|
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 States43277 Posts
Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before.
|
AHCA does not appear to tackle most of the root causes of out-of-control medical expenses - excessive federal mandates related to Medicare/Medicaid, insurance bureaucracy, local laws that unfairly disadvantage 'for profit' hospitals and preserve local monopolies, and insurers colluding with care-providers at the expense of business customers.
It's expected to fix one cause - enough people aren't paying for the medical care they elect to receive, and therefore are fine with massively overpriced services, that predatory pricing is more profitable than competitive pricing. And people HATE the AHCA for this facet.
|
On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before.
He said he was wiretapped by Obama at that. Even if we go by wriretapped as surveiled and Obama ordering it and not actually doing it, he still isn't redeemed by this.
|
On March 23 2017 02:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:
It's the Trump voters who depend on benefits who stand around going "well I knew he was going to cut benefits but I didn't think it'd be my benefits". This. This so fucking much. There needs to be accountability for people who do this kind of shit. You not only harm yourselves by naive voting and below standard knowledge of any given policy, but you literally harm millions more. I don't think I can take hearing someone complain if they get their wish for ACA to be repealed and replace with something worse.
Yes,voting for the wrong person is a serious issue in todays democracy. Maybe people who vote wrong should get a fine so that they will vote right the next election, and 3 times voting wrong you are out. lifetime in jail.
The arrogance to think that a vote can be wrong,you don't know the reasons why those people voted.
|
On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before.
How else would they monitor?
I am not saying trump was 100% correct but he was not 100% wrong either.
|
If large parts of the people constantly vote against their own interest and the very stuff that makes their lifes possible because they are not capable or willing to understand for what/who they actually vote, thats a giant problem for a democracy.
|
reading this article it seems pretty misguided to take this as any indication of the truth. we just had the FBI director testify under oath that Nunes' literal doublespeak that 'maybe' 'possibly' included 'some of' trumps 'team' is false. all direct quotes from this article.
i feel like prudent skepticism is required until someone actually writes something that isn't drenched in maybe's.
|
On March 23 2017 03:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before. How else would they monitor?
Stingrays, phone records, cell/internet traffic metadata...
On March 23 2017 03:47 pmh wrote:
I am not saying trump was 100% correct but he was not 100% wrong either.
He was 100% lying out of his ass, but may be 10% lucky to weasel out and be 5% correct.
|
On March 23 2017 03:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before. How else would they monitor? I am not saying trump was 100% correct but he was not 100% wrong either.
It might be an important distinction to separate Trump's claim that he was wiretapped during the late days of the election and Nune's claim that the monitoring was done after the election.
|
United States43277 Posts
On March 23 2017 03:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before. How else would they monitor? I am not saying trump was 100% correct but he was not 100% wrong either.
A wiretap is a specific thing. What you're describing is a wide surveillance net that did not target him specifically and wasn't done by Obama.
Imagine if I were to claim that Apple had an ongoing surveillance stakeout watching my house. It subsequently emerged that there was no evidence of a stakeout, or of Apple being involved, but my house was located on the surface of the earth and therefore was exposed to Google maps whose satellites are, strictly speaking, surveying the surface of the earth. Would you describe the original claim as "right, more or less"?
|
On March 23 2017 03:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before. How else would they monitor? I am not saying trump was 100% correct but he was not 100% wrong either.
He is 100% wrong. He was not wire tapped after the election. The people he hired are being investigated for their very real connections to Russian political interests. No wire tapping was authorized or ordered after the election, which was Trumps claim. The investigation pre-dated that and did not include him specifically.
Don’t hire people that the FBI is going to investigate for receiving millions to promote Putin’s political plans abroad. Or let them buy a condo in Trump Tower the same year they cut that deal.
|
On March 23 2017 03:45 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before. He said he was wiretapped by Obama at that. Even if we go by wriretapped as surveiled and Obama ordering it and not actually doing it, he still isn't redeemed by this.
Also, even in the first paragraph of the article, it says "after the election." His claim was that Obama wiretapped him during the election.
So essentially this is a very vague claim of something practically unrelated.
|
On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before.
kwark bro, have you read the art of the deal? have you paid attention the last 2 years of trumpisms?
|
On March 23 2017 03:59 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 03:45 Gahlo wrote:On March 23 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Wait, what? Incidental collection? He said he was wiretapped. You can't get from incidental collection to wiretrapping. That's like backtracking from claiming I had a night of wild sex with your wife to admitting that I've met her before. He said he was wiretapped by Obama at that. Even if we go by wriretapped as surveiled and Obama ordering it and not actually doing it, he still isn't redeemed by this. Also, even in the first paragraph of the article, it says " after the election." His claim was that Obama wiretapped him during the election. So essentially this is a very vague claim of something practically unrelated.
It is also accusing the previous president of a felony without providing evidence to millions of people while also being in charge of the largest law enforcement agency in the country.
|
But surely they've found whatever microwave that was being used for the wiretap?
|
How is nunes discussing these intelligence reports about trump surveillance tho, aren't they classified? I'm confused
|
On March 23 2017 04:07 biology]major wrote:
How is nunes discussing these intelligence reports about trump surveillance tho, aren't they classified? I'm confused
apparently it's not Russia related so it's okay or something.
|
On March 23 2017 04:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:07 biology]major wrote:
How is nunes discussing these intelligence reports about trump surveillance tho, aren't they classified? I'm confused apparently it's not Russia related so they won't be fired over it.
There we go, that's better.
|
On March 23 2017 04:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 04:07 biology]major wrote:
How is nunes discussing these intelligence reports about trump surveillance tho, aren't they classified? I'm confused apparently it's not Russia related so it's okay or something.
Also if none of it is true. Possibly true. I'll let you know later, but it could be true.
|
The information gathered has to do with US citizens and it is in the public due to reporting by the press. They need a warrant to tap US citizen’s phones, so he has to explain exactly how this information was gathered. Especially because it has to do with the election.
The government controls what is classified and what isn’t. If the house members want to know exactly how the NSA got all this info on the Trump campaign, they have all the power to do so. And they clearly care a lot. And they are willing to share some of that information with the press to set the record straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
