Trump just got murdered IMO.

[Onefellswoop87]

Well the latest polls have it. The Senate and possibly House are lost too.

A great victory for Globalist Elites is in the wings!

Truly we are in for some economically catastrophic legislation ahead, from "fixing" Obamacare, to climate change, to higher taxes, and more entitlements.

We can also look forward to 30 years of a Supreme Court who feels that the Constitution is a "living document" that needs to "adjust to the times".

I assume your comment about the Constitution only applies to the 2nd amendment, because, you know, there have been a few amendments after the first 10, and your rights of the freedom of press (for just one example) have been expanded and applied in modernity past print newspapers and the Pony Express.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I assume your comment about the Constitution only applies to the 2nd amendment, because, you know, there have been a few amendments after the first 10, and your rights of the freedom of press (for just one example) have been expanded and applied in modernity past print newspapers and the Pony Express.

I'm referring to broad judicial interpretation of the Constitution. I am all for amendments. If society really feel that it has to be changed, then get 2/3 of the States to agree on it. Liberal judges tend to legislate from the Bench and interpret the Constitution broadly rather than narrowly.

You guys really don't get me after all these years...

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

Curious about people's opinions on this:

So trump claims he won't raise taxes and Hillary will. Sure. But has anyone ever considered the non-tax monentary losses they could take under a Trump presidency?

For starters if he really does manage to slash taxes as he says, there's going to be something like 5 Trillion less in tax revenue for the government per year. This could have all sorts of negative effects, ballooning the deficit and so on. In a few years, I could see us having to raise taxes substantially just to fix that.

Or what if he simply crashes the economy in a trade war?

Also, there are further fetched (but distinctly possible) scenarios about what he could do to the US and global economy that would be pretty bad for everyone. Let's say he defaults on the debt? Or starts another very expensive war?

I'm not saying any of these things will 100% happen, but I'd love to hear people's thoughts on if they're serious enough risks to justify voting for Hilary even at the risk of having your taxes jacked up.

 

[enalli]

I'm referring to broad judicial interpretation of the Constitution. I am all for amendments. If society really feel that it has to be changed, then get 2/3 of the States to agree on it. Liberal judges tend to legislate from the Bench and interpret the Constitution broadly rather than narrowly.

You guys really don't get me after all these years...

This is one of the conservative double-standards that really irks me. Every time a court comes out with a liberal decision that overturns or reinterprets a law it is automatically "legislating from the bench." But that standard is never applied to conservative decisions. Conservative decisions that blatantly contradict the will of legislatures and/or the people are somehow always a noble moral stand to protect our fragile constitution.

 

[Rendar5]

Curious about people's opinions on this:

So trump claims he won't raise taxes and Hillary will. Sure. But has anyone ever considered the non-tax monentary losses they could take under a Trump presidency?

For starters if he really does manage to slash taxes as he says, there's going to be something like 5 Trillion less in tax revenue for the government per year. This could have all sorts of negative effects, ballooning the deficit and so on. In a few years, I could see us having to raise taxes substantially just to fix that.

Or what if he simply crashes the economy in a trade war?

Also, there are further fetched (but distinctly possible) scenarios about what he could do to the US and global economy that would be pretty bad for everyone. Let's say he defaults on the debt? Or starts another very expensive war?

I'm not saying any of these things will 100% happen, but I'd love to hear people's thoughts on if they're serious enough risks to justify voting for Hilary even at the risk of having your taxes jacked up.

I personally figure whatever I save in taxes is gonna be eaten up by increased price of goods whether it's from inflation or increased taxes on goods. Doubt either one is good for my bottom line.

 

[DeadCactus]

I don't see Trump as having the political ability or sway to enact any major tax reform. Similarity, I doubt Clinton would be able to manage significant increase in taxes. The reality is that physicians are at an income level where they are unlikely to be significantly helped or hurt by any changes to the tax policy; it seems to be more of a concern for the top 0.1%. I do think we are in a position to be significantly hurt by another economic downturn which seems less likely with a status-quo Clinton administration than with an unpredictable Trump administration. I understand why those living in poverty want a Trump administration, they have a lot of potential to move up economically via almost random change. I don't understand why physicians want to roll the dice when there isn't much room for them to move up. Ironically, younger physicians and trainees who have more time to recover (and benefit from a more beneficial tax situation) from a Trump presidency are generally against him as a candidate. The pro-Trump physicians tend to be mid or late career where they are risking another economic downturn for minimal impact on their lifelong tax burden. A generation of physicians is still working past their planned retirement age to make up for the last economic downturn and now some people want to roll the dice on another one.

 

[jl lin]

I assume your comment about the Constitution only applies to the 2nd amendment, because, you know, there have been a few amendments after the first 10, and your rights of the freedom of press (for just one example) have been expanded and applied in modernity past print newspapers and the Pony Express.

Seriously, do you know how long it has been since the US Constitution has been amended? Since the 66.6% or 2/3rds seems too onerous for these career politicians, crocked D.C. politicians circumvent the process. People are not blind to this "by hook or by crook approach."
AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XXVII
Sept. 25, 1789 (ORIGINALLY PROPOSED). Ratified May 7, 1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.



http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

 

[jl lin]

I'm referring to broad judicial interpretation of the Constitution. I am all for amendments. If society really feel that it has to be changed, then get 2/3 of the States to agree on it. Liberal judges tend to legislate from the Bench and interpret the Constitution broadly rather than narrowly.

You guys really don't get me after all these years...

Exactly. 2/3rds...too onerous for them. SMH

 

[Old_Mil]

...Trump just got elected. Ding dong, Obamacare is dead.

 

[da8s0859q]

...Trump just got elected. Ding dong, Obamacare is dead.

Sure looks like he's going to be. I'd say I am curious what that's going to mean for physicians on the whole and emergency physicians specifically, but... who knows. The House is Republican, the Senate is close, and now this. Interesting.

In my neck of the woods, income has gone up considerably with ACA (this is also an expansion state).

 

[ensuii]

I wonder what this means for us...hopefully not much

 

[GeneralVeers]

As one who has been victimized by Obmacare (I have $4000 deductible) I hope it can be repealed. I'm actually doubtful that Trump can do that as he does not have 60 senate votes.

On the plus side it means 4 years with no tax increases for us, and conservative supreme court justices who will generally uphold the letter of the constitution.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

As one who has been victimized by Obmacare (I have $4000 deductible) I hope it can be repealed. I'm actually doubtful that Trump can do that as he does not have 60 senate votes.

On the plus side it means 4 years with no tax increases for us, and conservative supreme court justices who will generally uphold the letter of the constitution.

You're lucky, mine is $6500 with a 12k out of pocket max

 

[RustedFox]

Monthly premium for me and Mrs. RustedFox is 1345 for BCBC medical/dental/vision.

That's up, big time.

Even still, we were getting turned away from every insurer prior to the ACA. Please don't deny us coverage.

 

[xaelia]

What about the national malpractice reform?

e.g., something like https://www.acep.org/Liability-Reform-HR-836/

 

[David Mitchell]

Wont getting rid of Obamacare mean fewer ED visits and a worse payer mix?

 

[BAM!]

Wont getting rid of Obamacare mean fewer ED visits and a worse payer mix?

Obamacare flooded the ED's with patients who had insurance that gave poor reimbursments -- particularly the medicaid expansion insurance.
Without that payor mix in the equation, yes there should be fewer ED visits. And likely this will include a lot of the URI / dental pain / ingrown toenail -- urgent care type patients that wander into the ED. Perhaps the nicer and middle class communities will have less of this medicaid population and retain the private insurance population + medicare. Therefore the payor mix will improve in lots of places.

As for the poorer community / county hospitals, they will have to rely of government subsidies and out-of-pocket billing. Often these Emergency Dept's are money losers, which rely on the rest of the hospital (surgical procedures and inpatient hospitalizations for medicare and PPO patients) to help subsidize the ED's necessary expenses. Will the payor mix improve in these areas? I gather that the increased volume of medicaid dollars flowing through these hospitals pays more than an equivalent uninsured population with fewer ED visits. It's a much harder job seeing 3+ medicaid patients an hour though.

 

[bravotwozero]

Interestingly I thought my sep ira was going to take a huge hit. If anything, the stocks went up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[d2305]

Obamacare was ruled as a tax by the Robers et al. A simple majority can kill it.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Obamacare was ruled as a tax by the Robers et al. A simple majority can kill it.

Exactly. Most elements of the law can be repealed using reconciliation, ironically the same procedure that Democrats used to ram it through in the first place.

My understanding is that they are going to repeal it, with a grandfather period of 2 years in which they will presumably try to replace it with something. That is the hard part, as any replacement program would require 60 Senate votes so would need Dems to play along.

Since going to completely market based healthcare (my preference) is politically impossible, I think they can repeal the individual mandate, while retaining guaranteed issue through either subsidies, or through high-risk pools. Allowing insurance across state lines and promoting high-deductible catastrophic plans will go a long way to bringing down costs.

 

[bravotwozero]

Not sure how getting insurance across state lines will be helpful, for two reasons. Corporations are consolidating their power and will corner the market in a monopoly, and will lower competition. Secondly, if 20 million people in let's say, California find cheaper insurance from a company in Nevada, the rates in Nevada will go up...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xaelia]

They can repeal parts of the ACA through reconciliation, but not the entire thing. The tax penalties and such can go away, but the requirements for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc., cannot. They also have to pass a budget beforehand – no mean task, considering the troubles they've had over the past year and now smaller majorities. It's going to be just as rocky an exit as it was a beginning, and it certainly won't happen overnight.

I'm not a health economist, but I've heard the "across state lines" is mostly irrelevant.

 

[High Roller]

Its been interesting watching the stock market reaction since Tuesday.

After futures for the Dow took a big hit that night, its been up two days in a row. Trading at new record high today. Pharma stocks up big. Firearm manufacturing down big. Ruger and Smith & Wesson now trading down about 25-30% from just two days ago.

 

[bravotwozero]

The stock market tends to do better when both houses of congress are controlled by the same party. I think that's what caused the uptick in the stock market


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

They can repeal parts of the ACA through reconciliation, but not the entire thing. The tax penalties and such can go away, but the requirements for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc., cannot. They also have to pass a budget beforehand – no mean task, considering the troubles they've had over the past year and now smaller majorities. It's going to be just as rocky an exit as it was a beginning, and it certainly won't happen overnight.

I'm not a health economist, but I've heard the "across state lines" is mostly irrelevant.

I'm curious to see if the rules about preexisting conditions will be retained or thrown out. I've heard conflicting things on if they are among the things that could be reversed through reconciliation.

Also just practically I worry a bit about some of those cabinet appointments. The idea of having Ben Carson runing a major arm of the government just seems absurd to me.

 

[xaelia]

Reconciliation only works for items that affect the Federal budget. The Senate parliamentarian decides what affects the Federal budget. In theory, regulations that affect just the bottom line for insurance companies can't be overturned through reconciliation.

The mega-nuclear option would be to do away with the filibuster, but McConnell (bless his heart) has already gone on record to say he realizes the filibuster has a role ("we should recognize we won't be in power forever").

The stock market has responded to the promise of financial stimulus. Trump explicitly stated he wants to do mega infrastructure projects – stocks like Caterpillar went up a lot. He has gone on record for clearing the backlog at the FDA, so biotech went up. Tax cuts are a stimulus for consumption. But, the stock market moves on feelings, not reality. After taking hostages and manufacturing crises over the deficit with Obama, the House Republicans better be the fiscal hawks they claimed to be, not politically expedient hypocrites (guess which one I think they are).

 

[d2305]

Supreme Court approvals are also a simple majority. Getting to the vote is somewhat cumbersome, however.

 

[DoctwoB]

Now trump is saying that we will keep the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and lifetime maximums but get rid of subsidies and individual mandate.

The math on this basically does not add up. Obamacare rates are already jumping because the insured pool is higher risk then initially expected. Take away the mandate (though admittedly not terribly effective to begin with, but better then nothing), and the pool will be higher risk still, and rates will go through the roof. I fail to see how allowing insurance across state lines will change the basic concept that higher risk patients are more expensive to insure.

Part of me wonders if that is in fact the whole plan. Repealing Obamacare as a whole now would leave a lot of people uninsured and create a backlash against Republicans. Cutting its legs out from under it by getting rid of the mandate and subsidies will cause it to crash under its own weight in a few years, and then maybe there is less of a backlash against repeal.

 

[xaelia]

What Trump said during the election, what Trump has said post-election, the status of his transition, the hopes and dreams of the House Republicans, and the obstructionism of Senate Democrats is all so disjointed and conflicting, it's not even worth speculating about.

I'll just keep hoping for success – whatever that looks like – but remain skeptical.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Curious about people's opinions on this:

So trump claims he won't raise taxes and Hillary will. Sure. But has anyone ever considered the non-tax monentary losses they could take under a Trump presidency?

For starters if he really does manage to slash taxes as he says, there's going to be something like 5 Trillion less in tax revenue for the government per year. This could have all sorts of negative effects, ballooning the deficit and so on. In a few years, I could see us having to raise taxes substantially just to fix that.

Or what if he simply crashes the economy in a trade war?

Also, there are further fetched (but distinctly possible) scenarios about what he could do to the US and global economy that would be pretty bad for everyone. Let's say he defaults on the debt? Or starts another very expensive war?

I'm not saying any of these things will 100% happen, but I'd love to hear people's thoughts on if they're serious enough risks to justify voting for Hilary even at the risk of having your taxes jacked up.

"5 trillion less per year"? The govt doesn't even take in 5 trillion per year in tax revenues.

You mad Trump won bro?

 

[DrCommonSense]

I don't see Trump as having the political ability or sway to enact any major tax reform. Similarity, I doubt Clinton would be able to manage significant increase in taxes. The reality is that physicians are at an income level where they are unlikely to be significantly helped or hurt by any changes to the tax policy; it seems to be more of a concern for the top 0.1%. I do think we are in a position to be significantly hurt by another economic downturn which seems less likely with a status-quo Clinton administration than with an unpredictable Trump administration. I understand why those living in poverty want a Trump administration, they have a lot of potential to move up economically via almost random change. I don't understand why physicians want to roll the dice when there isn't much room for them to move up. Ironically, younger physicians and trainees who have more time to recover (and benefit from a more beneficial tax situation) from a Trump presidency are generally against him as a candidate. The pro-Trump physicians tend to be mid or late career where they are risking another economic downturn for minimal impact on their lifelong tax burden. A generation of physicians is still working past their planned retirement age to make up for the last economic downturn and now some people want to roll the dice on another one.

Actually, Hillary's tax increases were not to be placed on the top .1% considering they make all their money in capital gains/dividends with very little income.

Her income policy proposals would have been utterly devastating on the marginal tax rate of physicians since they take their money in INCOME while the billionaire class was sparred.

Your tax analysis is beyond flawed on this subject.

 

[DrCommonSense]

This is one of the conservative double-standards that really irks me. Every time a court comes out with a liberal decision that overturns or reinterprets a law it is automatically "legislating from the bench." But that standard is never applied to conservative decisions. Conservative decisions that blatantly contradict the will of legislatures and/or the people are somehow always a noble moral stand to protect our fragile constitution.

Examples include?

 

[xaelia]

"5 trillion less per year"? The govt doesn't even take in 5 trillion per year in tax revenues.

You mad Trump won bro?

"According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision."
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016

The time frame is, however, a decade, not annually.

Please don't be rude.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Are you referring to the man that outspokenly marks the entirety of Mexicans as rapists? The man that said all Muslims are ought to be banned from the country? The one that mocks a disabled reporter so proudly in front of hundreds of thousands of people? (And the asinine crown giggles). And most importantly of all, the one that has earned the support of a large Republican base because of some of these bigoted comments. You go ahead and keep supporting him. But I seriously hope you'll never be a physician, for you don't have the moral judgement to be one.

Except everything you wrote are dishonest strawmen:

1) Trump never said "all" Mexicans are rapists. He stated that criminals CAN cross the borders and we need to secure them to prevent this. He also said many Mexicans are good, hard working people. Nice attempt to distort his argument.

2) Trump never spoke about "banning all Muslims from the country". He stated he wants to BAN IMMIGRATION from the Middle East until we can get a better hold over the terror situation over there. Makes sense to any sane person.

3) Bill Clinton literally raped women, banged interns in the White House, etc while good old Hillary supported him. Funny how you liberals never seem to concern yourself with this "moral" issue, just about trump using the P word in private 12 years ago.

Liberalism 101

 

[DrCommonSense]

"According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision."
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016

The time frame is, however, a decade, not annually.

Please don't be rude.

Decade is very different than annual.

If a person doesn't even know basic facts about tax revenue, he/she should refrain from these discussions.

 

[DrCommonSense]

"According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision."
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016

The time frame is, however, a decade, not annually.

Please don't be rude.

Also, the "tax foundation" is funded by the Koch brothers who aren't exactly fans of Donald Trump, so I don't really consider them an impartial source of information.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tax_Foundation

 

[xaelia]

1) Trump never said "all" Mexicans are rapists.

...

3) Bill Clinton literally raped women, banged interns in the White House, etc while good old Hillary supported him. Funny how you liberals never seem to concern yourself with this "moral" issue, just about trump using the P word in private 12 years ago.

If you're going to take issue with "liberals" exaggerating Trump's statement due to inappropriate generalization:
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Then you probably shouldn't put "all liberals" in the same box any more than all conservatives or Trump supporters should be put in the same box, either.

 

[xaelia]

Also, the "tax foundation" is funded by the Koch brothers who aren't exactly fans of Donald Trump, so I don't really consider them an impartial source of information.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tax_Foundation

I invite you to provide your own reliably unbiased citation of an analysis of the Trump economic plan showing it helps manage our ballooning Federal deficit.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

"5 trillion less per year"? The govt doesn't even take in 5 trillion per year in tax revenues.

You mad Trump won bro?

As said above, it's from the Tax Foundation. However the entire point of my statement was not the dollar amount, I was postulating if there could be economic reprocussions for a Trump presidency/his policies (trade wars, deficit spending, etc). If you have an opinion about that I'd love to hear it.

As for Trump winning, yea I'm not happy with the outcome. But that's democracy, so it doesn't matter. We'll see how he does, and I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, I supported Romney in 12 and Obama in 8.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

Another interesting thought: what if whoever he appoints to the justice department decides to enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it's been legalized/medically approved?

I know Christie and Giuliani have pretty hard line stances on that.

 

[DrCommonSense]

As said above, it's from the Tax Foundation. However the entire point of my statement was not the dollar amount, I was postulating if there could be economic reprocussions for a Trump presidency/his policies (trade wars, deficit spending, etc). If you have an opinion about that I'd love to hear it.

As for Trump winning, yea I'm not happy with the outcome. But that's democracy, so it doesn't matter. We'll see how he does, and I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal, I supported Romney in 12 and Obama in 8.

I have no problem with concerns related to economic ramifications of policies but I am under no illusion that "projections" of tax revenues/deficits/etc can be manipulated for political reasons, so I always like to see where these foundations get their funding.

My opinion is that after 8 years of Obama literally over doubling our national debt, Trump really couldn't do worse, so i'll give him a chance.

 

[DrCommonSense]

If you're going to take issue with "liberals" exaggerating Trump's statement due to inappropriate generalization:
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Then you probably shouldn't put "all liberals" in the same box any more than all conservatives or Trump supporters should be put in the same box, either.

Yeah like he said "some he assumes are good people" but Mexico does send alot of their problems over to America considering the cartel problem from that country.

I see nothing "racist" about those comments.

 

[DrCommonSense]

I invite you to provide your own reliably unbiased citation of an analysis of the Trump economic plan showing it helps manage our ballooning Federal deficit.

The problem in politics is there are no "unbiased" sources. Projections are dependent largely on political philosophy.

For instance, Trump believes he can bring back high paying jobs and increase revenue to easily offset the decrease in tax revenues. Liberal policy groups are claiming this isn't possible.
Only time will tell.

We all know Obama's policies don't work considering his HUGE increase in federal debt over the last 8 years, so I will give Trump a chance, since he really can't do worse.

 

[xaelia]

Yeah like he said "some he assumes are good people" but Mexico does send alot of their problems over to America considering the cartel problem from that country.

I see nothing "racist" about those comments.

From the right-leaning WSJ: The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

If you do not see racist overtones to those comments, do you at least see how it is reasonable to interpret them as having such?

 

[DrCommonSense]

From the right-leaning WSJ: The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

If you do not see racist overtones to those comments, do you at least see how it is reasonable to interpret them as having such?

Cool story but there are problems across our borders including:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...man/most-heroin-us-comes-over-mexican-border/

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-heroin-coming-from-mexican-cartels

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10155/9-things-you-need-know-about-illegal-immigration-aaron-bandler#

 

[xaelia]

Cool story but there are problems across our borders including:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...man/most-heroin-us-comes-over-mexican-border/

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-heroin-coming-from-mexican-cartels

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10155/9-things-you-need-know-about-illegal-immigration-aaron-bandler#

The flow of heroin is rather unrelated to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

Your dailywire citation is an excellent example of a narrative-sustaining echo chamber, which just links to other sites and down their rabbit hole of "fact". I rather trust the journalistic standards of the WSJ versus the Daily Wire.

I won't dispute there is selective distortion on both sides regarding the real problems and true reflection of the challenges facing our country, which is why it's important to actively engage in collating a viewpoint in the middle ground that's as skeptical as your own preferred sources of information as the those sources tending to promote a contrarian view.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Trump is the closest to a 3rd party candidate that we can get. It's hard to imagine worse governance than the Bush/Obama years as far as entitlement expansion, debt, and increased regulation. I won't even go into all the foreign wars that have expedited our bankruptcy.

If he can repeal most of Obamacare (only the budget-related items can be repealed without 60 votes), get rid of Obama's executive orders, cancel the Iran treaty, and do something to reform our tax system it would be a success. I think this agenda is perfectly achievable in the 2 years he will have a Republican congress.

 

[Mad Jack]

Man, remember when we were all laughing about the original post? Those days were pretty great.

 

[DrCommonSense]

The flow of heroin is rather unrelated to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

Your dailywire citation is an excellent example of a narrative-sustaining echo chamber, which just links to other sites and down their rabbit hole of "fact". I rather trust the journalistic standards of the WSJ versus the Daily Wire.

I won't dispute there is selective distortion on both sides regarding the real problems and true reflection of the challenges facing our country, which is why it's important to actively engage in collating a viewpoint in the middle ground that's as skeptical as your own preferred sources of information as the those sources tending to promote a contrarian view.

Why are over 40% of federal prisoners in California not legal either?

Are you disputing any of the stats given the Daily Wire article?

The fallacy of the "authority" of the WSJ is also laughable considering the WSJ bias as well.

 

[xaelia]

Why are over 40% of federal prisoners in California not legal either?

Are you disputing any of the stats given the Daily Wire article?

The fallacy of the "authority" of the WSJ is also laughable considering the WSJ bias as well.

I regret you seem to have missed the point about being reasonably skeptical about the sources you favor and taking a wider view that recognizes alternative viewpoints as valid.