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.
Came over this one (It's actually a month old but not any less relevant). It's an interesting watch, but if you're too busy or otherwise occupied; tl;dr: Private healthcare is stupid, but because of how America's politics works where big corporations have the most influence, just adopting the EU version of single payer might not be the best idea either. It ends with him showing how Bernie would have solved it by expanding medicare/aid.
Is there anyone here (And I have a feeling I know who) who thinks the current/previous system with private insurance and companies is actually a good idea?
Came over this one (It's actually a month old but not any less relevant). It's an interesting watch, but if you're too busy or otherwise occupied; tl;dr: Private healthcare is stupid, but because of how America's politics works where big corporations have the most influence, just adopting the EU version of single payer might not be the best idea either. It ends with him showing how Bernie would have solved it by expanding medicare/aid.
Is there anyone here (And I have a feeling I know who) who thinks the current/previous system with private insurance and companies is actually a good idea?
Actually, the idea that state ran social security produces extra bureaucracy - and costs - has been debunked about a million times and is disproved by easily accessible data. It does produce some of course, but a fraction of what a private sector ran health insurance system does.
But then again, the people that would need convincing are not listening, and more generally not intested in facts. State ran anything = bureaucracy = socialism = not freedom = evil, and it doesn't go further than that for many, many, many people who take the decisions or simply vote.
We are the country humors the idea that the US postal service has an unfair monopoly on delivering letters and argue is should be run to break even/profit for the US government. Not that a basic means of delivering written communication free of profit concerns is in the best interest of a modern democracy and it costs basically nothing. In the year of our lord, 2018, another one of these articles will be written by a major publican that is filled with normal, rotational people.
And then there is the for profit prison system, which really should be a no brainer.
Came over this one (It's actually a month old but not any less relevant). It's an interesting watch, but if you're too busy or otherwise occupied; tl;dr: Private healthcare is stupid, but because of how America's politics works where big corporations have the most influence, just adopting the EU version of single payer might not be the best idea either. It ends with him showing how Bernie would have solved it by expanding medicare/aid.
Is there anyone here (And I have a feeling I know who) who thinks the current/previous system with private insurance and companies is actually a good idea?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but if you're saying that all nations in the EU have single payer you're wrong. There are as many different health care systems as countries in the EU and the private sector plays an important (albeit relatively small compared to other sectors) role in most of them. Single payer isn't going to magically make the US system any cheaper.
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice.
Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there.
I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things?
Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement.
Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation.
Came over this one (It's actually a month old but not any less relevant). It's an interesting watch, but if you're too busy or otherwise occupied; tl;dr: Private healthcare is stupid, but because of how America's politics works where big corporations have the most influence, just adopting the EU version of single payer might not be the best idea either. It ends with him showing how Bernie would have solved it by expanding medicare/aid.
Is there anyone here (And I have a feeling I know who) who thinks the current/previous system with private insurance and companies is actually a good idea?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but if you're saying that all nations in the EU have single payer you're wrong. There are as many different health care systems as countries in the EU and the private sector plays an important (albeit relatively small compared to other sectors) role in most of them. Single payer isn't going to magically make the US system any cheaper.
The video addresses that. The point is that the private sector is the wasteful due to smaller bargaining groups, and the EU has a smaller private sector, thus more efficient overall.
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice.
Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there.
I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things?
Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement.
Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation.
So you’re saying a comment on a Hillary appearance at the Grammys, where she read from a contested book on her general election opponent, that was made by another poster in the thread is Hillary obsession. Meet Trump mania.
it is definitely Hillary obsession, i don’t think whoever posted it changes that. though i’m not sure if SB fancies himself a republican wrt the comparison to dems.
there’s simply nothing interesting about a clinton at an awards ceremony. that she read from ‘fire and fury’ in a pre-recorded bit alongside with such brilliant politicians as ex-stripper-turned-music star Cardi B, weed enthusiast Snoop Dogg notwithstanding.
Clinton and Trump are great for feeding the outrage engine that some folks live in, and are good for ratings. Trump appears at an anti-abortion rally, something that no sitting president has ever done. Clinton goes on the Grammies and reads from a pretty contested book filled with some very good quotes. It is political MAD, where both sides keep escalating the efforts to turn the other side into cartoon villains.
On January 30 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote: Clinton and Trump are great for feeding the outrage engine that some folks live in, and are good for ratings. Trump appears at an anti-abortion rally, something that no sitting president has ever done. Clinton goes on the Grammies and reads from a pretty contested book filled with some very good quotes. It is political MAD, where both sides keep escalating the efforts to turn the other side into cartoon villains.
Pretty much. Of course, it would help if both Trump and Clinton would stop acting like cartoon villains. Digging up dirt on either of them is the easiest thing you could ever do. It makes me wonder why political parties don't just have unknown puppets with charisma and very little history run for president.
On January 30 2018 02:00 Plansix wrote: Clinton and Trump are great for feeding the outrage engine that some folks live in, and are good for ratings. Trump appears at an anti-abortion rally, something that no sitting president has ever done. Clinton goes on the Grammies and reads from a pretty contested book filled with some very good quotes. It is political MAD, where both sides keep escalating the efforts to turn the other side into cartoon villains.
Pretty much. Of course, it would help if both Trump and Clinton would stop acting like cartoon villains. Digging up dirt on either of them is the easiest thing you could ever do. It makes me wonder why political parties don't just have unknown puppets with charisma and very little history run for president.
The snake eats its own tail on this one. Previously no failed presidential candidate would do that. But no president would call for investigations into their opponent, or reopen them through the justice department. But Clinton keeps speaking up on the Russia investigation. But Trump keeps calling her and her husband out on twitter. But then again, Fox News tries to hunt her down in the woods in her home town. It is a cycle, which might be broken when Trump leaves office. If we are lucky.
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice.
Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there.
I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things?
Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement.
Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation.
they need to vilify hillary to rationalize their decision to vote trump. and given how bad trump is; that means they need to keep lookin gat hillary and hating on her to avoid admitting they made an obvious and terrible mistake. also they've been obsessed with hillary for some 25 years now; that kind of obsession doesn't fade easily.
On January 30 2018 01:57 brian wrote: it is definitely Hillary obsession, i don’t think whoever posted it changes that. though i’m not sure if SB fancies himself a republican wrt the comparison to dems.
there’s simply nothing interesting about a clinton at an awards ceremony. that she read from ‘fire and fury’ in a pre-recorded bit alongside with such brilliant politicians as ex-stripper-turned-music star Cardi B, weed enthusiast Snoop Dogg notwithstanding.
Lol. I really can’t make inroads with people like you. Your version of newsworthy is tainted by partisan beliefs. You act like we’re going to need five pages discussing this topic, when really it’s a short laugh and SB’s comment on hubris. She injects herself into the public eye with an overtly political act ... and Clinton allies/Democrats/leftists still think only Hillary obsession dominates.
If you need a better definition of Trump derangement, look no further.
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice.
Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there.
I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things?
Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement.
Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation.
they need to vilify hillary to rationalize their decision to vote trump. and given how bad trump is; that means they need to keep lookin gat hillary and hating on her to avoid admitting they made an obvious and terrible mistake. also they've been obsessed with hillary for some 25 years now; that kind of obsession doesn't fade easily.
If by “avoid admitting they made an obvious and terrible mistake” you mean “reminded they made a great decision.” Second take is “reminded guys like zlefin still can’t look at her objectively even after she’s done running for president”
There are very few acts that a retired politician can make that are not overtly political, just by the nature of their career. Obama was on a Netflix special with David Letterman, but somehow avoided being headline news. Nancy Pelosi is going to be a judge on Rupaul's Drag Race(it already filmed and is coming out) and barely gets noticed. It isn’t that Clinton’s act wasn’t political, it is that anything she does get front page news for some outlets, because they can’t help but rekindle that 2016 election rivalry that made them so much money.
When we have a reality TV start as the leader of our country, the show’s producers can’t help but try to bring back his greatest opponent every chance they get. And we any self awareness and feed into it by debating which side originally sinned.
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
She should be on Trump’s payroll. The more she gets invited to speak at these things, the more we remember the 2016 choice.
Honestly, your guys' obsession with Hilary Clinton is so disturbingly intense that I'm pretty sure you see her face in clouds, puddles of water, and check under your beds every night to make sure she isn't there.
I mean... why the flying **** do you care what an old, now retired enemy politician is doing anymore? Are you so upset over the money you wasted trying to pin something on her? I mean... how many times WAS she investigated for things?
Your Democrats don't seem to like Bush, but I don't see the same manic obsession over what Bush is doing in his retirement.
Genuine question. I genuinely struggle to remember her without remembering an attached investigation.
they need to vilify hillary to rationalize their decision to vote trump. and given how bad trump is; that means they need to keep lookin gat hillary and hating on her to avoid admitting they made an obvious and terrible mistake. also they've been obsessed with hillary for some 25 years now; that kind of obsession doesn't fade easily.
If by “avoid admitting they made an obvious and terrible mistake” you mean “reminded they made a great decision.” Second take is “reminded guys like zlefin still can’t look at her objectively even after she’s done running for president”
thank you for exemplifying my point so perfectly also for being a textbook example of projection. so many psychological phenomena shown so clearly these days.
On January 30 2018 02:59 Velr wrote: No, people like zlefin just want to leave her behind.
And she would still be much, much, much better than trump.
Attacking people that notice she’s injecting herself back in the political discourse proves he (and others) have a political axe to grind. Not “shame on Hillary for not moving on” but “shame on Republicans for noticing and commenting.” I applaud the transparency.
In the midst of this, the NYT claims to have talked with folks who saw Nunes' memo. Sadly, it's paywalled, so I've only seen the Newsweek discussion of it.
Looks like it's targeting Rosenstein for approving resubmission of a FISA on Carter Page based in part upon the Steele dossier. I don't think Nunes realized this raised the question of why on earth Page had a FISA on him on the first place, and whether that could also have played a role in the resubmission, or whether the FBI had anything backing any portion of the Steele dossier (e.g. Page meeting with Rosneft, which I'm pretty sure Page has confirmed).
EPT
