oh. I was confused by the statement that you would not support a candidate BECAUSE of those things. When I talk about knowledge, I mean knowledge of the position and the information required to be successful in it, like with any job. The same is true of everything I posted. I mean them in terms of their RELEVANCE to the position applied for. Like any position, I want someone who has worked in that 'industry', who demonstrates knowledge of the authority and limitations of the position, and has a history of either military, public sector, or some other experience that required them to put others needs equal to their own or ahead of their own, especially those with fewer resources to meet those needs themselves.

America in general has spoiled people on both sides who both overreact and do not act at all, in the name of the nations interests.

There will be an election. People will continue to scapegoat illegal immigrants and poor people who receive assistance for our problems. People will continue to stand up to and fight against bigotry. People will continue to seek their fifteen minutes by creating 'movements' and finding offense in the slightest of things to generate 'trends'. People will continue to be socially bullied into accepting 'modern' values and standards.

There may be an event that brings muslims back on to the scapegoating stage. Medical science will continue to mess with nature some more. The push towards monolithic humans who are all 'the same' will continue. Adjectives and pronouns will be more and more scandalous.

Also, people will continue to love who they love, sleep with who they sleep with, hate who they hate, and believe everyone else has the job of coddling them and making them 'comfortable' ... or else.

..life will go on and the world will keep spinning.

What is 'progressive' about wanting to fill a position with someone that has experience, knowledge, integrity and respectability?

Are those negatives for 'fiscal conservatives'?

I was responding to a sweeping statement that democrats would have hated a female.

And no, I don't vote for genders, I vote for candidates. I would vote for her IF I thought she was the best candidate, and I would not if I did not.

Other black candidates ran before Obama. He was the first one I voted for because I thought he was the best candidate.

Other females ran besides Hilary in my lifetime, and she is the first I voted for because I thought SHE was the best candidate.

The best candidates, for me,

1, have experience working within the THREE branches of Government to understand the authority and limitations of their position and branch and a demonstrable understanding and knowledge of the constitution

2, have experience working in the non profit or public sector showing actual interest in helping people and/or military leadership that shows understanding of the duties of a CIC

3, and a character of maturity, respectability, diplomacy and integrity so they represent us well when interacting on the global stage with other leaders.

Democrats have so far put a female and a minority candidate up for their presidential nominations, so again, I question why there would be any concern as to gender or race in how democrats align with candidates?

That is not an issue of her being female so much as her being sounding board for Trump.

Why would democrats hate a female?

same here

That is odd.

The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay.


My experience has been high bills when I did not have insurance, and high deductibles when I did. And of course, those bills count on our credit score once they are sent to collectors.


It is not perfect. It can use an overhaul of costs. I'm glad we do have some access when emergencies arise though.

cure them paying taxes? I thought that would be a good thing(them paying taxes).

illegal immigrants are also taxpayers, contrary to public belief.

The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/20-Immigration%20and%20Taxation.pdf

haaa, I have family like that too. Perhaps it is why I ended up so quiet, always listening to them.

Interesting FACTS

physicians per 1,000 in US 2.6
physicians per 1,000 in UK 2.8


In 2017, there were over 36.5 million hospital admissions in the United States. (11 percent)

In 2016, there were with 16.2 million admissions in the UK during 2015-16 (24 percent of pop)

Oddly, I am briefly working in the insurance industry. This is what I can tell you. According to the facts, the US and the UK are roughly equally fared in their capability to see patients, according to the above researchable facts.

However, those facts also reveal that a larger portion of people in the UK bother to go to hospital. The facts cannot say why. That is a matter of opinion.

My opinion is that everything has pros and cons. For me, the cons of a NHS may be the resulting wait times or 'quality'(however that is decided and defined).

The cons of the US system is higher costs for patients which MAY result in fewer people who NEED healthcare bothering to see a physician and therefore receiving NO healthcare.

Free market, in my opinion, for many things, sets up privilege for the privileged and struggle for the average joe. That means higher tuition costs that 'justify' higher physicians costs, and higher insurance costs. It all ties in together.

That means hospital and doctors bills can be much larger than the average worker can afford, not to mention those are debts that impact credit scores, which also affects prices and eligibility for things like homes, for the average worker.

So, we may have better 'quality' and fewer wait times here. But I do not personally feel the trade off is worth it if it means only a few people get the benefit of it and more people become indebted because of it.

And when we talk 'coverage', that does not even take into account things like deductibles and out of pocket costs that have to be covered by the patient, before insurance really 'covers' them for many services.

sex is a type of physical connection

love is an emotional one

they can coexist together or completely alone. Finding someone with whom they can coexist together is a blessing, of course. But finding the emotional connection is much more important (imho)

Thank you. I actually am a quiet person in real time, finding it much more 'natural' to listen, than to speak.

I think there is a lot of area between being civil and polite, and extreme coddling. The two are often characterized as 'politically correct', in my opinion. I only am irritated by the latter however. The former is just a reflection of the 'intelligence' to be 'civilized'.

r2d2 posted:

It's funny how we know gay people exsist and we don't have proof of God, but we deny gay people basic human rights, because it might piss God off '

" I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You're not scared. You're an πrsehole."--Morgan Freeman

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"--Author Ernest J. Gaines


"When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free."--Barack Obama

"It takes some intelligence and insight to figure out you're gay and then a tremendous amount of balls to live it and live it proudly."--Jason Bateman


And I agree with all of it except the notion that to believe sex should not be between same sex humans makes one an arsehole.

I do not think people should be denied 'human rights', though I may disagree what those are.


I am not comfortable seeing humans holding guns, regardless of gender or number.

I believe people should be treated equally regardless of sexual choices.

It takes balls to openly display sexual choices or lifestyles others might take issue with.

I likewise do not have the courage to walk around openly with bible in hand sharing what my personal values or morals are.

It is not a problem for me either, nor is adultery, promiscuity, bigamy, or any other sexual choice someone else makes for themselves.

I am sorry that you feel that disagreeing with a persons choice of action should define how we feel about that person in total.

I am prejudice regarding choices. Engaging or not engaging in ANY type of sex, is a choice, and choices matter. I do believe without apology in unhealthy choices and
healthy choices, right choices and wrong choices, good choices and poor choices.

I listed only a few of a long line of things we have a 'choice' in. I make unhealthy choices, poor choices and wrong choices sometimes as you and everyone else does, because we are all human, and no better or worse than others who make poor or bad choices.