heybruce

Let's assume for a moment that Trump is being targeted for prosecution just because he seeks the highest elected office in America. Good. People seeking such office should be scrutinized diligently, and if such scrutiny shows they committed crimes they should be made an example of through aggressive prosecution. That would let ambitious criminals know that if they want to keep their affairs secret they should not seek public office. It's for the good of the nation. Don't you agree?

How much are they paying? Health care cost in the US is close to 20% of GDP. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/. Logically one would expect the average American to pay close to 20% of their income for full coverage insurance. That's a ridiculous amount, but the US has ridiculously expensive health care. The obvious solution is to adopt the kind of universal health care other wealthy nations have.

“seriously looking at alternatives” He was "nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law" almost seven years ago. Now he's “seriously looking at alternatives”. Seems like he's going backwards.

You put your faith in editorials (opinions). I have greater faith in credible news based on actual analysis: "In America the Affordable Care Act (aca)—which was introduced in 2010, at about the time costs tailed off—tightened up the ways in which the government reimburses companies that provide treatment. The aca also made it more difficult for doctors to prescribe unnecessary treatments (seven expensive scans, perhaps, instead of one cheap one) in order to make more money." https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/26/how-health-care-costs-stopped-rising

A lot of irrelevant whattaboutism. I'll focus on the only pertinent part: "The Myanmar government does not like Washington, and they also don't like Beijing. Hence, Myanmar has not been flooded by Chinese tourists, unlike Pattaya, Pattaya has been flooded with Chinese tourists." The second part is easy: How many tourists of any nationality visit a country in an active civil war. The Myanmar generals definitely like both China and Russia. "The report, which used trade data and spanned more than 50 pages, listed $406 million in sales from Russian entities and $267 million from China, including some state-owned companies." .... "In response to a request for comment from CNN, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the special rapporteur of going “beyond his own authorization to smear normal military trade of sovereign countries without warrant, distorting facts and confusing the public.”" https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/world/un-myanmar-report-military-junta-deadly-arms-sales-russia-china-intl-hnk/index.html Is the US selling arms to Myanmar?

Try using the accepted definition of infrastructure.

"Let's get a veteran that worked at the DMV for thirty years, the last five as a supervisor and run them for President, should be perfect, yes? " One of us is lying. My first post on this topic stated: "Anyone who does not understand the nuclear triad, survivable second strike capability and Mutually Assured Destruction has no business even considering becoming Commander in Chief. The world is very different from what it was over two hundred years ago. Unfortunately people aren't any smarter; in many ways they seem dumber. Many are unaware, and refuse to believe, that the President has the unchecked power to launch nuclear weapons." "I don't want an amateur with no government experience holding that power." You replied with: "Let's get a veteran that worked at the DMV for thirty years, the last five as a supervisor and run them for President, should be perfect, yes? " Where did I post that military or government experience is the only criteria? Where did I mention the DMV? Do you think the Presidency is not complex? Do you think people who have are clueless about nuclear weapons, strategies, capabilities, and treaties should be Commander in Chief of the US military? Why do you think it's not necessary to have military or government experience to hold such a job? Also, why do you think wanting a person holding the top job in the US government to have government experience is leftist? You have a ridiculously broad definition of "leftist" if you think requiring experience for a difficult and extremely consequential job is leftist.

I explained that I had confused your post for that of impulse after you jumped into a back and forth he and I were engaged in. I also apologized for the mistake. There is a difference between a lie and a mistake. After I posted that only people with government or military experience are qualified to be President, you posted "Let's get a veteran that worked at the DMV for thirty years, the last five as a supervisor and run them for President, should be perfect, yes? " That is hyperbole taken to the point of lying. Yes? You also posted "Your position appears that only leftists that have been feeding at the public trough all or at least most of their lives are qualified to be President, because it is just too complicated for anyone else. Is that correct? " I never posted anything suggesting that, but why let reality interfere with your beliefs? Your inability to explain why you think "leftists" are responsible for all that is wrong with life confirms your disengagement with reality. Go ahead and live in your fantasy world. Until you start backing up your ridiculous claims with facts there is no point in debating because you are incapable of debate.

"Yes, and you routinely use the absurd left-wing pundit approach: Take a reasonable position and extrapolate it to a ridiculous extreme." Where have I done this? Provide a linked quote. I posted: "Anyone who does not understand the nuclear triad, survivable second strike capability and Mutually Assured Destruction has no business even considering becoming Commander in Chief. The world is very different from what it was over two hundred years ago. Unfortunately people aren't any smarter; in many ways they seem dumber. Many are unaware, and refuse to believe, that the President has the unchecked power to launch nuclear weapons." "I don't want an amateur with no government experience holding that power. A certain amount of learning on the job is unavoidable, but for the office of the Presidency prior experience is essential." You gave an example of extrapolating a reasonable view to a ridiculous extreme by replying with: "Let's get a veteran that worked at the DMV for thirty years, the last five as a supervisor and run them for President, should be perfect, yes? " and with: "Your position appears that only leftists that have been feeding at the public trough all or at least most of their lives are qualified to be President, because it is just too complicated for anyone else." I never posted anything so ridiculous. Evidently you can debate what I posted so you make things up, credit me with your made-up nonsense then argue against that. These are clear examples of extrapolating a reasonable view to a ridiculous extreme. Regarding: "Then you disqualify DeSantis for what?" I posted: "You are correct, I don't support Ron DeSantis. Ron DeSantis stands firm on nothing but self-serving opportunism. He was pro-vaccine until he decided his base wanted him to be anti-vax. He raised building standards along Florida's Gulf coast after the beach town of Mexico Beach was wiped out by Hurricane Michael then he lowered them after builders and home-owners complained. He spends Florida taxpayer money freely on stunts that benefit his Presidential campaign but do nothing for Florida. Can you tell us one significant accomplishment of DeSantis other than generating headlines?" Did you not understand that? "Why don't you show where I claimed to think extremely complex and consequential jobs should be given to those with no training or experience?" I confused a post from impulse for one by you. My apologies. "As a leftist, you lie like you breath, you do not even think about it." Really? Where have I lied? Also, you have posted: "To be clear, I'm a lot more concerned about the left destroying civilization than I am of airmen being incapable of following the work instructions." and: "The only people that believe the left is not ruining the country are on the left." Yet you refuse to provide evidence or reason why you believe your nonsense. Try to make claims that can be defended.

Yes, and you routinely use the absurd right-wing pundit approach: Take a reasonable position and extrapolate it to a ridiculous extreme. It works for pundits because they know better than to use it in an actual debate. You don't. Once again, provide any evidence to support your claim that "Your position appears that only leftists that have been feeding at the public trough all or at least most of their lives are qualified to be President, because it is just too complicated for anyone else." Alternatively, you can explain why you think extremely complex and consequential jobs should be given to those with no training or experience. Would you like a well meaning person with no medical experience or training to perform surgery on you?

Reading comprehension problems? Quote anything I posted that supports your speculation about my views on the required qualifications to be POTUS.

Lightweight stuff compared to the flash mob that ransacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Yet some people think the President who did nothing at the time has what it takes to be POTUS again.

infrastructure noun in·fra·struc·ture ˈin-frə-ˌstrək-chər -(ˌ)frä- Synonyms of infrastructure 1 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity 2 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization) 3 : the permanent installations required for military purposes https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infrastructure Doesn't look like infrastructure to me.

You have descended into incoherence. I offered a simple explanation as to why wage increases to reflect inflation must happen after inflation occurs and is measured, and you offer this nonsense in reply.

Too bad the people who insist MSM can't be trusted won't give us their trusted sources.

It would be funny if it weren't for the large number of idiots who believe nonsense like that. As usual there is the claim of evidence but no evidence is shown.

"You know nothing of my work experience but you are claiming it does not come close. Pretty typical. What are you claiming my work experience does not come close to? " Your work experience does not come close to that required to be President. Neither does the work experience of anyone who lacks government or military experience. Prove me wrong; explain how your work experience qualifies you for the job. "I do not for a second think managing the military was simple, nor do I think anything I said would lead any honest person to believe that. I think the Afghanistan debacle bears out that it's too complicated for the current administration, which incidentally lacks military experience" The Afghanistan debacle shows that Trump was clueless about military and international affairs. Negotiating the withdrawal of the US military from Afghanistan without including the Afghanistan government was pure idiocy. President Biden chose to honor the commitments made by his predecessor, something every US President other than Trump had done. Any President who does not do that destroys America's credibility with its allies, as Trump routinely did. "The only people that believe the left is not ruining the country are on the left." In other words you have no facts on your side, only your personal prejudice. "Okay, so Ron DeSantis has military experience, graduated Harvard law school cum laude, and is a popular governor of the third most populated state in the union. So, is that who you're supporting in '24? No." I never stated that military or government experience alone qualifies one to be President. This is the second time I've explained that to you. You are correct, I don't support Ron DeSantis. Ron DeSantis stands firm on nothing but self-serving opportunism. He was pro-vaccine until he decided his base wanted him to be anti-vax. He raised building standards along Florida's Gulf coast after the beach town of Mexico Beach was wiped out by Hurricane Michael then he lowered them after builders and home-owners complained. He spends Florida taxpayer money freely on stunts that benefit his Presidential campaign but do nothing for Florida. Can you tell us one significant accomplishment of DeSantis other than generating headlines? "You'll support whatever the left-most candidate is, regardless of their experience." Wrong. I suspect that your simple binary world view can't accept the complexity of anything other than extreme left and extreme right, but I regard myself as a centrist. However I will probably vote for the least bad option that has a chance of getting elected. If it is Trump vs Biden I will vote for Biden.

Wage increases to compensate for inflation are always negotiated after inflation has occurred. There's always a lag. It's a very simple, logical concept. I'm not surprised it's beyond your grasp. How can wage increases to accommodate inflation be negotiated before inflation has been measured? Try to answer that question then reconsider my post: "Wage increases to compensate for inflation are always negotiated after inflation has occurred. There's always a lag."

"Beijing will not send any of it's soldiers into Myanmar" but "Washington will back whatever groups that are against a pro-Beijing Myanmar government.Washington will back whatever groups that are against a pro-Beijing Myanmar government." Total nonsense. The dictatorship has always worked with China and China has always supported it, bought from it, invested in it and sold weapons to it. Other than feeble protests against gross humanitarian abuses and lip service about democracy, what has the US done to or for Myanmar?

A quick internet search tells me that a blank gun is one that only fires blanks. Why would anyone carry such a thing? For most people in most circumstances carrying a real gun in more likely to get them into trouble than get them out. I can't see how a blank gun can do anything but get one into trouble and nothing else.

Yeah, Trump has a history of choosing looks over brains.

Regarding your first paragraph, read the post below. You're description of your work experience doesn't come close. Your second paragraph shows your naivety about managing the military. It ends with the standard unsubstantiated hyperbole about "the left" that is never supported by reality. As you your final question of "Why?", I answered that already. If you can't understand the answer I can't help you. Try re-reading my post below.

Wage increases to compensate for inflation are always negotiated after inflation has occurred. There's always a lag.

Absence of proper sex education in many public schools has a lot to do with it. Fanatical Christians don't approve of any kind of sex education other than promoting abstinence.

I saw nothing in the article that indicates China has a preference for any side, so long as it can take advantage of the chaos. I suspect China has no desire to share a border with a successful democratic government.