Bill,

Calling out media dishonesty isn't the same as support for any temporary inhabitant of the White House. IMHO the first problem is much more of a calamity than the second. Was under Obama, is even more so now.

>>Right.
>>I shot off another email to Lysol and Clorox.
>>Their minds had been clouded, like mine, by the Soviets.

Certainly they were forced to respond to a media onslaught claiming Trump said to chug Clorox. If you still believe he said that even after I posted the transcribed text, it's no wonder those firms had to speak out against such dangerous ideas.

>>These guys have also been brain-washed:
>>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/
>>Must have been Mika again.

I knew they endorsed Biden. I haven't seen any dishonesty about that in the media, so not sure why you load your observation like that- as of you've cast me as a MAGA hat-wearer who it's virtuous to attack.

I would say this to the unnamed "editors": science not only tolerates but welcomes dissent. Science does not claim absolutely certainty about very much at all. Including climate change or the perfection of the ACA, even though KG regularly reminds me of my support for it, then and now.

Since healthcare funding is a topic in which I've called myself a student for over 2 decades now, perhaps I'm equipped to review what those editors claimed? ? Because IMHO the ACA was doomed almost immediately by the failure to implement "individual mandate" which would be recognized by citizens of every other First World nation as "healthcare for all, funded by all." Instead, the ACA was implemented as if fire insurance is optional until your place is on fire and then the insurer is forced to issue a policy at standard price and cover your loss. You don't need to spend 20 years to understand the problem with that... but still those editors make it about Trump, forgetting a) that only Congress can overturn or replace ACA and b) that it was Saint McCain who is responsible for the ACA still limping along today. So on a topic I know a little about- if that's the caliber of the editorial thinking, then I'm not sure who the audience of "Scientific American" is these days but I suspect their label is no more accurate in 2020 than "fact checker."

>>Even liars get some things right now and then:
>>You've proven this to be absolutely true:

LOL. Right- I'm a Trump voter who'd still support him if he shot somebody on Park Avenue. How'd you see through my disguise?

Alternatively, I suspect we both agree with Trump's very next comment after he came up with that gem. Not sure whether he's referring to what he said or the fact that he said it, but true either way.