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.
I don't see How this confuses people. The average medical bills for a 64 year old is probably Way higher than 8k per year. The other day I was listening to a podcast and they estimated premiums for a 55-64 Risk pool would be $25k+ per year.
When you give the old all you can eat socialized free healthcare then it works out roughly like this.
So Yeah, the old are still consuming the lion's share, but it's not an impossibly unaffordable amount for society.
That's looking at it backwards though. The UK has very rigourous cost control measures in place (basically they spend half what we do, and they aren't skimping on prenatal care). As is often the case, these half measures compound problems while only benefitting politicians (who get to blame insurance companies). If the government is going to pay for, or make people pay for these medical services they need to impose dictatorial price controls (the same runaway costs situation is seen in higher education tuition). Or, they can go the other direction and get the cost improvements through efficiency, while acknowledging that not everyone will get state-of-the-art care.
Only way USA is going to get better prices is if the government stops letting big pharma bend the people over for something that isn't a colonoscopy. Anyway else and the market will adjust to current levels because they've been shown they can.
I'm convinced Ryan pulled one on Trump with this. No idea how he got Trump to say he would support the bill but he did. I think establishment Republicans are making their move to undermine Trump's presidency now.
Step 1. Drive a wedge between the tea party and Trump.
Both of Trump's plans to push the bill or leave Obamacare in place and blame Democrats for problems are not what the tea party wants.
Next they'll try to undermine his credibility, that's what the pushing from Republicans on the "tapped my wires" has been about and they will push on this "Flynn the foreign agent" thing and find more buttons to push. This is intended to push "seriously minded" Republicans further away.
Pretty simple.
PR: Hey T-Rump, get have a new healthcare bill? T: What's in it? PR: A bunch of good stuff, and it's going to replace Obamacare! T: Replace Obamacare!? Where is my pen.
think fivethrty eight had a good article on how this is getting difficult due to minorities voting so heavily for democrats while whites go republican. You can't really politically gerrymander without it having a racial component.
On March 11 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote: I have not seen that. Do you have an article that covers it?
Apparently the corporate media missed it lol.
Here's Ellison:
It's okay though, because he won't do it publicly...
For Perez you have to read between the lines a bit more, he used the DWS line, but it ignores the DNC has already taken a side in the Claire McCaskill race.
He answered before Keith.
Except you're completely misrepresenting and distorting what Keith Ellison actually said here. Neither him nor Perez said "they would step in and try to prevent challengers to the establishment" -- in fact, they both said the exact opposite. Here's Keith Ellison at 31:35, just before the time stamp you selected on the video:
"Well I'll say that I agree with Tom [Perez] that the role of the DNC is to be neutral and fair to all primary contestants."
What he says next is "I will make a personal call and say 'Do not kill each other off, guys'". You're trying to pretend that this is him saying that he will "step in and try to prevent challengers to the establishment", while in reality all he's saying is that if things get too heated in a primary, he will tell the contestants in private that they should not kill each other's chances for the general election, since the winner will likely need the support of the loser's camp. That's completely different from taking sides, including from taking sides in favor of "the establishment", since he's only taking the side of making sure the winner of the primary, establishment or not, is in a good position to win the general election. What Perez said, at 30:50, was "I think the role of the DNC chair is to let the process run its course, and then we move forward when the general election moves ahead". So when you argue that "for Perez you have to read between the lines a bit more", what you're really saying is "Perez said absolutely nothing resembling the words I'm trying to put into his mouth, but allow me to make the accusation regardless".
A good article by Jervis on Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State:
Rex Tillerson Might Be the Weakest Secretary of State Ever
While much of America’s political class is transfixed by the debate about connections between Russia and the White House, a quieter but perhaps more consequential drama is playing out at Foggy Bottom. It concerns the startling diminution of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and perhaps the entire department that he heads. Normally the most important position in the cabinet, the secretary of state has had little impact on the Trump administration so far. And, if anything, his role appears headed for further decline.
The secretary of state draws his or her power less from the U.S. Constitution or the laws than from five sources: backing from the president, advice and support from his or her department’s career officials, admiration from and alliances with other leaders in the government, praise from the press and public, and positive evaluations of his or her competence and power by foreign diplomats. These individuals and groups do not act independently but rather depend on each other and interact to build up or tear down the secretary’s power. Perceptions and reality blend as to be seen as powerful or weak, and that can readily become self-fulfilling in the Washington echo chamber.
These dynamics have worked against Tillerson until now. And though he still has some time to reverse them, he does not have much. [...]
Rex Tillerson Might Be the Weakest Secretary of State Ever
While much of America’s political class is transfixed by the debate about connections between Russia and the White House, a quieter but perhaps more consequential drama is playing out at Foggy Bottom. It concerns the startling diminution of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and perhaps the entire department that he heads. Normally the most important position in the cabinet, the secretary of state has had little impact on the Trump administration so far. And, if anything, his role appears headed for further decline.
The secretary of state draws his or her power less from the U.S. Constitution or the laws than from five sources: backing from the president, advice and support from his or her department’s career officials, admiration from and alliances with other leaders in the government, praise from the press and public, and positive evaluations of his or her competence and power by foreign diplomats. These individuals and groups do not act independently but rather depend on each other and interact to build up or tear down the secretary’s power. Perceptions and reality blend as to be seen as powerful or weak, and that can readily become self-fulfilling in the Washington echo chamber.
These dynamics have worked against Tillerson until now. And though he still has some time to reverse them, he does not have much. [...]
It's okay though, because he won't do it publicly...
For Perez you have to read between the lines a bit more, he used the DWS line, but it ignores the DNC has already taken a side in the Claire McCaskill race.
He answered before Keith.
Except you're completely misrepresenting and distorting what Keith Ellison actually said here. Neither him nor Perez said "they would step in and try to prevent challengers to the establishment" -- in fact, they both said the exact opposite. Here's Keith Ellison at 31:35, just before the time stamp you selected on the video:
"Well I'll say that I agree with Tom [Perez] that the role of the DNC is to be neutral and fair to all primary contestants."
What he says next is "I will make a personal call and say 'Do not kill each other off, guys'". You're trying to pretend that this is him saying that he will "step in and try to prevent challengers to the establishment", while in reality all he's saying is that if things get too heated in a primary, he will tell the contestants in private that they should not kill each other's chances for the general election, since the winner will likely need the support of the loser's camp. That's completely different from taking sides, including from taking sides in favor of "the establishment", since he's only taking the side of making sure the winner of the primary, establishment or not, is in a good position to win the general election. What Perez said, at 30:50, was "I think the role of the DNC chair is to let the process run its course, and then we move forward when the general election moves ahead". So when you argue that "for Perez you have to read between the lines a bit more", what you're really saying is "Perez said absolutely nothing resembling the words I'm trying to put into his mouth, but allow me to make the accusation regardless".
I thing, GH, that you might have to reflect on the fact that everything that passes through your mind is reshuffled to fit your one narrative. You want everything that happens in the democratic party to be a story of the evil establishment cutting the grass under progressive's feet.
I think when you start seeing everything through one lense, one meaning and one narrative, you've lost plasticity of your thought and you start thinking like an old man. I think we can do better than that with those young brains of ours :-)
On March 11 2017 11:14 a_flayer wrote: So far, I still think that there are no impeachable or otherwise excessively criminal ties to Russia when it comes to Trump or the people he surrounds himself with. There might be some monetary connections that have little to do with his presidency, but I doubt he'll be impeached over that if there are those kind of ties.
When it comes to communicating with them, I don't think Flynn was fired for Russian connections (but rather the lack of communication between him and other WH officials), and neither will Sessions. The Sessions thing was especially ridiculous. Those accusations read to me as: "Russian ambassador to the US meets with US politicians". Big fucking deal. He may have accidentally sort of lied in that way, but to me it hardly seemed like it was his intention to cover up anything.
If you genuinely believe there was a deliberate collaboration between Putin and Trump to get him into the White House I think you're just caught up in a Russophobic media frenzy.
They're putting all their chips on Russia and they'll have a big payout if, against all odds, there was criminal collusion or pay-to-hack. But like Rolling Stone laid out, if nothing turns up they lose hard. The thing they have so little of right now is credibility capital.
OTTAWA — Canada's highest court is upholding a lower court ruling in favour of investors who have launched a lawsuit alleging they were misled by U.S. President Donald Trump and a real estate development firm.
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided it will not hear an appeal by the defendants, which includes the brash billionaire, Talon International Development and its former executives, in relation to the Trump International Hotel and Tower in downtown Toronto.
I doubt they'll lose that hard if they're wrong when all of it is under the guise of an investigation. Investigating doesn't turn up anything? At least we looked! In a way it's healthy to able to have an investigation into possible wrong doing, and at the end of clear someone's name. The problem is people with political motivation really like skipping the clear someone's name part because "there may be evidence we still don't have".
How much really stuck to Hillary because of Ben Ghazi or emailgate? Not much, lock her up went away the moment the election ended. How much did they damage her credibility? A LOT. Investigating for the sake of optics has payed huge dividends for republicans, why wouldn't those opposed to Trump do the same even if there weren't legitimate reasons for an investigation?
On March 12 2017 01:38 Azuzu wrote: I doubt they'll lose that hard if they're wrong when all of it is under the guise of an investigation. Investigating doesn't turn up anything? At least we looked! In a way it's healthy to able to have an investigation into possible wrong doing, and at the end of clear someone's name. The problem is people with political motivation really like skipping the clear someone's name part because "there may be evidence we still don't have".
How much really stuck to Hillary because of Ben Ghazi or emailgate? Not much, lock her up went away the moment the election ended. How much did they damage her credibility? A LOT. Investigating for the sake of optics has payed huge dividends for republicans, why wouldn't those opposed to Trump do the same even if there weren't legitimate reasons for an investigation?
Gotta love American politics.
Maybe the left can make some Breitbart-esque echo chambers that play on the emotions of people. Worked for the right, didn't it? Make sure that the American people never see any real news ever again.
Speaking of real news:
Half a century after United States B-52 bombers dropped more than 500,000 tonnes of explosives on Cambodia's countryside Washington wants the country to repay a $US500 million ($662 million) war debt.
The demand has prompted expressions of indignation and outrage from Cambodia's capital, Phnom Penh.
"They dropped bombs on our heads and then ask up to repay. When we do not repay, they tell the IMF (International Monetary Fund) not to lend us money," he told an international conference in early March."
Mr Pringle, a former Reuters bureau chief in Ho Chi Minh City, said no-one could call him a supporter of Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia with an iron-fist for three decades.
But he said on this matter he is "absolutely correct."
"Cambodia does not owe a brass farthing to the US for help in destroying its people, its wild animals, its rice fields and forest cover," he wrote in the Cambodia Daily.
The bombings drove hundreds of thousands of ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, an ultra-Marxist organisation which seized power in 1975 and over the next four years presided over the deaths of more than almost two million people through starvation disease and execution.
Sounds a lot like what's happening in the Middle East today. Bomb/drone a bunch of people, drive them to extremism...
wonder how long exactly he's planning to blame everything on Obama. I don't think I've heard Obama deride Bush all too often, and in that case it would actually have been justified.
On March 12 2017 02:52 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Im curious what his avg # of likes and retweets are... i wonder if that could be used to measure his popularity w his base, as time goes on.
Nah, just think of it as a reflection of his ego and nothing else.
I don't think it's even a reflection of his ego given the number of twitter bots harnessed by the left and the right. It's more a reflection of whether a given tweet got posted in a particular location (kind of like online polls of who won the debates)
On March 12 2017 01:38 Azuzu wrote: I doubt they'll lose that hard if they're wrong when all of it is under the guise of an investigation. Investigating doesn't turn up anything? At least we looked! In a way it's healthy to able to have an investigation into possible wrong doing, and at the end of clear someone's name. The problem is people with political motivation really like skipping the clear someone's name part because "there may be evidence we still don't have".
How much really stuck to Hillary because of Ben Ghazi or emailgate? Not much, lock her up went away the moment the election ended. How much did they damage her credibility? A LOT. Investigating for the sake of optics has payed huge dividends for republicans, why wouldn't those opposed to Trump do the same even if there weren't legitimate reasons for an investigation?
Gotta love American politics.
Maybe the left can make some Breitbart-esque echo chambers that play on the emotions of people. Worked for the right, didn't it? Make sure that the American people never see any real news ever again.
Half a century after United States B-52 bombers dropped more than 500,000 tonnes of explosives on Cambodia's countryside Washington wants the country to repay a $US500 million ($662 million) war debt.
The demand has prompted expressions of indignation and outrage from Cambodia's capital, Phnom Penh.
"They dropped bombs on our heads and then ask up to repay. When we do not repay, they tell the IMF (International Monetary Fund) not to lend us money," he told an international conference in early March."
Mr Pringle, a former Reuters bureau chief in Ho Chi Minh City, said no-one could call him a supporter of Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia with an iron-fist for three decades.
But he said on this matter he is "absolutely correct."
"Cambodia does not owe a brass farthing to the US for help in destroying its people, its wild animals, its rice fields and forest cover," he wrote in the Cambodia Daily.
The bombings drove hundreds of thousands of ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, an ultra-Marxist organisation which seized power in 1975 and over the next four years presided over the deaths of more than almost two million people through starvation disease and execution.
Sounds a lot like what's happening in the Middle East today. Bomb/drone a bunch of people, drive them to extremism...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RzdCNMF.png)
