JJ Husker

I'm so proud to live in a country where diametrically opposed Presidents/Parties can have such a peaceful and congenial transfer of power. Many of the citizens of said country........not so much. I wonder if about 150 million 2nd place participation ribbons would help.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820450166331346944 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/821342600322043905 He does have an ego problem, that's for sure.But I sure would hope he views it as a big day.

Why all the posts showing fewer people compared to Obama's inauguration? Does everyone realize the political makeup of DC is practically all democrat and recognize that one was for the first black President and the other is just another old white guy? Did anyone actually think the crowd would rival Obama's crowd? smh Or, is this just preemptive posting for when Trump claims it was the most huuuge event evar? Edit- or should I say when he manipulates the photos to make it look huuuge...

Am I alone in thinking that maybe, just maybe, some of those votes might get changed as the deadline approaches? Seems that some have admitted to nominating and seconding insincerely. Just a thought.

Dudeguyy- The only relief I experienced was the first year I changed from our small group company plan to the ACA plan, I was able to get a better plan for only slight increase from what I wouldve had to pay on my other renewal. Our company plan was with Anthem BCBS and I had cut it down to generic only Rx's and it had a little higher deductible, out of pocket etc. The ACA plan I went with Kaiser who had just expanded into our area. The prescription coverage was better and had lower deductible. The next year the premium went up 18% and this year almost 28%. I compared many different available plans and the only better premiums were real sh#t for coverage. I'm not sure if I fall into some unlucky category or not. That doesn't seem likely as I am in the same marketplace as anyone else. Of course I do not have an employer subsidizing any of my cost and I don't get any premium help from the government as I make too much money. So fAR I have been able to deduct the health premiums on my taxes since I am considered self employed. The other benefit (sort of) I got was I discontinued offering a health plan to my employees. Once the ACA came into being, I did not have to be worried or concerned about them being able to acquire coverage so I 86'D it. I absolutely hated the yearly rigamaroll of selecting a plan that fit everyone's needs and it was becoming cost prohibitive because I had to pay a certain minimum percentage of their premiums. So I gave them all a healthy raise and turned them loose to the marketplace or, in some cases, it allowed them to get on a spouses work plan that they were not eligible for when my company had it available. But my experience has been that prior to the ACA premium costs were increasing about 15% per year and after it has averaged about 20%+ per year. Those kind of increases are not and will not be sustainable for many people. Luckily, being the boss of me ;-) I have been able to adjust my pay as needed to cover my insurance increases. Business has been decent or that wouldn't be an option. Our plan covers a family of 4 and the monthly premium is about $1860 now. It's now more than our house payment. $4-$5K yearly cost increases cant be sustainable for a lot of people, can they? The threshold for premium assistance is well below my income and I'm feeling the pinch. Of course we have experienced some unusual healthcare costs as well. Maxed our out of pocket last year, so that sure didn't help. About $32K between premiums and care costs. It has to really suck for people near the threshold.

The media sure as hell, for all intents and purposes, ignored the possibility that Trump could actually win the election. I don't believe that is really even contestable. Read the link that Q posted above to see how their judgement was clouded by their preference for Hillary to be elected and for their ham-fisted approach at interpreting polling data. The hack job may well have been just enough to flip it to Trump but I believe our own media and possibly pollsters played a much more important role in helping to determine the outcome. And that is not to say they were pro Trump or anti Hillary but rather that they provided the incentive for many voters to show up and vote how they did.

That's a very interesting article and good post mortem on the election. Thanks for linking it Q. It would indicate that I have under estimated the amount of undecided voters and the effect of the hack job on the election results. I have admitted I may be wrong and this would indicate that I quite likely was wrong. I probably have let me personal disdain for both candidates cloud my perception of how other voters felt and how pliable they were to being swayed by what I viewed as just another pile of dirt on Hillary and the DNC. However, I would still maintain that it was US voters who decided this election by casting their votes and that a bigger influence on that was how the media presented and portrayed the candidates chances at winning. I think the bigger take away from that article is how and why the media got it so wrong. Not that I want the media to try to influence elections but it is rather obvious that they did, albeit conversely, by not acknowledging the legitimate chance Trump had to win it. I think maybe we were all guilty of that. I sure thought it was going to be a runaway HRC victory. How much of that was due to the subliminal media message, I guess we'll never know but I have to believe it was at least as influential as the release of the Comey report. Anyway I'll try to refrain from continuing this discussion in this thread because it is somewhat off topic.

Donald Trump is being sworn in as President of the United States tomorrow. I honestly have no idea how your response pertains to what you quoted me on.

I do feel that what Manning did is more disturbing (I wouldn't say a greater crime). She was trusted US personnel sworn to uphold our Constitution and defend our country. Putin is an adversarial Russian who as much should be expected from. That does not mean I condone what Putin did. They are both bad things. And I don't necessarily compare the crimes but I do compare peoples reactions to them. I originally commented that I saw a difference in the outcry here on HB but I have since recognized why that is somewhat logical given one of them happened 7 years ago and the other involves the President who will be inaugurated tomorrow. BTW- I don't see everybody you listed as necessarily "left-leaning". I'll leave it at that just to be mysterious.

This is where we have a slight difference of opinion. IMO it would have taken much more than this for Russia's actions to have a deciding affect on the outcome. Like I said, I could be wrong but, I don't think, with these candidates, there were too many voters on the fence subject to being swayed by this. I saw 4 pretty darn strong camps heading into the election; 1-Those that would never vote for either (me and some others here), 2-those that would never vote for Trump (you and some others here), 3- those that would never vote for Hillary (a few hereabouts) and 4- the large number of people who usually don't vote or were so disenchanted with the choice that they weren't going to bother to vote. Obviously there were some that were undecided and this could have influenced their vote. I just feel that had to be an extremely small handful of people. In that regard, the outcome is still our fault and our problem. We have to get better candidates and reduce the partisan rancor or we'll see more and more crap like this.

It is extremely troubling. The only way I've down played it at all is by saying that I think having more information at our disposal on the candidates is not a bad thing. That is not to say that how that information came to be divulged is a good thing.

I don't think this is true at all. Which is why I find it hard to go as far as saying Russia decided this election. Foreign powers will always seek influence if they can get it, especially adversarial ones who would benefit from our turmoil. It's our own fault as an electorate for being so given to base influence. It's not like they did anything really sophisticated. Trump was an overtly disgusting candidate and a lot of Americans just went, "F--- yeah." Is that not the definition of "not pliable"? Not subject to having their minds changed easily? That is why I think that is true and I agree with the rest of your post.

I'm not blowing it off as no big deal. I'm just doubting that it affected the outcome. "deciding" and "influencing" are two different things. Sorry if "you" didn't claim that but this post of yours seems to indicate otherwise- If you were just interpreting how you read the US intelligence report and mistakenly chose to say decided instead of influenced, then I'll agree with you. Or, please point me directly to where a report says it was a "deciding" factor.

I'm not being blind at all. I understand what happened and that they did want to affect the outcome. I just think it is a huge stretch to claim, as you did, that a foreign power decided the election. My personal opinion is that our voters were not too damn pliable in this election cycle. Seems virtually everyone had their mind made up prior to this information being known. The candidates and our politics have been so polarizing that I seriously doubt it affected the outcome. Anyone who was already thinking of voting for HRC surely was not swayed by even more dirt to vote for Trump at that point. And LOMS I understand it was one sided and they didn't present equally damming information about Trump. I still don't feel there were enough people on the fence that it was a deciding factor. I could be wrong but that is the way I see it. I know people want to blame something for the result. IMO when both candidates suck so bad, well, you're going to end up in a bad place no matter what. In my case anyway, there was absolutely no information that could've been presented that would've caused me to vote for the other candidate. If one of them had knifed a baby on TV, I still wouldn't have voted for the other one.

All I know is that having 2 or 3 possible qb's that fit the system is a much better problem to have than the best guy not fitting the system, a walk on backup and no number 3. We should be celebrating, not arguing.

P&A is a good one. We play that with friends once in awhile. We just call it A$$hole. It goes well with over consumption of adult beverages.

Nice video. Thanks for sharing.

Cribbage is also a great game. Used to play that all the time with my dad. Haven't played it in many years. Backgammon is a really good one too.

Ha, we play all of those also. I also like 5, 10 or 13 point pitch but 5 point is my favorite of those. Spades and Hearts are fun. Used to enjoy Canasta but have forgotten how to play. But my absolute favorite card game is euchre. I pretty much majored in that while I was in college. Also have always liked Risk and 2 new additions to family game night; Catan and Sushi Go. I was skeptical about Sushi Go but it is a lot of fun. Cards Against Humanity is fun for adults and in the right company.

And this doesn't cut both ways? It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this --> I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement. What's different? This happened seven years ago. Manning was busted and did time in jail. Surely you don't think a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power hostile to the United States is anything like a disgruntled soldier divulging classified documents? I already replied above to Moiraine on the differences that I now see in the discussion between the two. But as far as a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power....that seems a little over the top. They may well have tried and desired to manipulate the results of our election but they didn't tamper with any actual counts, no false votes were cast relative to their involvement, and the election was still decided by our process and our voters. I would maintain that all they really did was make more information known to some voters and, to my knowledge, none of that information was false. I sure don't like the fact that it was the Russians who did this or that apparently they got what they wanted by Trump being elected. And I sure don't like that there may be possible ties to Trump or his campaign as pertains to this. I do want that investigated and the truth to come out. Are you saying that people are upset because they were not kept in the dark about truths about HRC and the DNC? Seems like a funny thing to get too bent out of shape about, being told the truth and all. Personally I would like as much information as possible when I cast my vote. And yes, I think the 2 issues are somewhat related. I think the side a person takes on these issues should be somewhat consistent. If a person is against relatively harmless information being made known by Russia, why wouldn't that person also be upset by potentially more damaging information being released? (and as I acknowledged above, I do see where one is fresher and the other is older and already somewhat punished-but this commutation of sentence is new info) I find them both concerning but yes, I do find what Manning did to be more serious..... at least until Trump is actually proven to be behind the Russia deal. If that link is made, then I will change my opinion and that will be more disturbing to me as he is the President.

And this doesn't cut both ways? It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this --> I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Like you said she was convicted and has been in jail 7 years. Many in the GOP don't even want to investigate that other thing. That's what the "outcry" is over. I agree that it is hypocritical to ignore and not want to find out the truth of what really happened and who was involved in the Trump/Russian deal. But this does make sense if you look at how outraged some people are over an as yet unproven link to Trump but not a whole lot of outcry over a person having their sentence commuted when that is a proven case with the facts known. But you raise a good point, one is much fresher and the other happened 7 years ago and she has been at least partially punished for it. So yeah, I do get how the commentary here could be a little skewed toward the Trump deal.

And this doesn't cut both ways? It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this --> I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

Serious question. This is how little I know about this. What gender was he/she before the surgery? In the past couple of days I've seen some footage on TV of Manning, but I cannot tell if it was a man or woman. I know, shocker huh?