UT alum

So?

We can afford her insurance. If it weren’t for the Democratic Party there would be no social security to argue about. As for taxes, I paid in excess of $25K income tax for a good many years, plus matches for my employees’ social security for 30 years. Don’t whine about that to me.

What’d the IRS do?

The hypocrisy of the right is astounding.

I was referring to Trump, not Carson.

My wife has a pre-existing condition. For people like that, price is a secondary consideration. But for ACA, she’d have no coverage today, as we lost our group coverage when I retired.

Because he didn’t want to. Why should that bother you?

Metaphorically, yes.

No one has had to be forced. They volunteered. It’s called transparency. As for requirements, check Section 6103 (f) (1) and (2) of the tax code.

Carter, Reagan, Bush l, Clinton, Bush ll, Obama. Obama’s birth certificate was questioned only by those seeking to delegitimize his presidency, his successor being chief among them.

Thank you for your bravery in posting that in here. Kings have always despised courts and judges they could not control.

ACA was not disastrous and the money you refer to were Iranian assets frozen in our banks.

Frickin’ word police. I don’t believe defective is a pejorative.

He’s using the same tactic as climate change deniers. Around 92 or so percent of black people think he’s a racist, but you’ll believe the tiny minority of opinion if it makes your guy ( or issue) look good. I got to give it to him, though. He’s a prime grade toady

At least offer an alternative. Mass transit reduces traffic congestion.

He may not have, but he kicked Moscow Mitch’s ass in getting his signature piece of legislation passed after that relic swore his number one goal as majority leader was to make Obama a one term president. Trump can’t even level an effective insult at Pelosi, let alone work the house to get any of his legislation passed. He’s not effective. He’s defective.

And thus, the argument for civil discourse is refuted.

But I can admit a mistake. I got you confused with baddog. Sorry ‘bout that.

Or maybe I should use Trump’s defense and you’ll accept that. “I didn’t say it, and if I did, that’s not what I meant, and even so, you in the echo chamber will never give me the credit I deserve no matter what.” that work?

There are exceptions to rules. I was reacting to another post referring to Schiff as a dumbass citing something the poster obviously misconstrued. I know subtlety is not a Trumper’s strong suit, so I understand your taking all name calling as insulting name calling. You weren’t trying to make a point when you called me a fool. You just used an insult to make yourself look smarter. Big difference there.

I stopped calling people I disagree with names when I first put my big boy pants on long ago. That make sense?

Sounds like it’s necessary.

Obviously you did not. That is the exact point she made, and it’s truth is undeniable. Trump’s victory was tainted by that interference, just as Clinton’s would have been. I’m not talking just in our country, but across the world stage, which is where Putin is playing. The problem as I see it is that Trump cannot accept any depiction of himself as less than perfect, so he has to unwittingly advance the Russian agenda by questioning our election system and making himself some sort of a victim rather than acknowledging what the Russians attempted and vowing to do anything to stop them in the future. He continues to play into Putin’s narrative by alleging Putin’s enemy (Ukraine) tried to jack up it’s relationship with its ally (US) in an effort to weaken Ukraine’s newly established reform government. Read all of her testimony. You already believe the central premise of it.

A fool, you say? Is that really necessary? If it is necessary, then I understand better why you blindly accept Trump’s infallibility.