1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 17, 2017, 04:36:15 PM »
More importantly the House Bill as passed doesn't meet reconciliation rules, and so can be filibustered.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929
The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.
I wonder what the #PresidentBannon crowd are thinking right now. The puppetmaster who was clearly 100% in charge of Trump got fired.
I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/trump-ousts-scaramucci-as-communications-director-241172
Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.
Which is code for child pron.
I thought hot dog with no bun was code for circumcised young boy sex slave?
You're going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You're going to have it if you're a person going in…don't forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you're 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you're 70, and you really need it, you're still paying the same amount and that's really insurance.
So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.
Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.
No Democrat in Congress is doing that.
Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.Neither, but when your argument is that they were obstructing someone who was under investigation, it would be good if a) he was under investigation and b) they had a chance of knowing that at the time.