>>>Until you understand that ObamaCare was not and is not in a 'death spiral' this conversation will be pointless.
>
>None of the stuff you raise rebuts the realities reported by insurers themselves, not the GOP. Sorry but superficial partisan googling doesn't justify a domineering attitude or claims of expertise.

You are wrong about that. And my domineering take on this - if that's what you want to call it - is coming from decades of experience and seeing the numbers first hand.

>>>There is no 'logic' that would make HRC a worse president than Donald Trump.
>
>Yes, there is. I don't agree with all of it, but I get what Bill is saying. Just because you can't follow it, doesn't make it wrong.

Because some fools think illogically doesn't make wrong either. What Bill is saying makes zero sense. If his ego doesn't allow him to see that then that is another problem. (his problem)

>>>I say than only an idiot would think that the problem with Moore is the same as the problem with Fraken. Not making excuses for Fraken - but we're talking about two totally different things with two totally different people who have responded two totally different ways.
>
>Moore denies it; Franken doesn't. There's pictures of Franken taking advantage of a sleeping woman; there's no physical evidence so far except a secret yearbook against Moore. I say that US law makes him innocent until shown guilty, though I suppose you know better than anybody else about that too.

WTF is wrong with you here dude? You think that all these women, all these witnesses are lying (none of which have anything to gain by lying by the way) - and the ONLY person telling the truth is this alt-right nut case? And this doesn't have to do with what you can prove in a court of law either - it's if a person is the type of person that should hold office - and in case you missed the news flash here - this guy is NOT. What your staying is as stupid as saying you can't tell for sure if a dog can see colors because you are not a dog. Wake up man.

I have to ask you - do you believe the women or not?

>>>Oh sorry make that an entire shopping mall of witnesses and 9 women (so far). And he's a child molester ...well probably a serial child molester. I have a problem with such a person holding office. You would think he's saying 9/11 happened because of sodomy and the fact he was kicked off the bench as a judge twice would be enough , not to mention some of his insane rulings he made (you can look that up and be horrfied)-- but not if it means you get a republican in congress - because it appears that they value a republican in the seat more than that of the life of a child.
>
>Clearly you have no idea why he was kicked off the bench. And if you want to live in a world where accusers can destroy your prospects without any due process, maybe you should try one of the corrupt third world hell holes that go in for that stuff. Because in democracies, that's not how we carry on.

I know exactly why he was kicked off the bench twice. 1. His defiance of federal law over same sex marriage (and telling probate judges to defy the law) and 2. his refusal to remove an enormous Ten Commandments monument despite orders to do so by a federal court. And while you're verifying that I encourage you to read up on his rulings and statements regarding the Eric L. Higdon case. (do so on an empty stomach because it will make you sick).

>While we're at it, did you notice this week that the FBI and Justice Department can't verify anything of significance in the Trump/Russia collusion dossier? You were sure about that, too. Better get onto those idiots at the FBI and give them a dose of your facts before they close the case.

Did you notice that there has been two arrests and 1 guilty plea already regarding the Russia investigation and that it's far from over? Just wait.

>>>That sir is total bullshit. Trump is still supporting him and will no matter what
>
>More inaccurate paraphrase. Direct quotes are more reputable than partisan approximations.

1st 60 seconds of the video - Trump saying it on video should be accurate enough I would think.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/trump-defends-roy-moore-1101271107771

>>>You're not one of these people that doubts the validity of the story because of when it came out are you? If so we can have a discussion about that and I will gladly explain it all to you.
>
>For the umteenth time, I support the principle underpinning most Western democracies that you're innocent until proven guilty. Even if I don't like the accused. The corollary is that in civilized society, it's better to free 9 guilty men than to convict one innocent one. Why? Because of the point you keep ignoring, that there's no civic safety or social compact if accusers can take you down merely by pointing a finger and screaming "witch!" If you can't follow this, maybe somebody else here can explain it to you.

..and you keep ignoring that this is not a court case - its an election. Look either you believe the women or you do not so I ask you

DO YOU BELIEVE THE WOMEN OR NOT? YES OR NO.