|
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 13:17 mikedebo wrote:
The best part of that Pence story is that he was using AOL. You can't make shit like this up, folks. It's amazing. I wonder if he chose it because it clearly had "America" in the name -- the email provider of patriots everywhere.
No no, that's the second best part. The best part is he made a NEW AOL account afterwards.
|
On March 03 2017 14:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
But it was totally in his capacity as a senator!
lol and he's on the campaign's national security committee. And Flynn was sitting in on the presidential daily briefing while consulting for Turkey and receiving a payment for $40,000 from Russia.
Nothing to see here folks, just liberal hysteria.
|
On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC.
Why would it be "of course"? He was both a Senator and a campaign member. He has a Senate expense account.
|
If the previous stuff hadn't happened this Sessions thing would be pretty tiny story. Still I think Democrats should use this as added pressure on their R colleagues in congress for some investigations or just in general "join with us so we as a congress can at least function properly" instead of trying to oust Sessions. They will not remove him. The optics would be too bad if he resigned as well so Sessions will stay unless something major comes.
|
On March 03 2017 15:05 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC. Why would it be "of course"? He was both a Senator and a campaign member. He has a Senate expense account.
Is the RNC official business? I believe he even spoke there at the convention.
On March 03 2017 14:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC. Haha, no shit! Can you imagine the headlines if Sessions used US Gov't funds to go to the RNC? "SENATOR SESSIONS PARTIES ON FEDERAL DIME!" #moarfakenews.
|
Please link to the article, not the tweet of some guy reacting to the article...
|
|
|
On March 03 2017 14:33 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 13:17 mikedebo wrote:
The best part of that Pence story is that he was using AOL. You can't make shit like this up, folks. It's amazing. I wonder if he chose it because it clearly had "America" in the name -- the email provider of patriots everywhere. No no, that's the second best part. The best part is he made a NEW AOL account afterwards.
Waiting for a year of circle jerking and Lock Him Up chants from conservatives, because I'm certain they don't have double standards :- D
|
Pence is a conservative talk show host turned politician. He is not a smart man.
|
On March 03 2017 21:24 Plansix wrote:
Pence is a conservative talk show host turned politician. He is not a smart man.
That was established long ago. VP is not the most influential position though, if i understand correctly (unless DT has a heart attack during one of his 3am twitter rages), so it makes sense for the republican to have gone with what made the most sense election wise. Looks like a weird monk with no charisma and 1920's opinion was an efficient counterweight to the Donald.
|
On March 03 2017 15:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 15:05 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC. Why would it be "of course"? He was both a Senator and a campaign member. He has a Senate expense account. Is the RNC official business? I believe he even spoke there at the convention. Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 14:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC. Haha, no shit! Can you imagine the headlines if Sessions used US Gov't funds to go to the RNC? "SENATOR SESSIONS PARTIES ON FEDERAL DIME!" #moarfakenews.
I would think the RNC could be official business for members of Congress.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 04 2017 00:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 15:46 Introvert wrote:On March 03 2017 15:05 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC. Why would it be "of course"? He was both a Senator and a campaign member. He has a Senate expense account. Is the RNC official business? I believe he even spoke there at the convention. On March 03 2017 14:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:uh, of course he used campaign funds to attend the RNC. Haha, no shit! Can you imagine the headlines if Sessions used US Gov't funds to go to the RNC? "SENATOR SESSIONS PARTIES ON FEDERAL DIME!" #moarfakenews. I would think the RNC could be official business for members of Congress.
I would think the RNC could be campaign business for people who are part of Trump's campaign too...
|
Well there we see the uncertainty of which role he's playing when meeting with the ambassador. But I guess we could just take the Trump admin's word for it.
|
how familiar......
MOSCOW — From Russia’s point of view, the turmoil swirling around the Trump administration and its contacts with Russian officials is a “witch hunt” fueled by “fake news” instigated by leading Democrats looking to distract attention from their election defeat and carried out by their lap dogs in the U.S. media.
In other words, Moscow’s reaction pretty much mirrors that of President Trump after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigations into alleged Russian interference in the presidential election. Sessions made the move after The Washington Post revealed that he twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last year while still serving as a senator but did not disclose that during his Senate confirmation hearing in January. Sessions was an early backer of Trump’s bid for the presidency and served as an adviser and surrogate for the campaign.
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Friday that “all this is very much reminiscent of a witch hunt and the McCarthyism era which we all thought was long gone.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on reports that Trump’s son-in-law met with Kislyak in December, agreed with Trump’s use of the phrase “witch hunt,” saying “we have nothing to add to President Trump's exhaustive definition.”
But there’s a fundamental difference in what Russia and Trump are reacting to.
In the United States, the suggestion that Sessions was not forthcoming with the Senate hearing was enough to force him to step aside from potential probes, regardless of what he and Kislyak discussed.
But Moscow has never copped to the accusation by the U.S. intelligence community that it interfered in the election, and it sees any and all questions about Trump’s ties to Russia as symptoms of what it considers rampant Russophobia in America’s establishment. Two prominent daily newspapers, Moskovsky Komsomolets and Nezavisimaya Gazeta, featured commentary that cited anti-Russian hysteria in the United States as a primary source of the drive to oust national security adviser Mike Flynn and force Sessions to recuse himself.
In Washington, Trump’s warm words for Russian President Vladimir Putin, his half-joking call for Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the revelation that Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with Kislyak before Trump took office have raised concerns that something more sinister is going on. Trump and his administration has resisted accepting the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia was attempting to help him win the election; Sessions in an interview on Fox News Thursday refused to acknowledge that Russia favored Trump over Clinton.
Moscow blames anti-Russian hysteria for Sessions’s plight
|
On March 03 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 08:12 pmh 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. People look at this the wrong way I think. The young and healthy people of today they pay extra,but that extra is not to support the old and unhealthy people of today. It is to support themselves when they are old and not healthy. Its like when I have fire insurance but not a fire. I don't pay for all the people who do have a fire. I pay for the risk that I will have a fire. If you go differentiate healthcare to the bone then you will end up with a system where no one has insurance and everyone just pays for himself. The whole point of the insurance is to collectively share the risk,if you take out the collective part more and more,then it is not really an insurance anymore but more like an individual safings plan. Every part of this is wrong. If you have a 1% risk of a fire worth $100,000 then you pay a $1,000 premium. It's EV neutral. Then if you're lumped in with a guy with a 1% risk of a fire worth $200,000 he pays a $2,000 premium. You're each paying for your own statistical risk. The only collective part of it is that you're using the same broker to make the bet. If you have a 0.1% chance of medical costs worth $10,000 and someone else has a 100% chance of medical costs worth $100,000 then you'll both be charged $50,005 premiums because health insurance isn't insurance. It's a tool for redistributing healthcare costs from the unhealthy to the healthy. It's not insurance because you're not paying for your own risk. The premium and your statistical risk are two completely different and unrelated numbers. That's why the Obamacare mandate exists. Young healthy people must be forced to pay in to support the older less healthy people. If they don't overpay for insurance then other people can't underpay for insurance. You think that what I'm referring to is winners and losers with people who get insurance and it happens being winners and people who buy insurance they don't end up invoking being losers. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Good insurance is EV neutral, the coverage multiplied by the probability equals the premium. Health insurance is not EV neutral. The majority of people pay more for their coverage than they are ever likely to get out so that a minority can pay the same amount for coverage that costs the provider far more than they pay. Health insurance isn't insurance. I know it has insurance in the name but the way it works isn't like actual insurance. No more than if you and your grandpa were both made to buy the same term life insurance policy with a premium set halfway between what it would be for you by yourself and what it'd be for him by himself. Most of your premium wouldn't be funding your life insurance policy, it'd be funding his.
Ok I get what you are saying but it still is not the whole story I think. What you say seems to mostly aply to pre existing conditions,not for elderly people. The young people now pay less a year then that they will use a year but once they get old they will use more then they pay,in the end it should be about zero sum so in the end they still don't pay for other people. The only "problem" is pre existing conditions or genetic which increases the expected pay out,i guess for that it is a choice we have to make. Everyone pays a little more so that those people will be covered. That the young people pay for the old people is simply not true if the system stays alive. The young people get old as well and then they will be on the good side.
Anyway:trump doing pretty well so far as president,the truth has to be said. No major war broke out yet and wall street is at record levels,so it must be good for the economy.
|
that's a bar so low you can trip over it.
|
The Pence email story is too funny. We're surely in a simulation at this point. 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Pence email story is old news.
Wonder if he had any classified emails on a server he kept in his bathroom though.
|
Norway28667 Posts
On March 04 2017 00:53 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 08:12 pmh 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. People look at this the wrong way I think. The young and healthy people of today they pay extra,but that extra is not to support the old and unhealthy people of today. It is to support themselves when they are old and not healthy. Its like when I have fire insurance but not a fire. I don't pay for all the people who do have a fire. I pay for the risk that I will have a fire. If you go differentiate healthcare to the bone then you will end up with a system where no one has insurance and everyone just pays for himself. The whole point of the insurance is to collectively share the risk,if you take out the collective part more and more,then it is not really an insurance anymore but more like an individual safings plan. Every part of this is wrong. If you have a 1% risk of a fire worth $100,000 then you pay a $1,000 premium. It's EV neutral. Then if you're lumped in with a guy with a 1% risk of a fire worth $200,000 he pays a $2,000 premium. You're each paying for your own statistical risk. The only collective part of it is that you're using the same broker to make the bet. If you have a 0.1% chance of medical costs worth $10,000 and someone else has a 100% chance of medical costs worth $100,000 then you'll both be charged $50,005 premiums because health insurance isn't insurance. It's a tool for redistributing healthcare costs from the unhealthy to the healthy. It's not insurance because you're not paying for your own risk. The premium and your statistical risk are two completely different and unrelated numbers. That's why the Obamacare mandate exists. Young healthy people must be forced to pay in to support the older less healthy people. If they don't overpay for insurance then other people can't underpay for insurance. You think that what I'm referring to is winners and losers with people who get insurance and it happens being winners and people who buy insurance they don't end up invoking being losers. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Good insurance is EV neutral, the coverage multiplied by the probability equals the premium. Health insurance is not EV neutral. The majority of people pay more for their coverage than they are ever likely to get out so that a minority can pay the same amount for coverage that costs the provider far more than they pay. Health insurance isn't insurance. I know it has insurance in the name but the way it works isn't like actual insurance. No more than if you and your grandpa were both made to buy the same term life insurance policy with a premium set halfway between what it would be for you by yourself and what it'd be for him by himself. Most of your premium wouldn't be funding your life insurance policy, it'd be funding his. Ok I get what you are saying but it still is not the whole story I think. What you say seems to mostly aply to pre existing conditions,not for elderly people. The young people now pay less a year then that they will use a year but once they get old they will use more then they pay,in the end it should be about zero sum so in the end they still don't pay for other people. The only "problem" is pre existing conditions or genetic which increases the expected pay out,i guess for that it is a choice we have to make. Everyone pays a little more so that those people will be covered. That the young people pay for the old people is simply not true if the system stays alive. The young people get old as well and then they will be on the good side. Anyway:trump doing pretty well so far as president,the truth has to be said. No major war broke out yet and wall street is at record levels,so it must be good for the economy.
It's predictable that rolling back regulations, saying fuck the environment and promising tax cuts boosts the economy on a short term, no? The problem is that at least two of those are likely to have somewhat disastrous long term effects.. And no major war breaking out within the first one and a half months, that's really not an accomplishment.
|
On March 04 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:
Pence email story is old news.
Wonder if he had any classified emails on a server he kept in his bathroom though.
Bingo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
