending. The guy asked what the candidates respect in each other - a very good question, especially after all these vile happenings during the last few days. And yes, Trump really mastered that question. He said Clinton is a hard worker, does not quit, and she's determined (I'm not citing verbatim). And Clinton, moments before? She only admires his children! And drones on at length on her responsibility to create a future for the next generation! WTF? WTF???

She completely missed the point. Now, Trump may look like a generous man, always willing to hand out a sincere compliment.

Trump did nail the ending. Hillary knew it with the look on her face.

I just finished watching the debate and I couldn't stop shaking my head... This was a presidential debate for the "most powerful country in the world"???

There was no inspiration or aspiration and a total lack of respect towards each other and the voters from both sides!

This looked more like a kindergarten debate in a third world country...

I watched the debate, my guess is that virtually no one changed their minds. The only movement I see is a couple % increase of white, college educated women moving towards Clinton. Trumps sniffing, snorting, and interrupting again on top of his sexual assault chicanery only works in favor of Clinton.

Well that was hilarious. I wish it was comedy.

flyingturtle wrote:

Let me begin with the ending. The guy asked what the candidates respect in each other - a very good question, especially after all these vile happenings during the last few days. And yes, Trump really mastered that question. He said Clinton is a hard worker, does not quit, and she's determined (I'm not citing verbatim). And Clinton, moments before? She only admires his children! And drones on at length on her responsibility to create a future for the next generation! WTF? WTF???

What do YOU admire/respect about Trump?

And here's another angle to look at the answer. Yes, Trump gets bonus points with that answer which was a very in-depth and honest answer. I respect that from him. But now he's provided Clinton with campaign material. Clinton sells herself as a fighter and her opponent just accepted that and said it himself. No way to walk it back now.

Something tells me there's something else brewing in the Trump campaign...is it possible that Conway is on her way out? On an interview with MSNBC she said that "she's with the campaign 'til the end...UNLESS..." and now she attempted to walk it back by saying "unless I'm needed by my family"...sure...that was VERY convincing.

LA Times judges claim Clinton won.

Kaboom

Donald Trump ends first debate: "She's got no stamina!"
Donald Trump ends second debate: "She never quits!"

einsteinboricua wrote:

What do YOU admire/respect about Trump?

Instead of Clinton, I would have answered with something along "Mr. Trump, you are rousing many, many people, you're truly shaping our country, even without being a president. You've left a huge mark on the GOP, and you've forced single-handedly all politicians to think hard about America's future."

einsteinboricua wrote:

But now he's provided Clinton with campaign material.

I don't see a great danger in that. IMHO the momentum is clearly on Trump's side by giving that compliment. Clinton doesn't need to be flattered, it's already normal for her to work hard and to be determined, and she has already built her prestige around that. But with Trump, who just a few days before commented on grabbing a furry animal of the family Felidae and gaining carnal knowledge from female subjects bound in marital union - it's a huge boost.


David

flyingturtle wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

What do YOU admire/respect about Trump?

Instead of Clinton, I would have answered with something along "Mr. Trump, you are rousing many, many people, you're truly shaping our country, even without being a president. You've left a huge mark on the GOP, and you've forced single-handedly all politicians to think hard about America's future."

That would actually be a point in his favor since it's akin to saying "I respect the fact that you've brought out such divisive rhetoric that I'm the only thing standing between you and the Oval Office". The answer should be about the other candidate, not yourself.

I think anyone would have struggled with that answer. The first thing that popped to mind was that he was a family guy, but his comments about the female genitalia coupled with the divorces is not exactly "family guy" material. I thought "well, he's a good businessman", but then bankruptcies come to mind. "He's a good American", but divisive rhetoric is not something to admire of an American.

flyingturtle wrote:

I don't see a great danger in that. IMHO the momentum is clearly on Trump's side by giving that compliment. Clinton doesn't need to be flattered, it's already normal for her to work hard and to be determined, and she has already built her prestige around that.

If I were in the Trump campaign, I would be looking for a way to minimize the fallout of that answer. There's no way to say that someone is low energy and low stamina throughout the year and then reverse in a debate by saying "she's not a quitter". Which one is it? Does she have the stamina or not?

flyingturtle wrote:

I don't see a great danger in that. IMHO the momentum is clearly on Trump's side by giving that compliment. Clinton doesn't need to be flattered, it's already normal for her to work hard and to be determined, and she has already built her prestige around that. But with Trump, who just a few days before commented on grabbing a furry animal of the family Felidae and gaining carnal knowledge from female subjects bound in marital union - it's a huge boost.
David

So, you wanna give him Brownie points because for ONCE he said something halfway decent? Is that how low the bar has been lowered for you to give the guy credit? I mean, an ant can't get under that bar, but you say it's a huge boost for him?

Uh, OK. I think you're out of your mind in thinking that. That one moment against everything he's said and done? Sorry, he doesn't deserve kudos for that.

I just deleted about half the comments in this thread due to various personal attacks. Please keep things respectful.

einsteinboricua wrote:

What do YOU admire/respect about Trump?.

I admire his confidence. Some might call it delusional - but to succeed you have to believe in yourself and your ability to do what needs to be done. Donald certainly doesn't demonstrate a lack of confidence in his ability to win.

I think Hillary blew it with her answer. At least she should have complimented him as a father for bring his kids up to be winners.

She has the experience as First Lady and as Secretary of State of having to deal with people a lot worse than Donald Trump, and say good things about them to their face. She used to be fast enough in such situations to come up with an acceptable response. Didn't do that tonight.

But I'm still seeing social media post for strong 'ABH' folks, who are talking about writing in another Republican's name, or just not voting. Donald has crossed the "Anyone Better than Hillary" line in the past few days.

Because every Republican who doesn't vote for Trump only increases Clinton's likelihood to win the Presidency.
-----------------------------------------------

Re: Healthcare

We all know that the ACA is a not a good healthcare program.

It is better than what millions of Americans had before, but with the insurance companies running the program, millions also have a worse plan.

Donald Trump knows that our country MUST find a way to provide quality healthcare for all Americans. It is simply unacceptable for a country with the economic power of the United States to accept that a third to a half of our citizens should be without health care.

When people say "We can't afford it" - they are really saying that the US is too weak and poor to take care of its citizens in need.

Trump has listened to the BS from the right/ conservatives - that competition will lower prices. How has that worked for you with your healthcare in the past few years?

The competition point is about reducing the amount of money your doctor gets to run his business.

Health care will never a point of sale/ price point driven - commodity.

There's never a reason to preface "Blacks" or "Latinos" with the word "the."

When you do, it's indicative of an issue with those groups. A serious one.

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

SOBHI51 wrote:

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

Actually, it sounds a bit like Russia. Or Nazi Germany. Fascism isn't limited to the third world.

This isn't the nastiest US Presidential campaign.

Yes, candidates have been threatened with jail, or hanging in the past. Hasn't happened in the past 50 or 100 years though.

Unfortunately, it's another item where Donald Trump doesn't clearly understand the powers of the US President. In our nation, a President can't order a person arrested. He has to have the Attorney General arrange for a prosecutor and a grand jury to see if an indictment can be won.

Trump isn't a lawyer, doesn't know the legal requirements to have someone arrested, much less the type of evidence necessary to win a conviction in a court, or the steps necessary to prevent such a conviction being overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct or executive influence of the process.

Hillary Clinton has worked as a criminal attorney and has experience with those things.

(Trump's statement about criminal aliens "On day one - they are gone." is an example. He won't have an attorney general on the day he would assume the presidency. There is a certain amount of paperwork necessary to deport someone. He can't just have the FBI go to prisons, drive people to the border and let them go free to cross into another country - Mexico or Canada - which is likely not their home country. Many of those criminals are doing time in prison in various states for crimes they committed. Setting them free in their home country denies their victims justice, and allows them to return illegally to the US to commit more crimes.)

DocLightning wrote:

SOBHI51 wrote:

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

Actually, it sounds a bit like Russia. Or Nazi Germany. Fascism isn't limited to the third world.

Now your friend pvjin will be on your back

rfields5421 wrote:

Trump isn't a lawyer, doesn't know the legal requirements to have someone arrested, much less the type of evidence necessary to win a conviction in a court, or the steps necessary to prevent such a conviction being overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct or executive influence of the process.

I don't think Trump is as misinformed as you say. This is a case where it is necessary to keep in mind the difference between (misinformed), a liar and a bullshitter. A liar distorts the truth, a bullshitter has no interest in the truth.

Trump is playing to his audience, it's all for show. He knows what they like to hear.

SOBHI51 wrote:

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

You repeat the question; I'll repeat the answer because I think it needs to be said:

This reminds me very much of the Joe McCarthy era. As a US senator McCarthy actually did launch investigations into hundreds of people and destroyed many of their lives and careers. His Schtick was anti-communism but really it was about cynical self promotion, much as Trump's charges against Hillary are today.

Joe McCarthy's attorney was a complete sleazebag named Roy Cohn, a person absolutely devoid of ethics. Later in his life Cohn served as an attorney for Trump.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... thy-213799

rfields5421 wrote:

Trump has listened to the BS from the right/ conservatives - that competition will lower prices. How has that worked for you with your healthcare in the past few years?

The competition point is about reducing the amount of money your doctor gets to run his business.

Health care will never a point of sale/ price point driven - commodity.

In 1958, the per capita health spending (all-in, including insurance, government programs etc) was $134. A worker earning the average wage in 1958 ($1.98) would have had to work 118 hours—nearly 15 days–to cover this expense. By 2012, per capita health spending had climbed to $8,953. At the average wage, a typical worker would have to work 467 hours—about 58 days. Obamacare's passage has not reversed this trend. And obviously that burden becomes even more onerous for those who earn less than average. The same thing happened with higher education. And if flies in the face of the price of just about anything else that you could buy back then and today - generally prices go down over time, in real terms.

What changed in the past half century? The microeconomic change is a steady increase in the percentage of medical costs paid by a third party (whether the government or an insurance company). The percentage of medical costs paid directly by the patient is now below 11%. The Macro change was a steady increase in the influence and financial support from the government. Whenever you have the government mandate healthcare at a high level (such as Obamacare did), and/or government funnels in massive amounts of money into a private industry, the industry will always respond by raising prices. We saw the same thing with the price of university education. Once college loans were made very easy to get and not just for the poor, the supply of money skyrocketed, and universities started raising their tuition - even faster than the increase in the cost of healthcare.

I don't doubt the good intentions of those who want government to help those in need, whether it be for healthcare or education or anything else. But good intentions cannot overcome basic economic laws - if you third-party subsidize something supplied by private industry, the price will go up. There can be no argument on that point - it happens EVERY time. Government can double or triple the subsidies over time, hoping to "ensure healthcare/education for all", but the prices will keep spiraling up.

Today you can still call around and get a doctor's appointment with no insurance and the average price of that visit is $160 (varies from place to place). http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases ... price.html . Assume for a moment that there were no insurance companies, no Medicare, Medicaid or any other such programs. Everyone had to pay for their healthcare costs themselves. I would be you that the cost of that same doctors' appointment would be a whole lot less. $50 maybe? Perhaps even less. Supply and demand - Doctors simply would not be able to get enough customers if they raised prices any higher. Of course a lot of poor people would still not be able to afford it, and I am not suggesting that's what should be done. I'm just trying to illustrate the mechanism at work.

The only way I know of to eliminate the problem of price increases in the face of subsidies is single-payer. All the hospitals become the property of the government, and every doctor becomes a direct employee of the state. Same with universities - all become federal entities. Governments can keep costs under control by mandating that a Neurosurgeon can only make, let's say, $150K per year, and control all other aspects of its budget.

Of course it would also have to allocate services in accordance to its budget. There are plenty of examples in other countries who have gone this route on how well (or badly) that works. Governments are generally not very good at running anything efficiently or well - and that becomes more true the bigger the government is. I would much rather a health system managed by the State of Indiana than by the Federal government.

But it does raise another issue - related to the whole concept of American Exceptionalism. Once you hand over your entire health system, education system (an who knows what else), We the People are no longer sovereign - we become subjects of the government. That's the kind of thing that is typical in the rest of the world, but the US was supposed to be different - and was indeed different, up until the last couple of generations ago.

Leftists here will scoff at this concept - they have no interest in being sovereign, and want government to take care of us. They should recognize and respect however that not everyone feels like this.

Hillis wrote:

Saying "we'll have competition" isn't a policy proposal, it's a sound byte, friend.

Actually, he was quite specific, talking about allowing companies to compete across state lines, something that doesn't happen today.

If you're even an amateur student of economics - or hell, even just a consumer in general - you'd know that with competition, prices fall.

Happened in telecommunications.

Happened in electronics.

Happened in automobiles.

Happened in aviation.

The only major industry where government-mandated suppression of competition hasn't yet been undone is in healthcare. Unshackled from those restraints, you'll see costs go down, enabling companies to still have plans - for a lot less than they are today - that cover all pre-existing conditions, no maximum limits, and so on.

Dreadnought wrote:

Leftists here will scoff at this concept - they have no interest in being sovereign, and want government to take care of us. They should recognize and respect however that not everyone feels like this.

The notion that "leftists" have no interest in being sovereign is exaggerated. A demand that Government provide a service is not giving up sovereignty. On the contrary, it is an expression of it. We demand, not we humbly beg. There is a difference and there is always provision for oversight and accountability. I believe that the difference between "left" and "right" is less about sovereignty and more about the balance between public and private provision of essential services.

But your illustration of health is useful. It shows the pressure to increase prices for a commodity (health) when there appears to be a subsidy. However much that may be true, it is not just the fact that health (as a commodity) is subsidised but that the actual costs are increasing due to changing technologies and demographics. This is true regardless of whether the providers are state-owned or privately operated. Countries that have an ageing population will typically have greater demands placed on the health service providers. Illnesses that were not treatable a few years ago now are, and procedures that were not possible are now routinely performed. I don't see that changing in the near future.

EA CO AS wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Saying "we'll have competition" isn't a policy proposal, it's a sound byte, friend.

Actually, he was quite specific, talking about allowing companies to compete across state lines, something that doesn't happen today.

If you're even an amateur student of economics - or hell, even just a consumer in general - you'd know that with competition, prices fall.

Happened in telecommunications.

Happened in electronics.

Happened in automobiles.

Happened in aviation.

The only major industry where government-mandated suppression of competition hasn't yet been undone is in healthcare. Unshackled from those restraints, you'll see costs go down, enabling companies to still have plans - for a lot less than they are today - that cover all pre-existing conditions, no maximum limits, and so on.

healthcare isn't a marked it is a necessity.

Dutchy wrote:

healthcare isn't a marked it is a necessity.

Food is a necessity as well, but there's no law preventing companies from selling food across state lines, competing on price, etc.

But like food, there IS a market for it, and market economics come into play. Try again.

EA CO AS wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

healthcare isn't a marked it is a necessity.

Food is a necessity as well, but there's no law preventing companies from selling food across state lines, competing on price, etc.

But like food, there IS a market for it, and market economics come into play. Try again.

Give me 3 markets were healthcare is really functioning like a marked.

Dutchy wrote:

Give me 3 markets were healthcare is really functioning like a marked.

Laser vision correction
Orthodontia
Chiropractic

Health insurance largely considers these either fully or partially elective in nature, so it's either only covered to some degree, or not covered at all. As a result, especially with laser vision correction, customers are fully out of their own pocket. Competition in the market resulted in new, improved techniques, faster turnaround times, and dramatically lower prices.

Shall I go on?

rfields5421 wrote:

I think Hillary blew it with her answer. At least she should have complimented him as a father for bring his kids up to be winners.

Isn't that precisely what she did? After her first laugh at the question of what she respected about Trump, she replied, “I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald. As a mother and a grandmother it is very important to me. I don't agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but I do respect that.”

If that isn't complimenting him as a father, I am not sure what it is.

delete...

EA CO AS wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Give me 3 markets were healthcare is really functioning like a marked.

Laser vision correction
Orthodontia
Chiropractic

Health insurance largely considers these either fully or partially elective in nature, so it's either only covered to some degree, or not covered at all. As a result, especially with laser vision correction, customers are fully out of their own pocket. Competition in the market resulted in new, improved techniques, faster turnaround times, and dramatically lower prices.

Shall I go on?

Let me be more specific, hospitalized healthcare, healthcare which cost a lot and thus doesn't come out of the pocket of the people whom benefit from it. So 3 countries where that works.

Dutchy wrote:

Let me be more specific, hospitalized healthcare, healthcare which cost a lot and thus doesn't come out of the pocket of the people whom benefit from it. So 3 countries where that works.

May I ask what this has to do with my point that Trump ably answered the question of how he planned to improve the current U.S. healthcare system over the colossal failure known as the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" ?