@nydude25:
And as you just stated above, we know what kind of person attends CPAC, so we know what kind of support Trump has among that subset of the population. See, that wasn't so hard to follow.
I'm not going to argue with you any more on this subject, there is already discrepancies in the data and it is not consistent with other national polling data. As I already stated, the numbers are easy to manipulate, but it's completely obvious that the population distribution at CPAC is not the same as the distribution of Donald's supporters across the country. Stop with the BS.
@nydude25:
Voter turnout was about 58-59% in 2016, which was a little higher than in 2012 and a little lower than in 2008. Trump won in counties that Romney and McCain had both lost in. An analysis of the election results demonstrate where those counties are, and just how large the swings were from 2012 to 2016:
My bad, the story was updated and I didn't follow it. You are correct, voter turnout was not disproportionately low.
@nydude25:
Ryan's plan? Trump gave his outline for replacing Obamacare, and that included:
-Ensuring people with pre-existing health conditions are guaranteed "access" to health insurance, "and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health-care exchanges.
-Giving people who buy their own health coverage tax credits and expanded health savings accounts to help pay for their coverage, as well as flexibility about the design of their plans.
-Give states "the resources and flexibility" in their Medicaid programs "to make sure no one is left out." Medicaid covers primarily poor people.
-Legal reforms to protect doctors and patients "from unnecessary costs" that drive up insurance costs, and to bring down the price of high-cost drugs.
-Creating a national insurance marketplace that allows insurers to sell health plans across state lines.
You have to remember, there may be 20 million vocal people who were given insurance due to the ACA, but there are over 100 million insured people who didn't want or need this huge government program that are the silent majority. Congress isn't catering to the 20 million, it knows where its bread is buttered.
Trump was parroting Paul Ryan's plan, I've heard Ryan's plan a dozen times and I could not find any differences.
#1 Saying that people with preexisting conditions will have "access" to health care insinuates that they will lose their current coverage.
#2 That's what I currently and do I don't understand the difference. That plan just seems like they are creating an incentive to buy coverage off the exchange, which you should anyways, since it usually works out cheaper, unless you can't for whatever reason.
#3 Sounds great, but I'd like to read the exact plan on how they're going to do that so I can personally evaluate it.
#4 See #3
You are singing to the choir there but I also don't think it's a good idea to put 20 million Americans at risk. The reality is, under that plan, many of them will die because they can not afford insurance. You failed to mention eliminating the mandate for everyone to have insurance and if they get rid of that, costs will go up for the insured.
@nydude25:
Propaganda is the word I intended to use, it's not too strong at all. When a left-leaning news outlet publishes allegations that the Trump campaign was in collusion with Russian intelligence officials, gives nothing but the comments of an "anonymous source" claiming to have obtained leaked intelligence data as evidence, that's propaganda. When they try and use that propaganda as the basis for a CRIMINAL investigation into the president, that's the beginnings of a treasonous coup attempt.
We're fortunate the Congress isn't falling for any of these unfounded and salacious allegations, but can you imagine what kind of subversion could be taking place if the media's bedfellows, the Democrats, were in control of Congress?
The media has been waging a war against Trump since he won the nomination. They are shameless in their behavior. We all saw their reaction to Trump's win on election night, so we know they're upset about their girl losing. But they should at least try and APPEAR to be objective, even if they have no plans of actually being objective. They risk making themselves irrelevant as people seek alternative sources of information.
So my advice to you of "Don't believe the hype" in regards to their reporting on Trump, still stands.
Responses By Paragraph:
#1 Except that we have confirmations of many of the details coming from multiple sources. The journalists are just doing their job, you should interpret their work and think critically about it. Any time an anonymous source is cited, I think "This is a rumor." It's certainly not propaganda.
This on the other hand is propaganda: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tens-of-people-rally-across-the-country-in-march-4-trump_us_58bafc38e4b0b9989417fdcd
Okay, so their march failed… So what? They didn't have this problem at the voting booth. It's obvious what they are trying to do.
And so is this:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/loretta-lynch-need-more-marching-blood-death-on-streets/
I realize you probably don't want to watch a video Loretta Lynch, but just try this: Click the link, watch the video, try to listen objectively, then read the headline and the article.
WND maliciously distorted her direct quote… That's a wicked contortion of her message in my opinion...
#2 It would be just like Benghazi, the Democrats would waste millions of dollars to investigate and they would find nothing concrete, just like they did with Hillary. There are some Republicans who feel that Trump has the ability to clear this up and he should. I agree with them, if the media is BS, then just clear it up and move on, but for whatever reason, Donald isn't. It's also apparent that there is an investigation going on, so I don't see what the purpose of congress investing it.
#3 I agree with your point but that isn't what is happening. The more they attack Trump, the better their ratings. Lets be realistic, we both know it's a business and they wouldn't be doing it, if it didn't make them money. Their role isn't to investigate the president, it's to provide infotainment.
#4 See above.
