Highmark

At Canadian HC rates cutting 100% of our military budget gets HC for only 100 million Americans.

I'm not in support of the military increase but what has a chance to save more lives, our military or the billions we spend on illegals in our country?

To be fair candidates and Presidents are the most video taped and photographed people in the world. I avoid getting my picture taken and still look like a doufus at times.

Bill was pointing to some chick "I'm gonna hit that later."

He always has. Hillary and Bernie voted the same 93% of the time.

Hillary throws better than Obama. Well she is part dyke.

Lets not forget these classics. K0kQbMV.mp4

VS.

TRUMP LOVES THE RUSSIANS BUT HE WILL GET US IN A NUCLEAR WAR WITH THEM!!!!!!!!!

If the Russian Twitter Bot thing worked thanks Obama! This just keeps getting better and better. FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY TRIED TO REVEAL RUSSIAN TAMPERING MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION Updated | FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek. Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House Situation Room in June or July. “He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward. What do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice. Read more: FBI director confirms probe into possible Trump-Russia ties The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature. It comes from one person.” The op-ed would not have mentioned whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s campaign workers or others close to him for links to the Russians’ interference in the election, a second source with knowledge of the request tells Newsweek. Comey would likely have tried to publish the op-ed in The New York Times, and it would have included much of the same information as the bombshell declassified intelligence report released January 6, which said Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the presidential election, the source says. “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report stated, adding that the U.S. intelligence community had “high confidence” in its judgments. “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” While news outlets reported in June that Russian hackers accessed Democratic National Committee emails, U.S. intelligence agencies didn’t confirm that the Russian government was trying to influence the election until months later. On March 20, Comey told the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI has, since July, been investigating Russian interference in the election and whether there was collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. Comey has previously written to a major news outlet. In 2014, when the FBI was facing criticism because an agent had posed as an Associated Press reporter as part of an investigation, Comey wrote a letter for publication in The New York Times defending the agent. “It falls in line with his willingness or his determination to be transparent,” says Frank Montoya Jr., a former special agent in charge of the FBI’s Seattle division and the former head of national counterintelligence. For supporters of Hillary Clinton, news of the op-ed adds to the frustration over Comey’s public disclosure of details about the investigation into her emails, including at a July press conference, but not about the probe involving Russia and Trump, which began that same month. “This raises a lot of questions,” says Jarad Geldner, a senior adviser for the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which filed a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility over Comey’s disclosures about the Clinton investigation. “That raises the question of why Comey or [the Department of Justice] or the White House felt that it was OK to hold that [July] press conference on Hillary Clinton’s emails but not to go public with this.” But the source with knowledge of Comey’s request says that the FBI director wanted the Russian interference made public earlier and that it was a sluggish White House that denied Comey and delayed the announcement. “The White House shut it down,” that source says. “They did their usual—nothing.” Both sources spoke to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. Asked about Comey’s push to write an op-ed over the summer, a spokesperson for the FBI says by email, “In general we have not been adding to the director’s comments regarding Russia at the March 20 hearing.” A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. A spokesman for Barack Obama could not immediately be reached. This story has been updated to include the names of the Department of Homeland Security secretary and national security adviser at the meeting in question. http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-director-james-comey-russian-tampering-election-576417

What's hilarious is Bernie supporters thinking he wouldn't have sold out even if he did win the nomination.

For all you Obama lovers. They thought Hillary was a shoe in and kept the Russian thing in their back pocket for a Oct/Nov surprise. Its now being reported Comey wanted to do an op ed long ago about Russia trying to influence the election but the Obama admin wouldn't let him. Obama Knew About Russia Hack During Election, Hid To Help Hillary Democratic hysteria over alleged Russian hacking has reached a fever pitched in recent days as high-level party officials begin to question the integrity of this year’s presidential election. But Kremlin-backed cyber warfare is nothing new. In fact, the Obama administration knew about all of this months ago. So why didn’t the president or his underlings raise the alarm bells before? One word. Politics. Today, we are seeing the consequences of what happens when a presidential administration politicizes intelligence. “For months, Obama administration officials have debated how to respond to Russian hacks they believed were intended to undermine the US elections. But they kept arriving at reasons not to respond publicly,” reports CNN. “In addition to a fear of sparking a wider cyber-conflict and an attempt to save talks with Russia over Syria, the administration did not want to give Donald Trump reason to cry foul following what they were certain would be a Hillary Clinton victory.” Reread that. The great irony, of course, is that now Democrats are questioning Donald Trump’s victory. You can already hear the conversations behind closed doors. It must have been the Russians! Naturally, the Obama administration is pushing back against claims that it refused to go public with what its intelligence services had learned. White House officials are arguing now that they just wanted the investigation to evolve on its own. That’s nonsense. “CNN discussions with multiple administration, law enforcement and intelligence officials tell a different story,” asserts CNN Justice Correspondent Evan Perez. Perez’s investigation reveals a disturbing truth: The Obama administration has been politicizing intelligence at the expense of the country. Perez explains: Intelligence and law enforcement agencies were aware of Russian cyber attacks against the United States in July. “Over the next three months, during a series of meetings at the White House and on conference calls, national security officials at the White House and other government agencies debated over how to calibrate an appropriate response,” explains Perez. It was only in October when officials went public with the information, disclosing for the first time that Russian hackers might be guilty of foul play. By then, it was clear to anybody following WikiLeaks on Twitter that Russian hackers were specifically attempting to make the Democrats look bad. Selectively infiltrating and releasing Hillary Clinton and Co.’s emails, Kremlin-affiliated digital actors were keen on influencing the election by feeding into the American public’s already unfavorable view of the Democratic nominee. To be clear, there is no evidence to suggest that the Russians hacked into our physical election process. This was a PR war that Hillary Clinton would have likely lost all on her own. As October came and passed, Obama administration officials were still relatively tight-lipped about the extent of Russia's hacking activities. The futile and naive hope for a Syrian cease fire deal brokered by Russia only worked to incentivize the administration's lack of transparency. Now that Donald Trump has secured the White House, sharing his plans to upend Obama's precarious legacy, the White House is changing its tune, talking tough and proposing counter-intelligence against Moscow. Too little, too late.

MC Jap and commie hater. Muslim and illegal immigrant lover.

State Department using taxpayer money to up Hillary's reputation. Disgusting. Sorry I know the source is really anti-Hillary. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/state-department-facebook-likes-spent-630000_n_3541734.html A striking finding in a recent Inspector General report revealed that the U.S. Department of State spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Facebook “likes” in the past two years, effectively buying fans. In order to bolster its presence on Facebook, the State Department paid about $630,000 for campaigns to increase its total number of likes, the May 2013 report indicates. While the sheer amount of funds the State Department dropped on social media may be surprising in and of itself, the most significant aspect of the report may be the finding that these fans are, for the most part, fake. As the report states: “Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as ‘buying fans’ who may have once clicked on an ad or ‘liked’ a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further.” Brought to light by DiploPundit, the report states that the Bureau of International Information and Programs commenced a crusade to expand the department’s social media presence globally in 2011. Facebook, in particular, was targeted with two campaigns — launched in 2011 and 2012 — with the overarching goal of increasing the department’s fan base on the social networking site. The $630,000 Facebook campaigns were, in fact, successful, increasing the total number fans of the State Department’s English-language pages from about 100,000 to 2 million since 2011, the report notes. (The State Department’s main Facebook page currently has more than 279,000 likes.) However, no matter how well-intentioned the efforts, the act of liking a Facebook page does not automatically translate into active engagement. By mid-March 2013, only a small percentage of fans were regularly contributing to the pages, with just over 2 percent liking, sharing or commenting in the previous week. As Foreign Policy notes, Facebook also made some changes to its News Feed in 2012 that were detrimental to page owners, including many media organizations. With the tweak, fan pages became much less prominent in the News Feed, meaning owners would have to pay for sponsored ads to keep their brands visible. Though the State Department appears to be making a lot of changes to its social media program, including proposed guidelines that restrict what employees may post, the IG recommends the State Department adopt a clear-cut strategy that clarifies the “public diplomacy priorities of its social media sites.” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki addressed the IG report in the department’s daily press briefing Wednesday, assuring that “spending on online advertising has significantly decreased.” “It’s now at $2,500 a month, and that still allows us to reach out and communicate with a wide range of individuals living overseas,” Psaki said. “I think that’s a clear indication we’ve taken the recommendations seriously and put changes in place.”

Here is the most hilarious thing. They are trying to claim Russia influenced the election with social media propaganda sent by "twitter bots" in Russia. It has been proven Hillary's team did basically the EXACT same thing using servers to push out fake news yet nobody is crying foul about that. http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2015/11/09/audit-shows-hillary-clinton-fake-twitter-followers/ The Washington Examiner reports an audit of the Twitter accounts for the 2016 presidential candidates found Hillary Clinton has the highest percentage of phony followers by far, a whopping 41 percent. This means that of the 4.65 million followers Clinton claims, 1, 906,500 of them might be fakes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038621/More-2-MILLION-Hillary-Clinton-s-Twitter-followers-fake-never-tweet.html More than 2 MILLION of Hillary Clinton's Twitter followers are fake or never tweet – and she's already under fire for 'buying' fake Facebook fans Two different online audit tools say no more than 44 per cent of Hillary's 3.6 million Twitter fans are real people who participate in the platform The newly minted presidential candidate is fending off accusations that her Facebook page is full of fake 'likes' Her Facebook fan base includes more people from Baghdad, Iraq than any US city When she was secretary of state, her agency paid $630,000 to bulk up its Facebook likes, but pledged to stop after she left

all of the heads of the intel organizations have said exactly the opposite.

He literally doesn't post a thread that is provable in any way. Might, if, could, maybe, perhaps....

Why should this be mandatory coverage? What is so wrong with picking and choosing the coverage you want or need? This is the problem with required HCI. Everyone has to pay rather they think the coverage is needed or not.

Vince=MC

shortly after trumpcare was to end substance abuse treatment coverage.

Yet if a significant portion of those oil reserves prove to be unrecoverable – either because climate-conscious governments or social movements compel fossil fuel companies to stop extraction – that means those assets would be worth a whole lot less. LMFAO! Just exactly how Vince are they suppose to predict that? Come on you have to be smarter than that.

Read the bold. All but admitting to spying on the Trump team.

Oops. Nothing to see here. What was the assistant SoD doing with any of this. They are not an investigative branch of the Administration. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/29/former-obama-official-discloses-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html A former top Obama administration official has acknowledged efforts by her colleagues to gather intelligence on Trump team ties to Russia before Donald Trump took office and to conceal the sources of that intelligence from the incoming administration. Evelyn Farkas, deputy assistant secretary of defense under Obama, made the disclosure while on the air with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski. “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,” Farkas, who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said. “Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.” The comments come as lawmakers on Capitol Hill clash over House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' claim last week that surveillance operations incidentally collected Trump team communications during the transition. Critics have accused Nunes of carrying water for Trump and called on him to recuse himself from Russia matters, but Nunes and his congressional allies have pushed back. Aside from questions over whether communications were improperly gathered during the transition and before, there is speculation over how widely such information was disseminated. Farkas described a rush to spread the material before Trump took office. "So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said. "So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill."

Wealthiest man I personally know didn't graduate the 8th grade. Now all of a sudden a college degree determines intelligence or success?