" I quoted his straw man in #171."

That's 41 times.

"Why don't you shovel some more straw."

That's roughly the fortieth time you've proven you don't understand the definition of strawman.

A Friend didn't make up a fake position you'd never taken, to then attack it.

He took your exact position, and eviscerated it.

Decidedly NOT a strawman.

"The most secure form of voting is in person."

It's the easiest to manipulate.

There's never a 4 hour line for a mail-in ballot. There's never a problem with buslines, or construction, or speed traps, or lane closings. There's never a need for child care while you vote, or lost wages, or transportation costs to and from the (ever diminishing) voting precincts.

Forcing in-person voting is an attempt at control; every legal voter should be able to choose the way THEY vote.

Don't forget the Suppressionist's Motto:

An additional barrier to voting won't be an additional barrier to voting!

"Since I would prefer early in person voting, that excludes me."

Sorry, but if it's got to be in-person, it's easier to suppress "certain" voters. And the fact early voting isn't universa, and Trump is demanding day-of voting,l underscores the control factor.

"No chain-of-custody drama."

No more than regular absentee ballots.

Have you clicked on ANY of the #117 links? Want to guess how many of those links even MENTION your theory???

"I'm not arguing my opinion."

Your "opinion" is disproven by the facts on the ground.

You can be of the opinion flying Unicorns exist. That doesn't mean for one moment you might be right.

Same here. If your theory was correct, we would be seeing dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of people coming out of the woodwork with your scenario. The fact it's been five years, and zero people have come forward claiming your scenario, proves your "opinion" is based on purposeful ignorance, and not facts.

And you don't even have the honesty to admit you have no proof after five years.

The fact of the matter is in-person votes are the easiest to manipulate, with long lines, fewer precincts, altered bus service, new ID requirements, speed traps, and the like.

Mail-in ballots have a higher rate of participation.

THAT's why suppressionists want to force in-person, day-of voting. Not because of efficacy or accuracy...for CONTROL.

"Th3 left hates churches and hates all religions except Islam."

What a riot. Even YOU don't believe that crap.

Where's TruthHurts to remind us you're here to troll?

"if America continues using mail-in ballots without the same standards of absentee ballots."

Mail-in ballots ARE absentee ballots. Same provenance, same safety steps. They're all watermarked, they're all serial-numbered. And if a ballot is returned which wasn't requested??? INVESTIGATION.

And same concept: Oregon has been doing mail-in ballots for three decades; you've yet to find ANY problems. Same with the military, for over a century and a half.

That's PLENTY of time for study and analysis. How many problems can you currently cite?

And if you have nothing, please show your honesty and admit as much.

"How is telling my opinions lying?"

Your "opinion" requires tens of thousands of stolen ballots, taken surreptitiously and used to vote for the Democrat.

The fact NO ONE has come forward after five years making that claim (or anything like it) PROVES YOUR OPINION WRONG.

Ultimately, the concept it happened tens of thousands of times, and after a close election NOBODY came forward and made the claim, should prove to you how bogus the concept remains. It defies logic, macro statistics, and human nature.

But you'll ignore that and still lie.

And you want to pretend you're still a vessel of God?!?

"God would not send a person who mocks Him to correct believers"

How about someone who lies regarding the efficacy of mail-in ballots, but won't admit five years later he still doesn't have the first scintilla of proof???

"making people prove their eligible for the benefits ? REALLY ??"

They've already proven once.

And that's not enough for you? REALLY???

How many times did you have to apply for social security? Once?

Or once monthly?

"And have you heard their slogan? Only the weak will fail!"

I was kidding.

I heard it'll be named the Frankly Unaffordable Care and Kindness Umbrella

Known by its acronym, of course.

"It's about being precise with language"

Explain about the "2,000% reduction" in prescription prices. Especially about the fact he's repeated it a dozen times, and even Karoline Leavitt has repeated it.

Are Trump's advisors too scared to correct him, or are they so stupid they don't know the difference?

If you're precise with language, there aren't too many other options.

"what we're getting right now, it's what Republicans want."

It's TrumpCare. Subsidies for Argentina, but not for you.

And have you heard their slogan? Only the weak will fail!

"The Democrats were in complete control, and there was no filibuster. They could have passed anything they wanted."

You're pretending there would've been no Dem blowback to M4A.

Fact is, had that been the option, a half-dozen HUGE groups would've suddenly galvanized against it...including hospitals, insurance companies (and Reps from insurance-heavy states, like New York or Illinois), and everyone with current plans in the 80th-99th percentile..

"Full repeal"

That's been said for 15 years straight. It usually was accompanied by the word "Replace".

What have you got?

OR DO YOU NEED ANOTHER TWO WEEKS???

"Just put everyone on medicare. Done."

Easier said than...done.

Medicare would lie in the 70-80 percentile range of plans in terms of quality and coverage. Folks who have Cadillac Plans would have to step down in their overall care. Plus, Medicare only covers about 80%, so that would have to be dealt with, as a lot of Cadillac Plans cover 90% or more.

Also, boutique versions would probably cease. The Union that covers dancers, for example, has a health plan with 16 visits to the chiropractor in a year.

"Hint: Raising taxes won't help the problem"

Will extending expiring tax giveaways help? Or will they exacerbate the problem???

"Some people profit from keeping things exactly the way they are."

Okay; we're both fighting against them. What's your plan on HOW to control costs?

"I haven't seen any details, so calling it what Republicans want feels a little premature."

Sure you have; it's the current TrumpCare. No mandate, so prices had to reflect the aging marketplace.

TrumpCare is no coverage unless you can afford it (roughly $24K/yr for a 60yr old couple), so its slogan should be...

Either plan to give your life savings to the medical industry, or die quickly, folks!

"If you bothered to read my posts you'd see what I believe."

Yeah; platitudes. And a COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING of how health insurance works.

YES, the costs go up EVERY YEAR. That's because...STUNNING SURPRISE!...you get OLDER every year. Stop blaming actuarial facts for that part of the annual increases.

As I've explained on other threads, every single health insurance police on folks from 27 to 64 has a different rate for how old you are. If a 27yr old is paying $300, and a 64yr old is paying $1500 (for that same policy), there will be 38 different rates, graduating EVERY SINGLE YEAR. A 59yr old will always pay more than a 58 yr old, and less than a 60 yr old. That's how the rate charts are set up.

I've seen nothing even acknowledging expected annual automatic increases.

"a system that directly addresses today's issues including cost controls "

That's a platitude. EVERYONE wants to control costs. What are your plans on HOW to control costs?

Will you be asking doctors to charge less (and therefore profit less)?
Would you cap annual raises and bonuses for medical field personnel?
Would you allow/force Medicare to negotiate for ANY AND ALL drugs they cover?
Will deductibles and co-pays rise?
Will folks get reasonable mileage deductions for the extra travel when rural hospitals close, even if they don't itemize?

And finally:
How may deaths-above-average do you expect per year, once a trillion dollars starts being cut from Medicaid?

" The enhancements were written to be temporary and are now expiring."

So are the trillions of tax cuts for the world's wealthiest...but the Republicans somehow found a way to extend those, didn't they?

Seems like TrumpCare is working out the way Republicans want.

"A few days ago I wrote Trump will have to watch out for people who will sabotage his efforts."

What a riot.

Republicans spent 15 years trying to sabotage the former ACA (now TrumpCare). They refused to correct its errors, refused to try to improve it, and they've literally put its obliteration into proposed laws SEVENTY TIMES.

You're basically saying you don't want Democrats to act like Republicans already have.

Why aren't folks talking about the elephant in the room?

I was watching some podclip where Kash Patel was asked pointblank about the files. He recoiled and said something about it being above his pay grade. But the took in his eyes was even creepier than usual, as in he'd seen what's in there, and wants nooooo part of what it's about.

What's it about?

Epstein always got sweetheart deals because his job was to get kompromat on the uber-powerful. And not just Ds and Rs. On the world's wealthiest and most powerful.

"Every year, the money needed will always go up a little bit more,"

That's because every year, you get older. And every year, there's medical inflation.

Every one of the policies on healthcare.gov, EVERY ONE OF THEM, has a rising price for every age. Between 27 and 64, there are THIRTY-EIGHT different premiums for every policy, all based on your age that year.

The folks who are 64 ALWAYS pay top of the market (Currently around $1200-$1500month), and that's usually what COBRA folks pay as well.

So your prices should go up every year for TWO reasons: you're a more expensive client than younger you last year...

...and medical inflation.