jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (59 posts)

Hillary Clinton and Congressional Investigations.

  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
    peoplepower73posted 3 months ago

    In a criminal  court of law, the presumption of innocence prevails until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a civil court of law, the defendant is innocent  until the preponderance of evidence proves otherwise. 

    In Hillary Clinton's myriad of congressional investigations, she is assumed guilty until proven innocent.  This makes the investigation open-ended and at the mercy of the Republican congress until they are satisfied.  They may never be satisfied and this farce could go on forever, while wasting millions of the tax payer dollars.  Instead, the Republican congress should be doing their job as lawmakers, not trying to prove someone guilty ad infinitum to the point of diminishing return.

    1. mike102771 profile image85
      mike102771posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      The idea of innocent until proven guilty died a long time ago. Today you are not even innocent after being found not guilty (just as OJ).

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Not a court of law of course, but when the head of the FBI reports over a hundred instances of criminal activity on her emails is there any doubt?  Can you possibly believe that the preponderance of evidence is not on the "guilty" side?  That she refused to follow internal rules dictating that ALL official business be on govt servers is also irrefutable.

      Much harder to say on the matter of "pay to play" because of the sensationalism and lies, but that preponderance is getting awfully close and even the "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't seem far off.

      The murders she is claimed to have orchestrated are nonsense at this point and will almost certainly remain that way.

      That she used political influence to sic the IRS on opponents is iffy, but definitely possible.  That she didn't know of the rigging of the DNC is beyond belief even if she didn't directly participate in it. 

      That she stole items from the White House is beyond any reasonable doubt; she returned much of it and paid for most of what she didn't return.

      Benghazi - that her actions caused the deaths is almost certainly false - the preponderance falls on her side.  That she made gross errors that very much contributed to those deaths is irrefutable whether she could have prevented them or not or whether those actions were to the level of negligence or not.

      And we should stop all investigations and let her go on the way she is?  I think not, any more than the lawsuits against Trump College should all be dropped.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Fascinating how after countless investigations and no charges you can say "guilty" yet there have been numerous occasions on these forums where you have vehemently defended alleged rapists and alleged murderers, including some where video of the offense is pretty damning. Seems contradictory to me, but perhaps you have a logical explanation?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          What about YOU?  Do you accept the word of the FBI that she put 100 classified emails on her personal server or do you think the FBI is lying?

          Do YOU think she stole furniture, etc. from the White House?  That someone else smuggled it back it and she voluntarily took the fall?

          Do you think she used a private server in violation of the rules for official emails, or did the FBI lie again about finding thousands of those? 

          That's evidence, IMO, and more than enough to keep me from voting for someone that thinks they are above the law.  A common thief for president, yet!

          Your reference to rapists and murderers, with phone videos that could have easily been tampered with - I defended none of them and if you go back and look you will find that.  I defended the system which we have in place to determine guilt, and I defended their right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Not once did I ever declare their innocence OR guilt until after a trial.

          Well, Clinton IS guilty.  Some by her own admission and others by the word of the FBI - a word that has not been disputed by either her or congress and that I accept as true unlike the friends and relatives of the "murderer".  The ONLY question is whether she is guilty merely of not following the rules everyone else has to, or whether there was provable, criminal guilt (the rules part is still being debated and she may still lose there).  What I heard was that the FBI gave the recommendation based on their interpretation that she had to do it intentionally and that is almost impossible to prove.  Personally I think it would be impossible - it would be against astronomical odds to have 12 random jurors in this country who were all willing to hand Trump the nomination whatever she did.

          That's like a jury I served on recently: 11 "guilty" votes, 1 "not guilty" because she didn't know the intent of the car thief when he stole it from the rental yard - she questioned whether he intended to return it or not and without knowing felt that she could not vote for auto theft.  Same theory behind Clinton's guilt - without the ability to read her mind some will find any excuse at all to find her "not guilty".

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Actually, I do believe she is guilty of most of those things to a certain extent. I also believe some of them have been blown way out of proportion.. Have you ever seen me spend much time defending her, other than against blatantly false assertions?

            I also think she has done a lot of good in her public service career and that she is intelligent, poised, and will do a fine job as POTUS.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              She certainly has the art of being a politician down pat.  And that's what scares me; she is all too willing to use her political power to further her aims, and I don't see her aims as being anything but personal power and gain.

              Her theft of White House silverware is a gnat...until we look at what it says about the thief.  That our First Lady tried to steal silverware is unthinkable. Her lack of concern over security probably did no damage...but the attitude that her personal convenience is more important to her than the security of the nation it is a different matter.  That such an attitude could sit in the oval office, privy to ALL the secrets of our country, is a scary, scary thing.  I probably don't take the security measures I should when online, but then I don't have the lives of 300 million people riding on it, either.  She did and likely will again.

              Trump has the same thing (bad attitude about some things), but without the power to make them happen.  And he has a big plus in that his election might send a signal that the American voter is tired of politics the way it is being played.  He is also coming to understand a little better the problems we face, just as Obama did.  His grandiose plans hit file 13 as soon as that understanding came and so are Trumps.  Reality is a mighty big opponent and will beat ignorance every time.

  2. peoplepower73 profile image89
    peoplepower73posted 3 months ago

    The last Benghazi probe, they found nothing new, but that doesn't stop Trey Gowdy, the republican head of the committee.  He wants more investigations.  When does it end?

    The emails have been cleared by the head of the FBI and the Attorney General, but yet the Republican investigation wants more emails turned over to them and wants them made  public, even though they have been changed from unclassified to classified.  When is it going to stop?

    As far as the white house silverware goes, many former first ladies have made the same mistake.  She returned the goods. Conservative Logic = Therefore she is never to be trusted as POTUS. 

    If she is guilty of criminal offenses then hold a trial, instead of Kangaroo Court.  So at least there is finality to this.  The republicans don't want it to end, because it is a wonderful propaganda tool to defame her.  The more people hear the same thing, the more their chances of believing it.  It's called brainwashing. Even if she gets elected, it won't end.  The republican propaganda machine will just continue to churn this stuff out.  There are people who still believe Obama was born in Kenya, because they don't want to accept the truth.  If they did, the machine would stop churning.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Extreme Leftist Partisanship  , that is where  the Attorney General , The FBI and Homeland security have evolved to in THIS media conferences .      Hillary's  treasonous trust issues  will defeat her and liberals know it well ! That is why  the New political face  of today is  built solely  upon  lies , images ,  false flags and  empty promise .

      Every word Hillary  even speaks is hollow and you know and except that .     Hillary may be the second or third female presidential campaigner , but the first one convicted like her own husband  of treasonous behavior ,   I see  her tried for  her felonies and disbarred  just like him after November .

      Leftists ,apparently ,  cannot  tell a truth from  a lie , or just don't care !  I say they don't care , it IS after all the greatest and most famous entitlement society  of  today ---so what are a few lies!

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "The emails have been cleared by the head of the FBI and the Attorney General,"

      They sure were...with a statement that she committed criminal activities.

      "but yet the Republican investigation wants more emails turned over to them"

      And you find this unreasonable, given that the FBI said her emails were illegal? 

      "As far as the white house silverware goes, many former first ladies have made the same mistake."

      Really?  Other first ladies are known to have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of things from the White House?  Who would that have been and do you think they, too, made a "mistake" stealing more furnishings than my whole home is worth?  (You do understand that coloring it by insinuating it was a mistake doesn't change that it was an intentional theft?)

      "If she is guilty of criminal offenses then hold a trial"

      Should have had a trial, yes.  Unfortunately the immense political power of the Clinton gang prevented that - Bill twisted the AG's arm and made sure it wouldn't happen.  Political power at it's best, and something we all like to see, isn't it?  Money and power can free anyone if they just have enough of it.

      "The republican propaganda machine will just continue to churn this stuff out."

      Do you think so?  We'll continue to have the FBI find that she has violated other laws, and continue to find more and more goods that she has stolen?  How long, do you think, before even the AG is forced to take notice?

      "There are people who still believe Obama was born in Kenya, because they don't want to accept the truth."

      Right.  They don't want to accept the truth.  That Hillary Clinton is a common thief that violates regulations and laws by using a private server to put not only government correspondence on but classified material our enemies might find quite useful.  The proof is made public and you go right on denying it.  You may be the last person in the country to do so, but you go ahead and pretend it didn't happen. 

      Here's the response to that attitude, from a died in the wool liberal:
      http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1376 … ost2834685  If you're right and we continue to find (and prove) further illegal actions you may lose even her, though.

      ahorseback is right this time - some people will deny the truth even after proof is given.  They don't care what she has done - her transgressions from minor to major, are to be ignored because...well, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason, but they will be ignored anyway.  So you keep on repeating she's innocent - somewhere you'll find someone that will call the FBI head a liar.

    3. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen." -House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

      1. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

        And now we have another one.  This time it is collusion of the Clinton Foundation with the foreign entities and Hillary as Secretary of State.  Or as Trump calls it "Pay to Play."  There is no bigger play to pay actors than the powerful lobby groups and congress.  Lobbyist working for big money interest and corporations  fund congressmen for their re-elections.  Congressmen then pass laws that benefit the lobbyist.  Congressmen then become lobbyist.  Who are the bigger Pay to Play actors?

        So far, they have not found anything criminal in the Clinton Foundation.  But that doesn't matter, because the republican party and now Trump and their blood hounds will not let go of this one either.  Why?  because as always, Hillary is presumed guilty until proven innocent, which she never will be, according to their game plan.  Talk about denial!

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Here is the real story about the Clinton's and the White House furniture.

          http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-s … furniture/

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Yeah.  The real story, from your link:
            "gifts that donors complained had been earmarked for the White House permanent collection, not the Clintons' personal use"

            "The statement offered no explanation for the apparent appearance of the gifts — which include sofas, a rug and a kitchen table with chairs — on both lists."

            Funny how the White House administrative staff (with constant contact with the Clintons) recorded the same "gifts" as the Park Service (not under direct orders or supervision) did, isn't it?

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          "Why?  because as always, Hillary is presumed guilty until proven innocent, which she never will be, according to their game plan."

          Or maybe it's because if you really DO look into she will be found guilty - as guilty as she is of using her private server in violation of regulations and the law.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness:  Then why isn't she prosecuted in a criminal court of law, if she is so blatantly guilty? Oh I know it's because she is so well connected to the elites.  After 30 years of trying to put down the Clinton's, why is there no evidence to bring her to trial?  In 30 years of criminal activities, including the murdering of Vince Foster, why isn't the evidence brought forward in a trial by jury?  Whey do we have to have these open-ended Republican congressional investigations where the accusers are in denial and are never satisfied with the outcome?

            Here is what FBI Director Comey said about her emails.

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … andal.html

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I gave you reasons she isn't being prosecuted, but I'll go over them again.

              1) In the opinion of the FBI, an intent to do wrong may be required.  That is the prerogative of the AG to decide, but she abdicated her responsibility and gave it to the FBI instead.

              (And here I'll give an opinion that it was already set up.  That Bill's visit was nothing more than an excuse to abdicate that responsibility and shove it onto a fall guy - Comey in this case.  He will take the fall for refusing to prosecute a known crime, not the AG.)

              2)It seems likely that pressure was brought on the AG (Bill's stupid visit) as well as the FBI (seemed to me that he went as far in stating the obvious that her actions were illegal as it was prudent for him to go).  I watched that report from Comey and it really did look like it was pulling teeth to get that "no prosecute" advice from him.

              3) If (if) intent is necessary to prove, it will be very difficult.  Given the financial and political resources of Clinton it is effectively impossible before a jury.  That doesn't mean it wasn't illegal, it doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous, it doesn't mean anything but that a jury will not convict regardless of guilt or proof.

              Your link bears this out: Comey waffled as much as possible, but the bottom line was "We should not prosecute because it's never been done and because no harm is known to have been done (meaning we don't know who hacked in and read that classified information).  This while the Navy man is rotting in jail for doing much the same thing. 

              As a reason for not prosecuting (it's never been done) it has to be the worst excuse (not reason, excuse) ever made.  Comey said there 110 instances of illegal activity, but we should not prosecute because it's never been done before!  And you don't think there is something a little shady going on here and wonder why "accusers are in denial"!  And all that doesn't even attempt to address the violation of procedure in using a private server for official business; just using it for classified information.

              I don't personally care whether she is prosecuted or not (although she DID violate the law 110 times that we know of), but she should absolutely have any security clearance revoked for life.  Punishment, without proof of any harm done, may not be the best road to take (although I will punished for speeding or DUI but causing no harm), but the attitude of "I can do as I wish regardless of requirements or laws" must not be allowed to continue.  Not with someone privy to all security information the nation has.

              I understand others are investigating those emails in reference to using a private server for official mail and refusing/failing to provide copies for future use.  We know she did it - will she get off again and, if so, what will it mean for the future of that particular rule?  I fully expect her to get off and I fully expect future violations (by others) to result in immediate discipline - do you have a prediction yourself?

              1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness:  Here is why I think, she is not prosecuted.  Because if they prosecute her, it sets a precedent to prosecute many others for their acts, like Bush, Cheny, and Rumsfeld lying about WMDs in Iraq.  Or Colin Powell and Condeliza Rice using their private servers for official business when they were Secretary's of State. And the same thing goes for Benghazi, because here is what Bush's score card is on foreign embassies.  You see this is all a big smoke screen  to use Hillary as the scapegoat because there is too big a risk of republicans losing control of congress Just wait until they start proceedings on Trump University.  That's why Comey said "

                "While Comey said the FBI had found evidence of "potential violations" of federal law, which allows prosecutions involving negligence, he concluded that "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" and that "no charges are appropriate" because of the lack of precedent for prosecutions of such relatively minor violations. Said Comey: "We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts." The FBI, Comey elaborated, had found no example of a prior prosecution ever having been brought in a classified-information case that did not involve intentional mishandling of material, "vast quantities" of mishandled information, evidence of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice."

                Using the corollary to your logic:  Just because they didn't find her guilty, does not make her guilty.

                Here is the link to Bush and Company:

                http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ssies-and/

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  You could be right, although I won't play the party patsy and say it's only the Republicans that might suffer as a result.

                  But you're funny: first it's that she is guilty of a crime but won't be prosecuted because of this or that.  Followed by "Just because they didn't find her guilty, does not make her guilty."

                  Face it and give it up, peoplepower: she is guilty of a crime, we know she is guilty of a crime and she will get away with it anyway.  Doesn't matter that she is Democrat; she is guilty in spite of that.  Doesn't matter that it will and is helping Trump; she is still guilty.  All the whining that she has been persecuted for years doesn't change her guilt.  Complaining that her stealing of White House furniture was an innocent mistake doesn't help: she is still guilty.  Your blonde goddess has feet of clay after all, whether the result is President Trump or not.  It's been rare, but I have defended Clinton (notable the murder claims, but other silly things as well) but not this time.  She is guilty, just as Comey said, and of considerably more than "carelessness".

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                    peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness:  I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to change my mind.  Let's just leave it at that.  The way I see it, Trump lies almost every time he opens his mouth. With the latest change in his campaign leadership, they are the puppeteers pulling his strings. He is changing his game plan, but Trump is still the same person that divided and conquered his opponents by using insults, defamation of character, and outrageous lies.  That is the soul of this man. He is a con-artist and will say and do whatever it takes to get himself elected. This is what he said to win the black vote.  This is the real Trump showing through.

                    "Look at how much African American communities are suffering from Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump? What do you have to lose?" he asked. "You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        It appears you can read that two ways. The less dastardly way would simply be that they fought to get the truth out to the public.

        1. IslandBites profile image85
          IslandBitesposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Suuure lol

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Oh. That's right. You can only see the worst if a republican speaks. I forgot. I'll rephrase. I can read that two ways.

            1. IslandBites profile image85
              IslandBitesposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Of course you can.

              That's why Trump is not so bad now. lol

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Let's think about this. Hillary has always been Hillary. I have never been willing to support her. She's a liar, a thief, a power hungry incompetent who has no right to the presidency. Or so I said prior to the beginning of the Republican nominating process.

                Then we were introduced to Donald Trump the candidate. Of course I wouldn't have supported Trump in the beginning. There were actually a few options of which one was somewhat palatable. Hillary was even worth another review.

                But, here we stand now. Evidence that the Democratic primary was rigged from the start. Evidence that Hillary put secret government information at risk because it was too inconvenient for her to safeguard it. And, the Republicans nominated Trump. What a pickle.

                Trump is the lesser of two evils.

  3. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    The whole party of the left is corrupted , when you think about it, theoretically  what's a little selfish  trading among those who favor graft , corruption , the mass spending   and illegal   taxation of our entire  society  based mostly on the ideology of the elitist , ultra-liberal ,  democratic party ?

    Hillary Clinton IS the perfect image of the party of taxation !   She's simply expanding on that theory of robin-hooding except " Taking from the rich and giving  to the poor "   ----Becomes  'Taking from anyone and keeping it for herself !"

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      ahroseback:  That's the best you got?  Aren't you even going to defend Trump on what I said.  Too bad all you have is your "theoretical" opinions and no facts.  You are becoming boring with blaming everything on liberals and the democrats. 

      All of congress is corrupt, not just the democratic party.  To use Trump's terms, they are in it for "Pay to Play." big time.  Who do you think has access to congress, not you and me?  It's the lobbyist that represent big corporations and big moneyed interests.  They donate mega bucks to congressmen for their re-elections campaigns, so they can get bills and laws passed that favor their interests, not yours and mine.  Many of those congressmen then become lobbyist and make the same megabucks.  It's a big revolving door.   Every three years, one third of congress is up for re-election.  The GOP is panicked this election cycle, because they are afraid they are going to lose seats because of Trump's big mouth and his actions.  This is not my opinion, this is fact. 

      The Pay to Play that Trump is talking about with the Clinton's is a smoke screen to divert attention from him and his campaign.  When it comes to taxes, where is his tax return?  The IRS says, it doesn't matter if they are in audit.  How about putting Hillary in front of a firing squad?  That's not getting any attention because he is creating a new normal, where he can say anything and people just look the other way. How about deporting 12 million people with no plan?  How about his top advisor working for the Russians?  How  about Trump University and a class action law suit?   Just look the other way and blame everything on the liberals and the corrupt democratic party.   Hillary has no law suites filed against her, just dumb a** republican party never ending investigations, that cost the tax payers mega bucks while they are looking for smoking guns.

      Trump isn't going to bring back outsourced jobs, because big corporations won't let him.  They want cheap labor from other countries to increase their bottom line profit. He says he wants to deport Mexicans because they are taking jobs from us. How many white people are going to wash cars, pick strawberries, make beds and clean rooms for the same money as the Mexican's?  It's called "division of labor."  How do you want your labor divided?  He has to raise taxes, because he has to create revenue to fund his programs.  Candidates can promise and pledged you the moon, but the elephant in the room is congress.  If congress doesn't want it.  It isn't going to happen.

      I know people believe Trump is the lessor of the evils, even with all of his ills.  Everything that Trump is putting out there is a smoke screen to cover up his incompetence at being a real leader of a free country.  He even has to be coached on how to act to get votes and he is even failing there.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        "How many white people are going to wash cars, pick strawberries, make beds and clean rooms for the same money as the Mexican's?"

        Instead of cherry picking undesirable jobs, how about choosing from the real world?  How many American citizens are going to frame up your new home, wire your dishwasher, fix your car or pave your street?  And the answer is "Lots".  The pretense that illegals only work jobs that Americans won't isn't worth the breath to say any more.  At one time, perhaps, but no longer.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          O.K.  Who is going to do those menial jobs, if those people are deported.  I will bet you dollars to doughnuts, most of them are here illegally.  There are people who are already out of work in the jobs you mentioned.  Here is your logic.  There are many illegals in this country who have jobs that legal people should have.  So we deport 12 million of them and then let them back in a little at a time as they are processed and qualified as legal citizens. Therefore, the people who were not working because there was no demand for them now suddenly becomes gainfully employed in the type of jobs you mentioned.

          Given:  We have a high rate of unemployment
          Therefore we deport 12 million illegal Mexicans (a)
          We build a wall and don't let them in unless they have proven they are legally qualified to enter.
          In the meantime, we still have high unemployment.
          But because 12 million Mexicans were deported, we suddenly have jobs for everybody that was unemployed (b).

          In your logic, b does not follow a.

  4. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    This is the best of Obama Care in action ,   dictated from high in the white house and  guaranteed to fail at the street level of medical company  profit gouging ,   Of course it helps that the CEO is the daughter of a U.S. Senator from  where   W.V.?

    Just one Democrat scratching the back of another Democrat !

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      ahorseback:  Are you referring to the Epi-pen price increase?  It's not clear what you are referring to.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Yes sir ,  I was listening to Brietbart news radio today .    This is the part of the medical industry that cannot be allowed whether through regulation , which it needs desperately or through  legislation  at least .

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          ahorseback:  So britebart says it is the fault of Obama Care, why is that, did they explain?  It is the fault of a monopoly by greedy and corrupt people who have bought up all the epi pens on the market and raised the price to un-affordable levels.  It's all about their bottom line.  It is free market enterprise in action without any regulations to stop them.  Welcome to the de-regulated market that you conservatives have always wanted.

          1. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Its what happens when you guarantee  extreme profiting for  the industry , BY mandating purchase  by the people or the people pay   penalties to the federal government ,    Unconstitutional !   Where does it say that  the feds must  control or  mandate  a people to purchase a product in the constitution ? Name one place .
            The five pillars   of   Socialism - one of which  is  "Control the healthcare of the people , you can control the people  ! Thank you Obama .

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Hey there ahorseback,

              Considering that the news is full of stories about healthcare insurers leaving the Obamacare market because of heavy losses, maybe you should rethink that "guaranteed extreme profiting" thought.

              The latest, (and I think largest), was Aetna's withdrawal after posting a $400 million+/- loss, ( I don't remember if that was a quarter or yearly figure). The ACA legislation did have provisions to guarantee healthcare insurers a profit, but there were caps, and the losses exceeded those caps. So no, it turns out there were not "guaranteed extreme profits."

              Just to keep this train on the tracks, I do think the ACA's passage was wrong. I do think a government mandate to purchase a product... or else, is wrong. And I also think your claim of guaranteed extreme profits is wrong.

              ps. you might also do a little research into the pillars of socialism. You will find articles declaring there are anywhere from two to ten, (three is the most common claimed), but, other than Breitbart -type made-up pillar definitions, no knowledgeable source includes healthcare as a pillar. You do understand the purpose of a choir book don't you?

              GA

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                When's the last time you were passed around between clinics for a cure  of a simple ailment  you had , in the seventies  ?    The Epi-pen is one small example of unregulated  medical profiteering  ,it's  immoral,    One doctor  visit turns into four , two or three prescriptions later ,   four co- pays  and  "Well  we'll just have to wait and see ",later   .      Tried to even call for an appointment lately ,    failure is here   and it's name is Obama Care .

                Underwriters ARE leaving the system .   They have been for three  years and more .  That's  what happens  when nanny governments dictate to a economy . Its a failed policy , a failed presidency  and a   failing health care system.

                How ever many pillars of socialism there were are hard enough to determine when the pillars have all collapsed- as they have elsewhere  .Obama-care will collapse as well , any research on socialism ;  is fully  viewed  by observing the government interaction with business  right here in America these days .   This industry desperately needs regulating . Price capping, profit -capping .

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  ahroseback:  I 'm sorry, but you have just criticized the tenants of free market enterprise and capitalism.  You have your ideologies mixed up.  Your conservative friends are the ones who revere unfettered capitalism without any regulations, because markets will regulate themselves.  So now you want regulations  That is a democratic, liberal ideology. Don't the conservatives always want to deregulate everything?  Don't they want smaller government (defund the nanny state) and let the markets seek their own level and privatize everything? 

                  Well we are now witnessing a case of where it becomes life and death and you want the government to step in.  Of course you and Mylan blame Obama Care  If health insurers had their way, they would jack up premiums to the point that  no one could afford them.  The insurance companies don't care about you and me.  They are all about risk to reward ratios and bottom line.  In California, we have Kaiser Permanente, It is not only an insurance company, but also a health care provider. Did you ever hear about that in the 70's?

                  Obama Care was supposed to be a single payer system like Medicare, but in order to get it passed by the Republican (do nothing, make Obama a one term president) congress, he had to compromise and settle for state exchanges. (By the way, compromise is not in the republican vocabulary.) Again, you can thank your conservative friends for that as well. 

                  What do you think Trump wants when, he says make it more like Medicare?  He wants to go to a single payer system and then make it look like it was his idea.  You have to stop listening to Britebart, they are brain washing you so that you can't recognize the difference between liberal and conservative values.

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    And in response to your Trump Bash ,  You would do well to recognize that he isn't the polished politician  that the others  are and will always be !      Of course he offends people , they do  need offending !    The only reason he would possibly have to  raise taxes would be to temporarily pay for democratic entitlements  he will end later .   

    Trump  , whatever you want to classify him as ,  is the anti-system  leader that we need right now .   He beat out sixteen other republicans  AND made them all break the promise that they made HIM sign  in the beginning .

    He can re-regulate industry  , how ?  , by lowering their federal taxes and regulating them into submission .It can be done and will be the incentive for them to repatriate  back to America .  he can create new law that makes it illegal to hire anyone but a legal citizen .   

    Seriously  ,  you too must feel the major distrust that  Hillary has sown among  the masses . Yet ideology won't allow you to chose an independent .

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      ahorseback:  I don't feel any mistrust because everything that is said about Hillary is right wing propaganda.  Including she will never be prosecuted because she is so well connected.  Wait until Trump goes to trial for Trump University.  We will see how well he is connected.

      Here is a reality check. Trump and Hillary and everybody else can promise the moon. But congress has to approve everything and it has to be funded.  The government has a budget.  It is income versus outgo.  How are all the wondrous things going to be done without enough revenue to pay for them?  Lowering taxes on the rich is Reagan's trickle down economics that never worked.  Because the money doesn't trickle down. Each president inherits the national debt of the previous president, whoever becomes president will start with a national debt of around 21 trillion and it will  go up from there. And don't tell me entitlements are the problem.  If you look on a pie chart of expenses, it is a tiny sliver compared to many other expenses, like defense spending that goes to defense contractors.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Your great leader raised your national debt  more than all of the previous combined presidents ! 

        Reaganomics  worked ! - ask Bill Clinton what caused his successful years , you are brainwashed to socialism , entitlements and the blind rhetoric of failed democratic  leadership !

        19 trillion of national debt dollars isn't trivial ?   And the thirty or forty  that it will be if Hillary wins is treasonous .

        Drink some more  cool -aid PP !

 
working