|
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. |
On March 03 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:28 Danglars 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. 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.
Or make it more attractive for purchasers to have continuation of insurance and we only talk about pre-existing conditions for juveniles. Pre-existing assumes quite a bit about the current coverage scheme that we're speaking of changing, namely a break in coverage with employer-centered plans.
|
On March 03 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:39 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I'll spell it out easier for you:
- The McCaskill meeting is not equivalent to the Sessions meeting because she was meeting when we were working together with Russia
- The Sessions meeting is otherwise not equivalent to the Democrats' meetings because of 3 things: the timing, Sessions involvement with team Trump, and the pattern of team Trump (one presidential campaign not a whole party) Russia contacts
It is easy enough to see that your points were addressed.
|
|
|
This is going to go two ways:
1) "I did not have sexual, I mean, lie to congress under oath"
or
2) "I'm resigning"
|
"I did not have sexual relations with Congress under oath."
|
On March 03 2017 06:08 farvacola wrote:
"I did not have sexual relations with Congress under oath."
i did not have international relations with that man.
|
Rick Perry confirmed by the way. Ben Carson too.
|
On March 03 2017 06:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 05:39 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'll spell it out easier for you: - The McCaskill meeting is not equivalent to the Sessions meeting because she was meeting when we were working together with Russia - The Sessions meeting is otherwise not equivalent to the Democrats' meetings because of 3 things: the timing, Sessions involvement with team Trump, and the pattern of team Trump (one presidential campaign not a whole party) Russia contacts It is easy enough to see that your points were addressed.
Asking senators to not speak with ambassadors because of whether or not Doodsmack thinks we're sufficiently a team is foolhardy and unserious.
Anyone considered for a Trump post does not surrender his Senatorial duties and common practice. Your distinctions are meaningless and only make sense as partisan opposition to everything Trump. Simply waving the same pathetic "cloud of suspicion" around for the twentieth time expecting an Aha moment is equivalent to birtherism or the hearing frenzy on Benghazi. Your emotional attachment on both points is disheartening; maybe in another couple years you can go back to rationality.
|
On March 03 2017 06:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
This is going to go two ways:
1) "I did not have sexual, I mean, lie to congress under oath"
or
2) "I'm resigning"
It's the first, but it sounds like he will recuse himself regardless.
|
On March 03 2017 05:26 Plansix wrote:
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.
Unrelated: I am pretty sure that if we really wanted unicorns, and would be willing to invest a few billions over a few years, we could easily have unicorns.
Easiest short-term way of doing this for small amounts of unicorns: Take horse, take horn, chirurgically attach horn to horse. Unicorn.
Harder, but for large amounts of unicorns cheaper way: Gene tech. If you are willing to invest half of what you pay for your military into biotech with the express goal of getting unicorns, i'd be very surprised if you didn't have unicorns within a decade. Graft some narwale genes onto horses or something. Also, you become amazing at biotech. Probably money better spend than bombing random middle eastern countries.
So i don't think that "promising unicorns" still means something totally impossible.
|
On March 03 2017 06:11 LegalLord wrote:
Rick Perry confirmed by the way. Ben Carson too.
EPA is fucked. Session recuse himself from investigation, oh boy.
|
United States43877 Posts
On March 03 2017 06:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 05:26 Plansix wrote:
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. Unrelated: I am pretty sure that if we really wanted unicorns, and would be willing to invest a few billions over a few years, we could easily have unicorns. Easiest short-term way of doing this for small amounts of unicorns: Take horse, take horn, chirurgically attach horn to horse. Unicorn. Harder, but for large amounts of unicorns cheaper way: Gene tech. If you are willing to invest half of what you pay for your military into biotech with the express goal of getting unicorns, i'd be very surprised if you didn't have unicorns within a decade. Graft some narwale genes onto horses or something. Also, you become amazing at biotech. Probably money better spend than bombing random middle eastern countries. So i don't think that "promising unicorns" still means something totally impossible.
Narwhal horses would be horses with a long tusk coming out of their mouth. Grazing would be tricky. What you probably want is a keratin horn, closer to fingernails than bone.
|
On March 03 2017 06:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 06:02 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 05:39 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'll spell it out easier for you: - The McCaskill meeting is not equivalent to the Sessions meeting because she was meeting when we were working together with Russia - The Sessions meeting is otherwise not equivalent to the Democrats' meetings because of 3 things: the timing, Sessions involvement with team Trump, and the pattern of team Trump (one presidential campaign not a whole party) Russia contacts It is easy enough to see that your points were addressed. Asking senators to not speak with ambassadors because of whether or not Doodsmack thinks we're sufficiently a team is foolhardy and unserious. Anyone considered for a Trump post does not surrender his Senatorial duties and common practice. Your distinctions are meaningless and only make sense as partisan opposition to everything Trump. Simply waving the same pathetic "cloud of suspicion" around for the twentieth time expecting an Aha moment is equivalent to birtherism or the hearing frenzy on Benghazi. Your emotional attachment on both points is disheartening; maybe in another couple years you can go back to rationality.
What does anything you're saying here have to do with lying to congress under oath?
|
On March 03 2017 06:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 06:11 LegalLord wrote:
Rick Perry confirmed by the way. Ben Carson too. EPA is fucked. Session recuse himself from investigation, oh boy.
As I mentioned before, I'm quite interested in seeing what he will do with the nuclear issue.
|
On March 03 2017 06:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 06:02 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 05:39 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'll spell it out easier for you: - The McCaskill meeting is not equivalent to the Sessions meeting because she was meeting when we were working together with Russia - The Sessions meeting is otherwise not equivalent to the Democrats' meetings because of 3 things: the timing, Sessions involvement with team Trump, and the pattern of team Trump (one presidential campaign not a whole party) Russia contacts It is easy enough to see that your points were addressed. Asking senators to not speak with ambassadors because of whether or not Doodsmack thinks we're sufficiently a team is foolhardy and unserious. Anyone considered for a Trump post does not surrender his Senatorial duties and common practice. Your distinctions are meaningless and only make sense as partisan opposition to everything Trump. Simply waving the same pathetic "cloud of suspicion" around for the twentieth time expecting an Aha moment is equivalent to birtherism or the hearing frenzy on Benghazi. Your emotional attachment on both points is disheartening; maybe in another couple years you can go back to rationality.
Sessions recused himself, and for good reason. You will be feeling pretty silly (even though you won't admit it) once the fire underneath all this smoke is found.
Not that you shouldn't already feel silly for wanting a two bit con named Donald Trump to be commander in chief  .
|
Sessions sounds really bad at this conference. "I cannot recall... maybe I met him before?" Memory like a sieve.
|
Dude's old and has been fighting the civil rights movement for a long time, his foggy memory seems excusable.
|
Sessions says I don't recall every other sentence, this is going to be the next dumb headline. "Sessions has dementia" lol... And once again, he mentions about being called a surrogate again, like why bring that up?
|
Sessions recusal breaks from the White House who believe he should NOT recuse. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
