Are you f*cking kidding me? It's Kiiii.

Oh okay, so you're just super wrong then and I'm not misunderstanding anything. Gotcha. Sorry I'm not smart enough to agree with your partisan ass.

Ki's new avatar is HFW he's getting trolled by Frownland.

That's my point. Jesus christ. I didn't say we were at the point where we can't fight. My point was that it stops being an experiment when what the experiment is attempting to do has to stop attempting to do it. Which I used the example I did to prove that. If Trump starts getting away with what he wants to do, we no longer can treat it like an experiment and consider it something that needs to stop.

What you're saying is basically the same as "murder is an experiment into whether or not the person will kill someone" but when they kill someone, it no longer counts as an experiment.

My point was really easy to understand without clarity. I was as clear as I could have been. Unsurprising that Frown couldn't understand it.

I have mixed feelings about the government getting involved in the insurance business. It's like anything else: some people benefit, others get shafted because they have to bear the cost. There are lots of people in their early twenties paying hundreds of dollars a month even as single payers, but their deductibles are so high that they would have been better off with a wider pool of choices pre-ACA. Or, if you asked them straight out, most of them would rather not get health insurance at all because it's such a financial liability. The bar is way higher now for your average business if they want to provide specific types of coverage for their employees cost-effectively.

As for Wall-Street...I think Obama and Eric Holder needed to penalize executives and companies like Goldman Sachs but at the end of the day they didn't have the balls to do it. Thus you have stories that came out later about
these guys getting big bonuses in 2010 and laughing all the way to Bank Of America.

I'm Libertarian and centrist in regards to most issues, but I lean conservative in regards to my views on excessive bureaucracy in government. I'd also love to see the incompetent IRS replaced by a more efficient tax code. :D

Someone told me at an event yesterday that they thought Mark Cuban would run in 2020. If I were going to put a billionaire in the POTUS seat, I think Cuban would have been a bit higher on my list than Trump.

Isn't the idea of putting Trump in office to see how far he will limit our rights about as dumb of an experiment as sticking your dick in the light socket? You might not like the result.

On this we agree. Although he'd be more than a bit higher on my list. Cuban has been a dick at times but the man is very smart and worked his way up from scratch, as opposed to Trump who was gifted a gold plated set of silverware.

I don't think that's the scenario we are dealing with though. It's just media hysteria. What has Trump really done to limit citizens' rights so far? Intentionally I mean. Him saying whatever he wants on Twitter and his feuding with the press don't really qualify. He upheld Obama's initiative to protecting LGBTQ people in the workplace after all, which doesn't fit the profile of someone looking to dismantle the rights of anyone who isn't white or rich.

I'm not saying he isn't unfit for office by the way. I'm just saying his fundamental motivations seem to be monetary as opposed to hatred for other people. That's the distinction that needs to be analyzed if you want to predict what he will or won't do.

So his muslim ban isn't a direct correlation to his hatred for muslims? interesting.

He's done nothing yet. It's just a stupid experiment is my point. Put your dick in a light socket you might just look silly if the switch is off.