|
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 May 06 2017 02:22 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it. SourceThe style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts. Good at human intelligence, our IC is not. Isn't nypost a far right tabloid though? Or am I mistaken?
The New York Post is slightly above the Daily Mail in the quality of their coverage. And it is just slightly higher.
|
On May 06 2017 02:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While the current bill implementation is pretty awful and will have deleterious consequences to millions, I don't really understand the furor over what's being labeled "pre-existing." It seems like most of the ones I've seen definitely fall under the umbrella of literally being conditions that substantially increase prospective medical costs. And none of them were protected pre-ACA as far as I know.
Did people think we were going to get some grand list of exempted pre-existing conditions in the Republican bill? Is there even any consequence to the bill declaring X a pre-existing condition (which I'm not sure it really does per se)?
I mean it exposes the less than desireable nature of medical insurance but that has existed since...well...modern health insurance in the United States. Here is the thing. Most people cannot afford many pre-existing conditions if they were charged the actual medical costs. Should someone with Diabetes be poor for his entire life? Should they kill themselves to not financially ruin their parents/partner/whoever, despite being a manageable condition? Saying "it was that way before the ACA" is not an argument since pre-ACA the US healthcare system was the worst in the first world by a large margin (for affordable care for middle-class citizens). Again, look to any other random first world country and you will find a better way of dealing with Healthcare costs then the US pre-ACA (and probably post ACA still)
I agree that insurance markets are awful and always have been. But none of this should be surprising or a shock to anyone, which is how some of the media seems to be playing it. It's just what Republicans always said they would do (well, unless you believed their nonsensical fairy tales about keeping parts of the bill like this one without the mandate), not some shocking aspect of the bill itself targeting rape victims or what have you.
|
On May 06 2017 02:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:22 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 02:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While the current bill implementation is pretty awful and will have deleterious consequences to millions, I don't really understand the furor over what's being labeled "pre-existing." It seems like most of the ones I've seen definitely fall under the umbrella of literally being conditions that substantially increase prospective medical costs. And none of them were protected pre-ACA as far as I know.
Did people think we were going to get some grand list of exempted pre-existing conditions in the Republican bill? Is there even any consequence to the bill declaring X a pre-existing condition (which I'm not sure it really does per se)?
I mean it exposes the less than desireable nature of medical insurance but that has existed since...well...modern health insurance in the United States. Here is the thing. Most people cannot afford many pre-existing conditions if they were charged the actual medical costs. Should someone with Diabetes be poor for his entire life? Should they kill themselves to not financially ruin their parents/partner/whoever, despite being a manageable condition? Saying "it was that way before the ACA" is not an argument since pre-ACA the US healthcare system was the worst in the first world by a large margin (for affordable care for middle-class citizens). Again, look to any other random first world country and you will find a better way of dealing with Healthcare costs then the US pre-ACA (and probably post ACA still) I agree that insurance markets are awful and always have been. But none of this should be surprising or a shock to anyone, which is how the media seems to be playing it. It's just what Republicans always said they would do, not some shocking aspect of the bill itself targeting rape victims or what have you.
The problem is the GOP said they would do this, while also claiming no one would lose coverage, costs would be lower and they would roll back all the taxes that covered Medicaid expansion.
It is sort of like the time when we went to war with Iraq and then cut taxes for the wealthy, claiming that the increased economy would make up the difference. They work on pure moon economics.
|
On May 06 2017 02:22 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it. SourceThe style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts. Good at human intelligence, our IC is not. Isn't nypost a far right tabloid though? Or am I mistaken?
Probably most famous for getting sued for libel for the security guard accused of being a terrorist in the Olympic bombings.
Still, it is quite right about how Comey's constant talks with Congress show that their investigation leaves much to be desired.
In other news, Trump finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously:
|
On May 06 2017 02:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:22 hunts wrote:On May 06 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it. SourceThe style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts. Good at human intelligence, our IC is not. Isn't nypost a far right tabloid though? Or am I mistaken? Probably most famous for getting sued for libel for the security guard accused of being a terrorist in the Olympic bombings. Still, it is quite right about how Comey's constant talks with Congress show that their investigation leaves much to be desired. In other news, Trump finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/860479885566980096
I would like a verification that its actually cheaper then him just being in the white house (news flash, it wont be).
|
It isn’t. They have a whole place for the president to live, it is called The Residence. The secure building we built for the president to live in happens to be the cheapest place to secure his safety.
|
On May 06 2017 02:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:22 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 02:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While the current bill implementation is pretty awful and will have deleterious consequences to millions, I don't really understand the furor over what's being labeled "pre-existing." It seems like most of the ones I've seen definitely fall under the umbrella of literally being conditions that substantially increase prospective medical costs. And none of them were protected pre-ACA as far as I know.
Did people think we were going to get some grand list of exempted pre-existing conditions in the Republican bill? Is there even any consequence to the bill declaring X a pre-existing condition (which I'm not sure it really does per se)?
I mean it exposes the less than desireable nature of medical insurance but that has existed since...well...modern health insurance in the United States. Here is the thing. Most people cannot afford many pre-existing conditions if they were charged the actual medical costs. Should someone with Diabetes be poor for his entire life? Should they kill themselves to not financially ruin their parents/partner/whoever, despite being a manageable condition? Saying "it was that way before the ACA" is not an argument since pre-ACA the US healthcare system was the worst in the first world by a large margin (for affordable care for middle-class citizens). Again, look to any other random first world country and you will find a better way of dealing with Healthcare costs then the US pre-ACA (and probably post ACA still) I agree that insurance markets are awful and always have been. But none of this should be surprising or a shock to anyone, which is how some of the media seems to be playing it. It's just what Republicans always said they would do (well, unless you believed their nonsensical fairy tales about keeping parts of the bill like this one without the mandate), not some shocking aspect of the bill itself targeting rape victims or what have you.
See, but that's the thing. People actually believe the fairy tales about removing a mandate but keeping pre-existing conditions while reducing premiums and deductibles.
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
|
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers.
|
On May 06 2017 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On May 06 2017 02:22 hunts wrote:On May 06 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it. SourceThe style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts. Good at human intelligence, our IC is not. Isn't nypost a far right tabloid though? Or am I mistaken? Probably most famous for getting sued for libel for the security guard accused of being a terrorist in the Olympic bombings. Still, it is quite right about how Comey's constant talks with Congress show that their investigation leaves much to be desired. In other news, Trump finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/860479885566980096 I would like a verification that its actually cheaper then him just being in the white house (news flash, it wont be).
Of course it isn't. But he won't be comfortable in the White House, whereas at home he will feel right at home.
|
On May 06 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On May 06 2017 02:22 hunts wrote:On May 06 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:During a Capitol Hill hearing this week over his investigation into allegations President Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the election, FBI Director James Comey showed his hand, and he’s not holding any aces. In fact, he’s got a whole lot of nothing.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Comey revealed the assumptions undergirding his investigation, which started in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, despite any specific evidence of a crime.
“What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?” Franken asked.
“One is he wasn’t Hillary Clinton,” Comey replied, “who [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way; and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.”
Also, “Putin believed he would be more able to make deals . . . with someone with a business background,” the FBI chief added. But, a disappointed Franken pressed, wasn’t it also because Trump was “ensnared in their web of patronage?” No, said Comey.
So there you have it. The conclusion that Russia tried to steal the election for Trump is based on pure speculation about how Putin thinks. The notion Trump was in Putin’s back pocket doesn’t even factor into it. SourceThe style of this piece kind of reeks of yellow press journalism, but it's pretty strongly consistent with comparing Comey/Rogers/others talking to Congress to what I know to be true about various connections as stated by those folk. As I mentioned earlier, their inability to properly understand what they're looking for has a very consistent tendency to result in endless misdirections and false starts. Good at human intelligence, our IC is not. Isn't nypost a far right tabloid though? Or am I mistaken? Probably most famous for getting sued for libel for the security guard accused of being a terrorist in the Olympic bombings. Still, it is quite right about how Comey's constant talks with Congress show that their investigation leaves much to be desired. In other news, Trump finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/860479885566980096 I would like a verification that its actually cheaper then him just being in the white house (news flash, it wont be). Of course it isn't. But he won't be comfortable in the White House, whereas at home he will feel right at home.
Except its another golf club he owns. Just like Mar-a-lago which is now closed for the season so he is moving to his next property where he can get to government to pay for him to stay.
|
I don't understand the benefit to him not being in the white house. I would think the white house has proper accommodations and is made to make doing president stuff easy. I wonder what he does at these other places.
|
On May 06 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't understand the benefit to him not being in the white house. I would think the white house has proper accommodations and is made to make doing president stuff easy. I wonder what he does at these other places.
the shit he wants to do. golf, eat good food, be seen, make
money.
|
On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers.
People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. That and the Republicans second trip to the rust belt well in 1997 and the Contract with America, when they decided to truly be the party of conservative social issues to court the south again.
The Republicans got better at winning elections by promising people the moon and the Democrats pretty much only took back power after the GOP destroyed the economy under Bush. But the GOP has always been better at pinning good governance on the Democrats. The TARP bail outs of the banks is a good example. The Democrats got blamed for avoiding the second great depression.
|
On May 06 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't understand the benefit to him not being in the white house. I would think the white house has proper accommodations and is made to make doing president stuff easy. I wonder what he does at these other places.
Golf, sell memberships so people can catch a glimpse of him. Make more money by having the government pay to house the presidential security detail at the resort.
Just plain old lining his pockets.
Its what 'rich' men insecure about their wealth do when given the chance.
|
On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message.
I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense.
|
On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense.
I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine.
This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years.
|
On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. That and the Republicans second trip to the rust belt well in 1997 and the Contract with America, when they decided to truly be the party of conservative social issues to court the south again. The Republicans got better at winning elections by promising people the moon and the Democrats pretty much only took back power after the GOP destroyed the economy under Bush. But the GOP has always been better at pinning good governance on the Democrats. The TARP bail outs of the banks is a good example. The Democrats got blamed for avoiding the second great depression.
I couldn't quickly find good stats on this, because most of the data is listed as by income, independent of whether you're working or not, but I don't know if it's true that the working poor votes mainly republican. Maybe if you only count white people. Do you know of good data on this?
|
On May 06 2017 03:18 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. That and the Republicans second trip to the rust belt well in 1997 and the Contract with America, when they decided to truly be the party of conservative social issues to court the south again. The Republicans got better at winning elections by promising people the moon and the Democrats pretty much only took back power after the GOP destroyed the economy under Bush. But the GOP has always been better at pinning good governance on the Democrats. The TARP bail outs of the banks is a good example. The Democrats got blamed for avoiding the second great depression. I couldn't quickly find good stats on this, because most of the data is listed as by income, independent of whether you're working or not, but I don't know if it's true that the working poor votes mainly republican. Maybe if you only count white people. Do you know of good data on this?
the very lowest levels of income (think <30k or something) votes very democratic. It's the income level right above that that tends to vote Republican.
|
On May 06 2017 03:18 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. That and the Republicans second trip to the rust belt well in 1997 and the Contract with America, when they decided to truly be the party of conservative social issues to court the south again. The Republicans got better at winning elections by promising people the moon and the Democrats pretty much only took back power after the GOP destroyed the economy under Bush. But the GOP has always been better at pinning good governance on the Democrats. The TARP bail outs of the banks is a good example. The Democrats got blamed for avoiding the second great depression. I couldn't quickly find good stats on this, because most of the data is listed as by income, independent of whether you're working or not, but I don't know if it's true that the working poor votes mainly republican. Maybe if you only count white people. Do you know of good data on this?
I do not believe they are mainly Republicans. In fact, I think there are more working poor that vote Democrat. But those folks are based in urban areas. There are whole states that the democrats have slowly lost control of over the years. I don't have good data right now.
For reference, the Democrats held control of the House of Representatives for 40+ years before 1997 and the contract with America.
|
On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers.
The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests.
Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health.
Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal.
Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
