|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43565 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:03 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:20 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Most of the time they are right though. How are they right? The people I approach about name calling can't even back their own "facts" or sit to debate without getting mad, aggressive, and this is on both sides. But I've definitely have had more issues with right wingers because they choose to believe in their narrative without accepting new facts, where lefts choose to believe their narrative, and accept new facts. There are plenty of left wingers in this threat still believes that Trump is racist toward people of Mexico heritage.
Trump said that an American judge born in America was incapable of being impartial (one of the core components of being a judge) because he was of Mexican heritage. Do you not recall that? If I said that black police officers were incapable of following the law because of their African heritage would that be racist? What's the line here?
|
On March 03 2017 05:03 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:20 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Most of the time they are right though. How are they right? The people I approach about name calling can't even back their own "facts" or sit to debate without getting mad, aggressive, and this is on both sides. But I've definitely have had more issues with right wingers because they choose to believe in their narrative without accepting new facts, where lefts choose to believe their narrative, and accept new facts. There are plenty of left wingers in this threat still believes that Trump is racist toward people of Mexico heritage even though he specifically said "illegal immigrants" and is simply following the law. And there are still plenty of left wingers that still believes in wage gap myth too spewed by the leftiest media to propel Hillary Clinton into presidency (which hilariously failed). Also there are plenty of left wingers who defends BLM. These people should learn a bit from Koreans and look at their way of protesting peacefully and got the result they wanted. But if you (ShoCkeyy) aren't like those left wingers, then all the power to you.
I understand it's illegal immigrants, but the way Trump started to approach it was in a terrible way, which now has apparently let crazy right racist shoot up who ever they think is an "immigrant"... The "wage gap" happened because we have people in this country that can't even leave their grocery store job to better their life because they assume that's all they can get; they obviously don't know how capitalism works.
And there are still some good "BLM" groups, while others have descended into terrorism, how does that make it any better than the KKK? Which I don't agree with at all.
|
On March 03 2017 05:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:33 Nevuk wrote:
This is a little amusing, but also a somewhat important sign
Good on Rand Paul for doing this. I'm sure that whatever the GOP is up to is a garbage plan, but Rand's grandstanding on this is rather silly. Let them finish their plan before demanding that they air it.
I'm too much reminded of all the nonsense repeal vote and no power of the purse negotiation. I'll take anyone holding spineless congressional republicans' feet to the fire even if it involves grandstanding. My gut tells me they'll still flake on the big must-repeal aspects and I'd rather know if that's the first draft earlier than later.
|
United States43565 Posts
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there.
|
On March 03 2017 05:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:20 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Most of the time they are right though. How are they right? The people I approach about name calling can't even back their own "facts" or sit to debate without getting mad, aggressive, and this is on both sides. But I've definitely have had more issues with right wingers because they choose to believe in their narrative without accepting new facts, where lefts choose to believe their narrative, and accept new facts. There are plenty of left wingers in this threat still believes that Trump is racist toward people of Mexico heritage. Trump said that an American judge born in America was incapable of being impartial (one of the core components of being a judge) because he was of Mexican heritage. Do you not recall that? If I said that black police officers were incapable of following the law because of their African heritage would that be racist? What's the line here?
That sounds like something you'd need to discuss with the CBC.
|
GOP won the election by promising Unicorns. And now they are faced with the problem that they can’t blame anyone for unicorns not existing.
|
On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there.
To be fair, when Obama promised the costs savings of 2500 a year and if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, that was him doing exactly what you just said. The healthy wouldn't subsidize the sick, the young wouldn't subsidize the old. Trump can propose what plan he wants; fact remains Obama and congressional democrats deserve the blame now, Trump the blame soon if those kind of provisions stay.
|
United States43565 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:23 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:13 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 05:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:20 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Most of the time they are right though. How are they right? The people I approach about name calling can't even back their own "facts" or sit to debate without getting mad, aggressive, and this is on both sides. But I've definitely have had more issues with right wingers because they choose to believe in their narrative without accepting new facts, where lefts choose to believe their narrative, and accept new facts. There are plenty of left wingers in this threat still believes that Trump is racist toward people of Mexico heritage. Trump said that an American judge born in America was incapable of being impartial (one of the core components of being a judge) because he was of Mexican heritage. Do you not recall that? If I said that black police officers were incapable of following the law because of their African heritage would that be racist? What's the line here? That sounds like something you'd need to discuss with the CBC.
GH can probably set up a meeting.
|
On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there.
I don't know why they just don't repeal the ACA then just submit their own plan that is just the ACA but with the fixes. You totally know they would get away with it too and people would be proclaiming how the GOP saved healthcare.
The problem for the GOP is Trump opened his mouth and made ridiculous promises about the new healthcare plan, basically painting it as the dream healthcare for everyone.
|
On March 03 2017 05:30 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there. I don't know why they just don't repeal the ACA then just submit their own plan that is just the ACA but with the fixes. You totally know they would get away with it too and people would be proclaiming how the GOP saved healthcare.
That's what they probably want to do but they'll have members of the house freedom caucus + Rand Paul blasting them to bits.
|
United States43565 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there. To be fair, when Obama promised the costs savings of 2500 a year and if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, that was him doing exactly what you just said. The healthy wouldn't subsidize the sick, the young wouldn't subsidize the old. Trump can propose what plan he wants; fact remains Obama and congressional democrats deserve the blame now, Trump the blame soon if those kind of provisions stay.
I'll blame Obama for it now and blame Trump if he doesn't change it but in both cases it's not really blame because I don't disagree with the premise. Collectivised healthcare has quite clearly triumphed in the contest for the most efficient delivery system. And yeah, the cost savings and keeping your doctor promises were foolish.
|
On March 03 2017 05:14 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:20 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Most of the time they are right though. How are they right? The people I approach about name calling can't even back their own "facts" or sit to debate without getting mad, aggressive, and this is on both sides. But I've definitely have had more issues with right wingers because they choose to believe in their narrative without accepting new facts, where lefts choose to believe their narrative, and accept new facts. There are plenty of left wingers in this threat still believes that Trump is racist toward people of Mexico heritage even though he specifically said "illegal immigrants" and is simply following the law. And there are still plenty of left wingers that still believes in wage gap myth too spewed by the leftiest media to propel Hillary Clinton into presidency (which hilariously failed). Also there are plenty of left wingers who defends BLM. These people should learn a bit from Koreans and look at their way of protesting peacefully and got the result they wanted. But if you (ShoCkeyy) aren't like those left wingers, then all the power to you. I understand it's illegal immigrants, but the way Trump started to approach it was in a terrible way, which now has apparently let crazy right racist shoot up who ever they think is an "immigrant"... The "wage gap" happened because we have people in this country that can't even leave their grocery store job to better their life because they assume that's all they can get; they obviously don't know how capitalism works. And there are still some good "BLM" groups, while others have descended into terrorism, how does that make it any better than the KKK? Which I don't agree with at all.
Well you have to blame the left biased media for aggrandizing Trump's words. They make it sound ominous.
Those people have some issues and a huge chunk of those people are also males so its not a gender issue.
I agree that there are some good BLM people.
But if you are in the protest, and someone in your rank start breaking shit and you DON'T stop them by saying "Hey y'know that's not the best way to bring out our message." or at least start leading the good people in the protest away from the shit disturbers and specifically say "Yeah those people aren't here to spread our message but just to fuck things up."
Well you just became part of the problem.
|
On March 03 2017 05:30 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there. I don't know why they just don't repeal the ACA then just submit their own plan that is just the ACA but with the fixes. You totally know they would get away with it too and people would be proclaiming how the GOP saved healthcare. The problem for the GOP is Trump opened his mouth and made ridiculous promises about the new healthcare plan, basically painting it as the dream healthcare for everyone.
Because their plan isn't done and getting rid of the ACA without a replacement is asking to lose a lot of the ground they've gained over the last 6 years.
|
young and healthies have been subsidizing the care of the sick and old since the pooled health insurance scheme started, that's entirely how risk sharing works.
|
On March 03 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there. To be fair, when Obama promised the costs savings of 2500 a year and if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, that was him doing exactly what you just said. The healthy wouldn't subsidize the sick, the young wouldn't subsidize the old. Trump can propose what plan he wants; fact remains Obama and congressional democrats deserve the blame now, Trump the blame soon if those kind of provisions stay.
The promise for no cancellation of insurance was just stupid. Numerous state laws require notice of cancelation is the insurance is changing in significant ways. The fact that the GOP went down the same road this time sort of blew my mind.
And if we don’t want people being denied for preexisting conditions, the young subsidizing the old is the only way forward.
|
United States43565 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:32 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:30 Slaughter wrote:On March 03 2017 05:22 KwarK wrote:
The Obamacare problem is that the bits people hate and the bits people love are fundamentally linked. Young healthy people hate being forced to pay more than they should. Unhealthy old people hate being made to pay what they should. Obamacare said "why don't we put them all in the same group and make them all pay the same amount". Trump promised to let the healthy people not pay while keeping the unhealthy people subsidized from somewhere.
The best solution for them would be to keep it pretty much intact and keep blaming Obama for it. But they've spent so much time insisting that they'll repeal it that they've somewhat burned their bridges there. I don't know why they just don't repeal the ACA then just submit their own plan that is just the ACA but with the fixes. You totally know they would get away with it too and people would be proclaiming how the GOP saved healthcare. The problem for the GOP is Trump opened his mouth and made ridiculous promises about the new healthcare plan, basically painting it as the dream healthcare for everyone. Because their plan isn't done and getting rid of the ACA without a replacement is asking to lose a lot of the ground they've gained over the last 6 years.
Because any plan that doesn't require that low insurance risk people be pooled with high insurance risk people requires the money to pay for the high insurance people to come from somewhere. On the one hand they have half the party saying "the insurance mandate is literally the beginning of a dictatorship" and on the other hand they have half the party saying "no taxes, no borrowing".
To finish their plan they'll have to decide where the money has to come from. If they refuse to finish their plan then they can tell both sides "don't worry, the other side can pay".
|
United States43565 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:33 farvacola wrote:
young and healthies have been subsidizing the care of the sick and old since the pooled health insurance scheme started, that's entirely how risk sharing works.
Only in healthcare. In most risk sharing insurance systems you adjust the premium based on the circumstances of the individual. You'll pay the same fire insurance premium as someone with a comparable house and comparable possessions, but a different premium to someone else. In that system insurance doesn't have winners or losers, you pay the financial equivalent of your statistical risk and whether or not it happens you're fine. It's EV neutral. In healthcare some people are the equivalent of a house which is always on fire. Health insurance is nothing more than wealth redistribution from the healthy to the unhealthy.
It's not how risk sharing works. Risk sharing is EV neutral. Health insurance isn't really insurance, it's just redistribution.
|
On March 03 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:31 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2017 03:41 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote:
Skepticism at WaPo. No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. The amusing part is that the snarkiness is badly misplaced. I'm the one who delved into the facts. Not Kwark. As usual, he can't even relay the facts accurately and completely. Humorous angle on "Russian intelligence" instead of ambassador. Senators routinely have foreign ambassadors coming through their offices, both as senior members on panels and just as senators. Ask any Senate staffer, the one I happened to read called it a constant flow. And people think Sessions should be an exception given Russian hacking. He probably should've disclosed and definitely shouldn't have volunteered no meetings (Franken) even if the context was campaign staff and the 2016 election. Calling it Russian intelligence is factual misrepresentation of an actual named post and dignitary. Sacrificed geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia? Kwark must be on about Obama. Newsflash: facts differ from interpretations, which is why you probably would disagree with Obama doing he same on Syrian red line or in communication with Medvedev (infamous hot mic). Except not a single other member of the Armed Service Committee met with a Russian ambassador during 2016 and atleast one has commented that they never called/met (in the capacity of the Armed Service Committee). That all went through the foreign office. That's a big change from up to 30 Senate Democrats that met with Russian officials in 2015. Sorry, let me update my rhetoric to match the current tone. McCaskill and others announcing their support for the Iran deal mere days after secret meetings with Russian officials. Waiting for the probe of what really went on behind closed doors. But I'm well aware of things that were fine in 2015 turning sinister in 2016. Because you lost an election. Now, go contact Democratic Senator Ed Markey. Ask what really went on when he was partying with the Russian Ambassador at the French ambassadors residence. Or wait, that was 2016 so clearly they were at the same party and never met. Absolutely absurd, Senators are involved in treaties and ambassadors are representatives of foreign governments. With the Iran deal, Russia was on our "team", and we were coordinating with them. It was a 6 or 7 nation deal. Sessions meets with the Russian ambassador/spy at the worst possible time. And it's part of a pattern with team Trump. Pretty partisan to brush it off. You choose to brush off one set of secret meetings, choose to brush off what it means for this being a common occurence for Senators in direct opposition to the person I quoted, and brush off what it means for fun parties. Sorry, you're too hyperpartisan to see straight.
Actually I addressed both the secret meeting and the common occurrence. I guess you don't have a good response though.
|
On March 03 2017 05:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:33 farvacola wrote:
young and healthies have been subsidizing the care of the sick and old since the pooled health insurance scheme started, that's entirely how risk sharing works. Only in healthcare. In most risk sharing insurance systems you adjust the premium based on the circumstances of the individual. You'll pay the same fire insurance premium as someone with a comparable house and comparable possessions, but a different premium to someone else. In that system insurance doesn't have winners or losers, you pay the financial equivalent of your statistical risk and whether or not it happens you're fine. It's EV neutral. In healthcare some people are the equivalent of a house which is always on fire. Health insurance is nothing more than wealth redistribution from the healthy to the unhealthy. It's not how risk sharing works. Risk sharing is EV neutral. Health insurance isn't really insurance, it's just redistribution.
Your point is well taken, though I'll point out that it isn't only health insurance that includes that extra problem of the always burning house. A lot of stop-loss insurance for self-insured medical plans and other kinds of emergency upkeep insurance for entities with fiduciary duties to beneficiaries produces the same result given that many health systems and employer-managed health plans are more or less the risk-sharing equivalent of an end stage renal failure patient.
Edit: Then again, now that I'm looking back at it, there still isn't the same pooling of risk as there is with health insurance, so your point stands. I'm gonna look into some of the silly hedge fund and derivatives insurance schemes and see if it happens anywhere else.
|
On March 03 2017 05:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:31 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2017 03:41 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. The amusing part is that the snarkiness is badly misplaced. I'm the one who delved into the facts. Not Kwark. As usual, he can't even relay the facts accurately and completely. Humorous angle on "Russian intelligence" instead of ambassador. Senators routinely have foreign ambassadors coming through their offices, both as senior members on panels and just as senators. Ask any Senate staffer, the one I happened to read called it a constant flow. And people think Sessions should be an exception given Russian hacking. He probably should've disclosed and definitely shouldn't have volunteered no meetings (Franken) even if the context was campaign staff and the 2016 election. Calling it Russian intelligence is factual misrepresentation of an actual named post and dignitary. Sacrificed geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia? Kwark must be on about Obama. Newsflash: facts differ from interpretations, which is why you probably would disagree with Obama doing he same on Syrian red line or in communication with Medvedev (infamous hot mic). Except not a single other member of the Armed Service Committee met with a Russian ambassador during 2016 and atleast one has commented that they never called/met (in the capacity of the Armed Service Committee). That all went through the foreign office. That's a big change from up to 30 Senate Democrats that met with Russian officials in 2015. Sorry, let me update my rhetoric to match the current tone. McCaskill and others announcing their support for the Iran deal mere days after secret meetings with Russian officials. Waiting for the probe of what really went on behind closed doors. But I'm well aware of things that were fine in 2015 turning sinister in 2016. Because you lost an election. Now, go contact Democratic Senator Ed Markey. Ask what really went on when he was partying with the Russian Ambassador at the French ambassadors residence. Or wait, that was 2016 so clearly they were at the same party and never met. Absolutely absurd, Senators are involved in treaties and ambassadors are representatives of foreign governments. With the Iran deal, Russia was on our "team", and we were coordinating with them. It was a 6 or 7 nation deal. Sessions meets with the Russian ambassador/spy at the worst possible time. And it's part of a pattern with team Trump. Pretty partisan to brush it off. You choose to brush off one set of secret meetings, choose to brush off what it means for this being a common occurence for Senators in direct opposition to the person I quoted, and brush off what it means for fun parties. Sorry, you're too hyperpartisan to see straight. Actually I addressed both the secret meeting and the common occurrence. I guess you don't have a good response though.
Hah! If that's your means of addressing it, I've gotta see how you ignore topics. You brushed it off. Listen, maybe you'll pick and choose what you want to respond to. Just don't pretend everybody else has to be slave to your changing feelings on Russia and how that ought to dictate the movements of Senators. Keep that partisanship under a heavier coat, it'll serve your trolling better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
