11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough. On the other hand, if it did influence the Republicans, then it was a spectacular success. 

You really can't face the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma. And that Republicans and unanimously opposed too

The same people who proclaim that they want to reduce government spending somehow are too squeamish to apply the ax where it would really count.

 

 

You agree, big pharma corrupted the Dems. 

1 hour ago, Gsxrnz said:

Somehow, I suspect those "members of the public" who routinely tender submissions about the rulemaking process are not your average Mr or Mrs Joe Hunt.

 

More likely NGO's, big pharma, and various other assorted swamp creatures who believe they have skin in the game a chance to affect policy to their advantage. 

sort of like a non american billionaire donating a few hundred million to potus campaign and then being put in charge of departments that regulate who gets contracts and the terms while his companies get billions in contracts? Solunds like some creature that arose from the swamp that was being drained?

 

hmm that sounds familiar but surely no republican would ever allow that would they? 

 

But how dare any ordinary citizen  even mention how that can be.

Just now, TedG said:

 

You agree, big pharma corrupted the Dems. 

This will be the third time this morning I've had to correct a right winger on what "if" signifies. Here's that sentence again. 

"If it did, it clearly didn't influence them enough"

If introduces an hypothesis or a speculation. A sentence with a conditional clause is not a statement of fact or an assertion.

It doesn't speak well of your command of English, that you don't understand the significance of a two-letter word like "if".

 

And you still have no answer for the fact that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate with big pharma over drug prices. 

And still no answer for the fact that the Republicans were unanimously opposed to the change.

 

 

47 minutes ago, pomchop said:

sort of like a non american billionaire donating a few hundred million to potus campaign and then being put in charge of departments that regulate who gets contracts and the terms while his companies get billions in contracts? Solunds like some creature that arose from the swamp that was being drained?

 

hmm that sounds familiar but surely no republican would ever allow that would they? 

 

But how dare any ordinary citizen  even mention how that can be.

Which "non American" are you referring to?  The guy that puts rockets up is a citizen, so who are you talking about, Soros?

5 minutes ago, spacex said:

Which "non American" are you referring to?  The guy that puts rockets up is a citizen, so who are you talking about, Soros?

Your point about Must was quite correct. Then you ruined it all by apparently claiming that George Soros is not a citizen.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

 

How free is speech down under?   Who has more freedom of speech?  The USA or AU? 

AFAIK we ban hate speech in Oz.

 

OTOH, we don't have to train our schoolkids how to avoid getting shot, we don't have mass shootings at regular intervals, and we don't have the world's highest prison population.

 

Perhaps you don't agree that's more important than free speech, which would not surprise me.

28 minutes ago, spacex said:

Which "non American" are you referring to?  The guy that puts rockets up is a citizen, so who are you talking about, Soros?

how about non american born? hapy now?......

 

but of course being born in america no longer much counts as birthright citizenship is under attack with the orange one who only loves billionaire  immigrants or those that he marries..preferabley met at a high end brothel like the kit kat club of nyc?  

When was there ever transparency in anything the govt or acronym folks were involved in ?

 

Didn't the last 5 or so years teach anybody, anything ?

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

The White House excludes journalists who's organizations use Gulf of Mexico

The White House excluded one journalist whose organisation uses Gulf of Mexico.  No one else.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

It's not undercutting free speech.  People still have the right to protest, etc. 

It you take away one avenue of speaking freely, particularly about what actions the government is taking, how is that not undercutting free speech? How many means of discourse can be eliminated before it amounts to undercutting free speech? The fact is that private citizens had an avenue to make their objections or suggestions heard and now they don't. And this is coming from someone who claims to be acting on behalf of private citizens and against corporate self-interest. Such a hypocrite.

4 hours ago, blaze master said:

 

Are you ok ? Here you are again telling me what I think. 

 

So tell us what you think. You've had more than four hours to do it. Instead yet again you get involved in some childish baiting and with no serious discussion ever taking place. What gives?