Magox

This is exactly correct and not a surprising find: People tend to have irrational fears and behaviors towards those that they don't know. Often times, they hear about anecdotal accounts and cherry picked stats to form their opinions that get replayed over and over and over through their preferred echo chamber bullhorn. The economic malaise of the blue collar folks aren't caused by illegal immigration, not one !@#$ing iota.

From your article and I've been saying this for years.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe it is a 25M cap hit for 2017, I think it would be somewhere closer to $17-18M

Oh, she had nothing to do with it?!? Well, that settles that.

It's hard to guard against systemic failures in the economy. Fear can create an avalanche of funding recalls from both creditors, guarantors and retail clients. How do you protect yourself against a run on a bank? Sure, higher liquidity standards can help offset some of the risks, but if everyone wants their money back, then what do you do? So the question for me is what could create the next systemic breakdown? 07/08 was due to a number of reasons, and from my view the seeds of the crash were planted well before the run up to the events that followed. GG and I disagree on this. Having said that, from my view the biggest risk would be some sort of sovereign default, where the Germans decide to say !@#$ it, I'm done with this bailing out ****. I don't believe that would come from responsible lawmakers but from a new populist led government. So, a few things would have to happen, A) A populist government would have to come in power in Germany and B) Some of the southern European governments would need to default while their neighbors sit idly by while the whole damn house burns down, including their own.

I have no problems with subsidies for lower-income folks. When I say unfairness, it's because that premiums in many areas have more than doubled since the ACA, and if you are a middle aged couple who lives in rural America and you have a combined income of $65,000, your health insurance premiums are most likely going to be well north of 1000 a month with a high deductible HMO plan. PreACA they had the option to purchase a comparable deductible Max Out of Pocket plan for close to half that price. How is that fair that a couple who played by the rules are their lives, now has to pay a premium for crappy health insurance that will practically financially break them, and a couple making $20,000 a year can get a benefit rich plan that is 10 times better with practically no deductible for less than $50 a month? Is that fair?

Because it's bigger news when the Republican nominee suggests/jokes/insinuates (whatever you want to call it) that assassinating the Democratic nominee is something worth pondering aloud. Even if you want to contort yourself into a knot attempting to explain what he meant to say, it doesn't matter. He once again demonstrates that he cannot help himself. A disciplined candidate would be shredding Hillary with the email and foundation stuff, but he simply cannot allow someone else to be in the spotlight, even if it is to his benefit.

What TF happened there?

Not all "moderates" are alike. Some moderates are moderate in temper and others are moderate in fiscal policy. Trump's "moderate" supporters in the primaries are moderate in fiscal policy but batschitt crazy in temperament.

Well, I should hope so. If you are providing more coverage to more people, the end-result should be a healthier population. That in my view was never really what was at the crux of it all. The issues were A) Unfairness of the law to people who have to purchase health insurance through the individual market who don't qualify for subsidies. B) Significantly higher overall premiums C) Mandating people to purchase a service through a private provider. D) Drag on small to medium businesses E) Paternalistic douchebaggery of mandating certain benefits for "approved" plans by the government. F) The overall cost of the ACA and an overall cost benefit analysis of whether or not it was worth it. (If it stands as is, then no) G) Taxes taxes and more taxes H) The bill does next to nothing to address skyrocketing medical costs I) No reforms for the drug making industry. It is practically criminal what the drug makers are doing.

Of course the media would do this. He is ratings gold and from their perspective one of the easiest possible candidates for their more preferred candidate to pummel. One of the most interesting turnarounds I've ever seen in the media comes from the Morning Joe show. Joe, at heart is a populist. So I do believe he truly was in the tank for Trump, during the primaries he on a daily basis shredded Rubio and not quite as often Cruz while incessantly propping up Trump. What I found to be curious was how much Mika also talked him up. It got so bad that many people in the media roundly criticized and mocked them for doing so and tagged their show as the Morning Trump. Now it makes more sense, Mika all along pulled a Claire McCaskill and was doing her "duty" for the Democratic party. To say that they've done a 180 on Trump would be a massive understatement. Joe on the other hand, is a Republican. I think he did his complete turnaround on him because A) he's banging Mika and she whispers sweet silent nothings in his ear at night and B) That's what their viewers want to see and at the end of the day that's what he'll do. In any case, this race from my perspective is almost over. Trump needs to have something shake up the race, he either needs to have a great debate or something needs to come out and hurt Hillary. In regards to the debate, say what you will about Hillary, she's a solid debater. Knowing Trump and how ****ty of a debater he is and how the media is absolutely locked in on Trump with the sharks swirling around, I don't see that being a turning point for him.

What's the story, that he has been a Democrat and a Hillary supporter for a while now? No, the story is that Trump is a buffoon who steps into the Democrats traps on a near daily basis. And you know what? The Democrats have a legion of operatives posing as everyday citizens who will be people that the general public will sympathize with because of their backgrounds who are going to go on the attack against Trump. And you know what? Trump is going to take the bait every !@#$ing time and continue to punch down and bleed support. He can't help himself.

I have no problems with public and private partnerships the problem is the delivery system, execution and how contracts are distributed. This is where the best and brightest minds from the private sector can play a role for the government. Obviously, the main incentive for them to stay in the private sector is that the government wouldn't be able to come close to matching what they could earn if they stayed put, however I do believe that many successful entrepreneurs in the tech and other groundbreaking sectors motives for heading such projects for the government would be more of a civic duty than anything else. If they were to be approached by the president and he told them that he'd elevate and in a sense market their arrival and acceptance of such a role, I'd be willing to bet you that really competent and creative people would take such a task. The problem today is that bureaucrats are usually in charge of these things rather than the best of the best.

Oh, did you know that Trump is leading Ayotte in the polls in N.H?

This is the more plausible answer. Breitbart is the Dailykos (on steroids) of the (new) right. On a side note, this Trump campaign has devolved from a **** show to a **** storm.

Striker abused him

That's right. But there are two points worth adding to that analysis: 1) No Republican would have anything but a narrow path to the presidency in 2016 and 2) Trump's path — as outlined by the Times — to get to 270 electoral votes and the White House isn't implausible. At all. {snip} For all of the worry about the Blue Wall and Trump's historically poor numbers among Hispanics, the path laid out by the Times for Trump to get to 270 electoral votes is entirely plausible. Here's what the electoral map looks like if Trump wins those three states and nothing else changes from the 2012 election. (You can make your own maps with our cool tool!) That map gives Trump 273 electoral votes to Clinton's 265. He wins. It's not crazy, right? Now, Florida and Ohio have gone for President Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections. And no Republican has carried Pennsylvania at the presidential level since George H.W. Bush in 1988. That said, polling — at least as of today — suggests that Trump is very much in the game against Clinton in all three. Whatever shot he has, the best path for him is through the rust belt.

More often than ours.

Maybe he could say that he could shoot people in the middle of fifth avenue and then boast that his supporters are so brainwashed that they'd still support him.

They are literally checking off all the boxes.

Haha I could see him doing this

I think some liberals are feeling jealous about that I think we all know where I stand with Trump. Cruz has a right to feel the way he does, but this is Trump's coronation and Cruz knew what he was doing. If he didn't want to play ball, just stay home. Maybe. That's the bet, Cruz hopes that Trump loses in a landslide (that's the only way it could work for him) and that Cruz gets to say "I told you so" and goes on from there. I don't know how it will play out, my guess is that people will look to the more traditional electability traits after this shitshow is done with. He is as many of has said for a while now a big, strong government proponent and only he can fix our problems. On a side note, I'm glad that there was an inclusive message for the LGBT crowd.

Cruz just couldn't help himself, could he?

That is laughable that by some this is being compared to Tiananmen square. Puuhleeeeaseee

This guy has a knack for foreseeing these sort of things.