GG

So where is the concern for policy and implementation. Quite simply, everyone is now recognizing that the moron Trump is not a passing phase. He's losing critical support among the GOP and the business community. He had very lukewarm support early on, because people who knew him and were worried about his ability to deliver held out hope that the pragmatist Trump would eventually take over moron Trump, and things would get done. That's now out the window, as moron Trump isn't budging. Won't be long now, as by the end of the month he will have alienated everyone around him.

Apparently their problem is that they talk too much. Can't have that in romper room.

If it were only the press that was after Trump, it wouldn't be a big deal. But when the man child can't keep his allies from getting hit with shrapnel, eventually all support will fade. A good scorecard to watch is when the Wall Street Journal turns on you. Then you should know it's time to pack your bags. Shouldn't be too long now.

Yeah but this particular idiot would even stretch those rules. If you were to design limited executive powers with Trump in mind, then you have to build in a time and place for romper room. It's time for adults to step in. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Has to be half intentional by now.

Because it's not a Deep State coverup, but a FoB coverup?

With all due respect to the defense attorney, but it certainly looks like source of funds can be used as a condition in a bail hearing

No, but after 17 years of the same argument most sane people walk away

Shadow Brokers got to you Joe?

That's if your assumption is that Trump fired Comey because he's afraid of the investigation, as opposed to firing him for taking up more camera time than Trump.

They were talking about him on WGR yesterday. His injury was very serious, and he's unlikely to see any activity until training camp at the earliest. I'd temper my enthusiasm.

No, he had it right the first time.

Because it is black and white, since there's a 100-year history that proves that ALL socialist models fail. You can cover your ears and eyes to pretend that Canadian & UK health systems aren't in crisis right now and will get worse as the population ages. To you and people who think like you, a victory is declared when coverage is miraculously provided to 100% of the population, quality of care be damned. Yet, the Denver Health is a classic example of the consequences. The hospital staffs up for more volume, basic care increases, but acute care gets worse. The worst part is that the true bad news won't hit for several years, because the hospitals and clinics can still function on equipment and facilities that they've invested in over the last decade. So in this period, everyone will sing happy songs about how great the new universal coverage is and how more people can see a doctor without worrying about the bill. And then you fast forward a couple of years after the best doctors leave socialized medicine and hospitals slow down their investments, and the old equipment starts breaking down. Suddenly, the next doctor's appointment is in six months and a visit to the specialist is in one year. No problem. You're covered by healthcare.

Not really. This is a taste of things to come as more medicine becomes socialized. You cannot provide sustainable high quality care in a universal health system. Which system would you prefer, wider availability for all and lower service for all or lower availability for all and better service for most.

Forward!!

Because Denver Health was a model of ACA investments and repercussions. Welcome to the side effect when you conscript doctors into national healthcare programs (note the dateline of the article): Denver’s historic safety-net hospital is scrambling to recover from a slew of doctor resignations.

I'm guessing the reason he's saying that he's not you is that he's one of the people who would go to the trouble of fact checking dubious points made in emotional op-eds, such as yours. Have you validated the data the linked op-ed made in defending ACA? Because if you did, you would know that the data runs totally opposite of what the op-ed is claiming.

A bit more info on the Lake Boyz - here, here and here

Look who you're asking this question.

I'm guessing it had nothing to do with a calculation that if Trump won the nomination then it would be a cakewalk for HRC to win the Presidency. And of course, instead of admitting a mistake and moving on, it's time to double down on a stupid strategy.

Yes we are because of new information about Huma and Lynch.

Comey was also leading the investigation into Hillary's emails, and this week more damaging news came out. So if you were to truly take partisan blinders off, which investigation can prove more damaging to Comey himself, and which investigation is at bigger risk of being compromised by the guy leading the investigation - Comey investigating HRC/Huma or new FBI Director investigating Trump?

If the reason they're losing is subpar QB play, you better believe there will be a move, especially since he passed on Mahomes.

How come nobody on the left is wondering why Comey's firing is on the heels of more disclosures about Huma's emails?

7 win season gives them a top 10 pick, which can be packaged with #27 to move into the top 5. Plus, if TT starts looking bad at midpoint, I have no doubt that McD pulls him for the line up to see what Jones & Peterman can do.