Trump Thread

[Husar]

It was the buying part I do not understand.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/07/betsy-devos-confirmed-education-secretary-pence-trump-cabinet


Her family spent millions advancing Pence’s voucher program in Indiana. On Fox News on Sunday, Pence called it a “high honor” to cast the deciding vote in her confirmation.

I assume that is meant.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Devos' Predecessors:

Hufstedler -- No education degree, little or no classroom teaching experience, lawyer and jurist
Bell -- Education doctorate, 12+ years classroom teaching experience
Bennet -- No education degree, little or no classroom teaching experience, primarily a GOP operative
Cavazos -- No education degree, 3-4 years of classroom teaching experience (college/med school), physiologist
Alexander -- No education degree, little or no classroom teaching experience, lawyer and politician [parents were both educators in public schools]
Riley -- No education degree, little or no classroom teaching experience, lawyer and politician
Paige -- Doctorate in Physical Education, 7 years classroom teaching experience, football coach
Spelling -- No education degree, little or no classroom teaching experience, political operative and specialized in education reform
Duncan -- No education degree, limited classroom teaching experience, worked in education administration, mostly in underprivileged urban areas
King -- Doctorate in education, 3 years classroom teaching experience, worked in education administration

Devos -- No education degree, little or no classroom teaching experience, businesswoman and political operative

[Bolded names had "silver spoon" upbringings by USA standards]



All-in-all, her appointment is run of the mill. Truly skilled educators reaching the position are the exception. The post is typically a political sinecure.

[Idaho]

So 78 unreported terror attacks. Hmm... because we all know that the press underplay terror attacks.

Your president is actively seeking to increase fear to push through his agenda. You need to do something about it. If this is his opening play, it's very dangerous indeed.

[HopAlongBunny]

A little look at immigration and crime:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/

Hint: If you want to live in a low crime area...move to a place with a high %'age of immigrants.

[Idaho]

A little look at immigration and crime:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/

Hint: If you want to live in a low crime area...move to a place with a high %'age of immigrants.

And if you are anything like the UK, if you are freaked out by immigrants, you probably live in an area with very few of them.

[Greyblades]

Ah, another article that keeps it's evidence behind links to paywalls, what joy.

How does the author know immigrants commit fewer crimes? Well you can find out by paying £28 for a day's access (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200?needAccess=true). Want to know why we're saying cities with high immigrant population haver lower crime rates? $35.95 please. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X05000104) Want to know the numbers of our own study? Pay up. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15377938.2016.1261057?af=R)

As an aside, it's sad the Scientific American has been driven to outsourcing thier articles from theconversation.com (https://theconversation.com/immigration-and-crime-what-does-the-research-say-72176).

Times must be tough indeed.

[Montmorency]

Ah, another article that keeps it's evidence behind links to paywalls, what joy.

How does the author know immigrants commit fewer crimes? Well you can find out by paying £28 for a day's access (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200?needAccess=true). Want to know why we're saying cities with high immigrant population haver lower crime rates? $35.95 please. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X05000104) Want to know the numbers of our own study? Pay up. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15377938.2016.1261057?af=R)

As an aside, it's sad the Scientific American has been driven to outsourcing thier articles from theconversation.com (https://theconversation.com/immigration-and-crime-what-does-the-research-say-72176).

Times must be tough indeed.

Yes, paywalls are another contentious issue. If you really want to circumvent them there are various unauthorized databases operating from Russia (which you are enjoined from accessing).

I know less about the underlying with the second point, but you should have noticed by now that online publications regularly host and repost each other's content.

[Xiahou]

Betsy Devos got confirmed because Pence had to use his tie breaker vote. She is no matter what your politics...not the sharpest knife in the rack.
If she successfully expands voucher programs, I'm satisfied. The current system pretty much guarantees that the worst neighborhoods get the worst schools, and the poor children living there have no way out of them. Let them have a choice.

[Greyblades]

And if she kills the identity politics obsession in universities; bonus.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If she successfully expands voucher programs, I'm satisfied. The current system pretty much guarantees that the worst neighborhoods get the worst schools, and the poor children living there have no way out of them. Let them have a choice.

Voucher system is no different. Everyone needs education, what is the incentive for private schools to outperform public schools?

Another case of where the free market fetishists cant overcome their arousal to think about whether the proper incentives are even there.


And if she kills the identity politics obsession in universities; bonus.

You don't even know what this positions does do you?

[a completely inoffensive name]

It was the buying part I do not understand.

Marco Rubio (among others) got $100,000 from Devos prior to the confirmation.

[Sarmatian]

You don't even know what this positions does do you?

You're gonna waste a lot of time this way. Just assume he doesn't know anything and save time by not asking.

[Viking]

A little look at immigration and crime:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/

Hint: If you want to live in a low crime area...move to a place with a high %'age of immigrants.

I've never really gotten the impression that immigration from Mexico was strongly correlated with crime in the US, though here's a word of caution from the end of one (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200) of the scientific articles referred to:


The question remains, however, why is it that after just one generation in the USA, the rate of involvement in crime among immigrants quickly rises to levels that mirror those of the native-born population? Is this pattern reflective of a general process of assimilating into the normative behavioral repertoire of mainstream American youth or, as segmented assimilation theory would suggest, are certain segments of the immigrant second generation are on a downward trajectory assimilating into cultures espousing deviant behavior? Future research should aim at uncovering the factors that buffer first generation immigrants from crime and relatedly, the factors that promote criminal behavior among the children of immigrants.

For reference:


While empirical studies have demonstrated an increase in crime among the children of immigrants compared to their foreign-born peers, the strategy of analyzing group averages may mask important deviations from the mean trajectory. The potential for, and perhaps expectations of, deviations from average trajectories is explicit in contemporary theory aimed at understanding immigrant processes. For instance, noting the enormous diversity found within today's immigrant population, Portes and Zhou (1993) proposed a theory of segmented assimilation. Whereas classic assimilation theory assumed a relatively uniform, linear process of adaptation and assimilation across successive immigrant generations (see, e.g. Warner & Srole, 1945), segmented assimilation theory posited that not all immigrants follow a pattern of ascendance up the social ladder. Although some (and perhaps most) immigrants follow the traditional pathway of upward mobility, others evidence no mobility or may even follow a pathway of downward mobility assimilating into a deviant lifestyle exhibiting low educational achievement, marginal occupational status, and involvement in crime (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006).

[Greyblades]

You don't even know what this positions does do you?
Among other things she will handle matters related to discrimination in schools and colleges on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and other characteristics (http://http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-does-secretary-of-education-do-betsy-devos-2017-2?r=US&IR=T).

If Devos can end the inordinate amount of horseshit your country's educational services have pulled over the last decade to pander to every random nutjob's warped definition of discrimination you might actually get a university system that isnt the subject of cautionary tales.

[Xiahou]

Voucher system is no different. Everyone needs education, what is the incentive for private schools to outperform public schools?

Private schools have the ability to fail and go out of business if they underperform. Students can attend other schools and take their funding with them. I thought that was obvious.

[Idaho]

Private schools have the ability to fail and go out of business if they underperform. Students can attend other schools and take their funding with them. I thought that was obvious.

In the UK they get tax breaks on everything, don't have to hire qualified teachers and can cherry pick the easiest exam boards. All to give rich kids that important leg up in life that they really don't need.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And if she kills the identity politics obsession in universities; bonus.

That brand of identity politics is a component of the American Political left co-culture. Altering it is a cultural change process and well past the ability of any government appointee to do more than nudge a bit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Among other things she will handle matters related to discrimination in schools and colleges on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and other characteristics (http://http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-does-secretary-of-education-do-betsy-devos-2017-2?r=US&IR=T).

If Devos can end the inordinate amount of horseshit your country's educational services have pulled over the last decade to pander to every random nutjob's warped definition of discrimination you might actually get a university system that isnt the subject of cautionary tales.

The only leverage tool she has on the college level is government funding. Using that would pose a threat to the state university systems -- not likely to win points with the Senators of said states who are often alumni of those very institutions. The SoE, via regulation, has far more impact on the K-12 portion of the education system -- though the Trump admin is so far taking a fairly staunch reduce regulation stance, so she'd have to reduce regulations to write others she favored.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Voucher system is no different. Everyone needs education, what is the incentive for private schools to outperform public schools?

Another case of where the free market fetishists cant overcome their arousal to think about whether the proper incentives are even there.

The TRUE 'free market fetishist' would assert that mandated education itself should be abolished, and that it should be each parent's decision to educate their children or not and it should be their own financial decision as to how to fund that education if they do so.

[Greyblades]

There is a multiquote function you know.


The only leverage tool she has on the college level is government funding. Using that would pose a threat to the state university systems -- not likely to win points with the Senators of said states who are often alumni of those very institutions.

Primarily Democrat senators who arent in trump's interest to woo, what with all but a few being unwilling or incapable or of cooperating with the current administration at this point.

[CrossLOPER]

You're gonna waste a lot of time this way. Just assume he doesn't know anything and save time by not asking.

Maybe he's trying to expand his world view.

[Xiahou]

That brand of identity politics is a component of the American Political left co-culture. Altering it is a cultural change process and well past the ability of any government appointee to do more than nudge a bit.She could at least undo some of the Title IX abuse that was pushed out during the Obama administration.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Private schools have the ability to fail and go out of business if they underperform. Students can attend other schools and take their funding with them. I thought that was obvious.

It's not because that not how the market will be set up. The vouchers will only be given to certain groups who will have no incentive to improve beyond the public school standards. Education, like healthcare, does not decrease in demand when it becomes more expensive and declines in quality because it is a necessity for everyone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The TRUE 'free market fetishist' would assert that mandated education itself should be abolished, and that it should be each parent's decision to educate their children or not and it should be their own financial decision as to how to fund that education if they do so.

We already had this conversation Seamus...in the early 1900s.


There is a multiquote function you know.



Primarily Democrat senators who arent in trump's interest to woo, what with all but a few being unwilling or incapable or of cooperating with the current administration at this point.

And Republican's didn't obstruct the basic functions of government during Obama's entire term?


She could at least undo some of the Title IX abuse that was pushed out during the Obama administration.

I agree. Women's sports are boring. Why are we funding this garbage.

[Montmorency]

Defund football.

[Greyblades]

And Republican's didn't obstruct the basic functions of government during Obama's entire term?

They did, then reid did took the nuclear option and left the way open for trump to do use it as precident to do worse should the Dems try it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

They did, then reid did took the nuclear option and left the way open for trump to do use it as precident to do worse should the Dems try it.

Don't change the topic. You made a comment about Democrats "unwilling or incapable or of cooperating" with Trump. Do you have an issue with this?

[Greyblades]

"Dont change the topic" Says the man who's response at the statement "it's not in turmp's interest to woo democrats" is to go "What about the republicans and obama".

[a completely inoffensive name]

"Dont change the topic" Says the man who's response at the statement "it's not in turmp's interest to woo democrats" is to go "What about the republicans and obama".

It's a simple question. You still have not answered.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We already had this conversation Seamus...in the early 1900s....

I knew I had been feeling a little old and creaky lately. What was it you said that made me stop arguing and let T.R. get on with it? I have gaps in my memory these days.

[HopAlongBunny]

Another in the "Had Obama done something like this..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nordstrom-ivanka-trump-trump-idUSKBN15N1YN

When (or by whom) can the prestige of public office and the reach of its platforms be used to further the interests of the individual or related parties?

[Strike For The South]

Defund football.
You're a nerd.

Also Spelling was an awful Edu. Secretary. The woman was one of the principal people behind the biggest piece of unfunded government overreach since Nam. Why do we want to return to bad people? What kind of relativism is that? The usual 10th amendment peanut gallery is all "what could go wrong with the federal government handing out mass vouchers?".

Devos made her money from freaking Amway. That's a pyramid scheme. I can think of no better person to hand out federal monies tied to education.

i understand their are a litany of problems with the education system that money can't fix. Everyone has seen the studies were there is a point where money stops helping. However, that does not mean this woman gets to remake the system is her own image because she is king of cash mountain.

[Xiahou]

Trump's also a twit, but has managed to do a few good things as president. So, who knows?

[Strike For The South]

http://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-go-buy-ivankas-stuff-2017-2

This is what's going to be his downfall. Can't separate himself from his money. Can't even be Clinton low key about it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-go-buy-ivankas-stuff-2017-2

This is what's going to be his downfall. Can't separate himself from his money. Can't even be Clinton low key about it.

You "dance with the one who brung you." It is his aura of money and "always finds a way to win" that is the source of his gravitas. If he downplays them, he downplays himself.

[Greyblades]

I would laugh if this of all things is what gets the advisors everyone is worried about removed.

[Montmorency]

Competent entries to the 'Me Too' series from Namibia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpKdOEv6Vyo) and Morocco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVJ1nSYP7as).

[Husar]

Competent entries to the 'Me Too' series from Namibia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpKdOEv6Vyo) and Morocco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVJ1nSYP7as).

The original page has been changed and now contains entries from all over the world, such as Australia, the two you mention and I think a few new European ones. On youtube one can also find videos from Iran and other countries not listed there (yet?).

In general Trump news, Gorsuch was apparently not amused by how Trump talks about the judiciary:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gorsuch-begins-seeking-support-break-trump-n718936

And senator Mitch McTurtle and friends tried to silence senator Warren when she wanted to read an old letter from MLK's wife about Jeff Sessions and his racist attempts to disparage blacks from voting back in the 80s:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-the-coretta-scott-king-letter-elizabeth-warren-wasnt-allowed-to-read-131932007.html

As noted in the video, four male senators read the letter on the next day and were apparently not silenced.
There is also a 5 minute overview (and interview) from the liberalist propaganda machine:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mAxcwBTWj4

The idea that one senator cannot point out the mistakes or unethical motives of another seems really stupid in this situation. After all they're supposed to vote on whether he is fit for a certain office. Possible that I don't entirely get what that rule says, but given that four senators could do the same thing one day later, the application is obviously very selective and politically motivated. :thumbsdown:

[Greyblades]

I saw a theory stating that the Republicans are trying to encourage Warren as a "pied piper" candidate like trump was supposed to be for hillary. Seem to think she's the best candidate available for Trump to go against in 2020.

[Hooahguy]

Well we have no idea who will rise to prominence among the Democrats for 2020. In 2004 did anyone think Obama would become the nominee? Warren might be popular now but will she be in 2020? I also cant see her in a position like that, she seems like she does best in the Senate.

[Greyblades]

Hence the theory; she's not exactly the best choice the Dems could make.

[Hooahguy]

I just think it is way too early to be speculating about who will run. I kinda think the candidate who runs isnt even on the radar yet.

[Pannonian]

Well we have no idea who will rise to prominence among the Democrats for 2020. In 2004 did anyone think Obama would become the nominee?

Eli Attie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Santos)?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Warren, given her stance on the various issues, is the "heir" to Bernie Sanders, who will likely be too old to stage a run in 2020 (likely, not certainly, he seems pretty spry overall). 2020 will be tougher for the Donald -- unless the Dems somehow manage to find someone with as many negatives as HRC.

[Husar]

Well, that's assuming there will be an election in 2020

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/trump-desperate-search-reichstag-fire-170207082840828.html

Either way, this whole 2020 speculation is just a distraction from the fact that Trump wants to assemble a cabinet of horrors...

[HopAlongBunny]

Alas, Kellyanne might be losing her shine:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/10/give-me-a-break-kellyanne-conway.html

Her ethics breach might have been "taking one for the team" but it looks like the media is getting tired of interviews that convey either no information, or "alternative facts".

Not like her boss is much better at "facts":


https://youtu.be/G01nkoEZ8UM

[Greyblades]

Warren, given her stance on the various issues, is the "heir" to Bernie Sanders, who will likely be too old to stage a run in 2020 (likely, not certainly, he seems pretty spry overall). 2020 will be tougher for the Donald -- unless the Dems somehow manage to find someone with as many negatives as HRC.

Depends how the next 4 years go, Trump keeps doing what he's doing, that being checking off campaign promises, (with the grace of a beached whale notwithstanding) and keeping the scandals to pointless spats noone outside the democrat leaning media gives a toss about, he'll win against anything short of a 2008 Obama.

On the other hand if he commits a lybia level screwup the bernie/warren brigade might have a chance.

[Kagemusha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TlNKm4Ek0M

[HopAlongBunny]

Its pretty clear to me; Trump is bringing the world closer together!
Brings a tear to me eye :laugh4:


https://youtu.be/vo9AH4vG2wA

[Husar]

https://youtu.be/hPrs_PKSn3s?t=402

:creep:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Depends how the next 4 years go, Trump keeps doing what he's doing, that being checking off campaign promises, (with the grace of a beached whale notwithstanding) and keeping the scandals to pointless spats noone outside the democrat leaning media gives a toss about, he'll win against anything short of a 2008 Obama.

On the other hand if he commits a lybia level screwup the bernie/warren brigade might have a chance.

Even the campaign promises Trump is already checking off has turned away a sizable segment of the population simply because of the haphazard way he does it. The image is not in the policy, the image is in the implementation.

[Sigurd]

The guy who predicted Kennedy's assasination has done it again: http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.3595/trump-will-be-shot.html (first english version I could find).
I think he is a hoax, but in case it does happen... first to post?

[Greyblades]

Even the campaign promises Trump is already checking off has turned away a sizable segment of the population simply because of the haphazard way he does it. The image is not in the policy, the image is in the implementation.

Citation needed; with particular scrutiny to whether this "sizeable segment" turned away were ever on to begin with. His implementation may piss off San Francisco and Los Angeles, which would be pissing off a sizeable segment, but on it's own utterly irrelevant to trump's popularity.

Although Trump's popularity might be taking a dip among his voter base as the libertarians are not happy with him over his recent property seizure policy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Citation needed; with particular scrutiny to whether this "sizeable segment" turned away were ever on to begin with. His implementation may piss off San Francisco and Los Angeles, which would be pissing off a sizeable segment, but on it's own utterly irrelevant to trump's popularity.

Although Trump's popularity might be taking a dip among his voter base as the libertarians are not happy with him over his recent property seizure policy.

By most polls, his popularity has decreased by several points since Jan 20th.

By reasonable measures (given the slow pace of US gov), liberals won a big policy victory with the ACA. But surprise me if any of us actually thought of it as anything but a capitulation to the insurance companies.

[Montmorency]

Out like Flynn: National Security Adviser Steps Down (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html)

To be fair, it's still fairly unlikely that Trump was really trying to Make October Surprise Again.

[Greyblades]

Considering what Trump has made a stand over thus far, to ditch Flynn at this stage I think makes it safe to say the accusations werent just talk.

Trump's foreknowledge on the other hand, who can guess what with the accusations of being a loose cannon and Russian/Bannon puppet, simultaniously I might add.


By most polls, his popularity has decreased by several points since Jan 20th.

Would have to be a doozy of a poll to escape the obvious retort of: "polls also said hillary and remain were dead certains"

Even with the accusations of skewed sampling and misleading questions; with the media turning trump hate up to eleven non registered republican voters are going to be even less willing to openly admit approval than during the election.


By reasonable measures (given the slow pace of US gov), liberals won a big policy victory with the ACA. But surprise me if any of us actually thought of it as anything but a capitulation to the insurance companies.

I disagree, ACA was a dead policy walking: bad time, bad economy and the Liberals royally screwed themselves by compromising from full single payer to Romneycare.

They would have been better off trying to do single payer in the first few weeks of Obama's admin, either succeeding or failing but getting to say to the rust belt "Look, we're trying to do it the best way from the outset, vote for us in the next mid terms if you think america deserves the best."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Flynn's efforts left him open to the risk of blackmail (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-white-house-warned-michael-085214813.html?ref=gs). This is a typical reason to deny someone a security clearance and/or to suspend or revoke an existing clearance. An NSA who does not have a clearance is more or less useless....

[a completely inoffensive name]

I disagree, ACA was a dead policy walking: bad time, bad economy and the Liberals royally screwed themselves by compromising from full single payer to Romneycare.

They would have been better off trying to do single payer in the first few weeks of Obama's admin, either succeeding or failing but getting to say to the rust belt "Look, we're trying to do it the best way from the outset, vote for us in the next mid terms if you think america deserves the best."

Nah, you don't understand the context of the time it was passed nor the benefits of the bill since you are in your bubble. If the policy was so bad, why haven't the Republicans gone through with "repeal and replace"? The ACA got millions of people covered who were not covered before either under private insurance or through expanding medicare. It was a big win, just not as big as the progressive wing wanted. Ironically, Obama's biggest flaw was PR after the election was over as he was unwilling to call it for what it was out of fear of alienating both the progressives and the hard right. Everyone walked away with egg on their face when Roberts had to sit everyone down and tell them, yes the government can do this, no Obama this is clearly a tax stop saying otherwise.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

Greyblades:

The ACA was never the goal. Single payer government healthcare has been the DEM/liberal goal since the late 1980s. The ACA was a far as they could go given the political opposition at the time, and was crafted in a manner that was designed to broaden coverage to as many as possible, but then fall short -- "forcing" us to adopt single payer to pick up the pieces and make good on our "commitment" to cover each and all.

[Greyblades]

If so I'd say that it backfired spectacularly.


Nah, you don't understand the context of the time it was passed nor the benefits of the bill since you are in your bubble. If the policy was so bad, why haven't the Republicans gone through with "repeal and replace"?You're playing the "why hasnt he done it yet" card at the one month mark of the president who is set to have the highest amount of fulfilled promises in generations.

To call me the bubble dweller is the pot is calling the kettle wog.


The ACA got millions of people covered who were not covered before either under private insurance or through expanding medicare.With the long term result of jacking up prices through killing competition (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/upshot/obamacare-options-in-many-parts-of-country-only-one-insurer-will-remain.html) and making the fines less painful than joining up (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/obamacare-affordable-care-act-tax-penalties.html).


It was a big win, just not as big as the progressive wing wanted. Ironically, Obama's biggest flaw was PR after the election was over as he was unwilling to call it for what it was out of fear of alienating both the progressives and the hard right.
A tax hike in a recession for something noone is happy with?

I'd say he really shouldnt have cared about alienating those ideologically incapable of changing their votes, but I dont think that was his actual motivation.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump's relationship with facts; a primer from John Oliver:


https://youtu.be/xecEV4dSAXE

[Husar]

president who is set to have the highest amount of fulfilled promises in generations.

That is exactly the problem here...

[Montmorency]

Actually (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/), presidents tend to keep, or work towards, most promises they make.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, you don't understand the context of the time it was passed nor the benefits of the bill since you are in your bubble. If the policy was so bad, why haven't the Republicans gone through with "repeal and replace"? The ACA got millions of people covered who were not covered before either under private insurance or through expanding medicare. It was a big win, just not as big as the progressive wing wanted. Ironically, Obama's biggest flaw was PR after the election was over as he was unwilling to call it for what it was out of fear of alienating both the progressives and the hard right. Everyone walked away with egg on their face when Roberts had to sit everyone down and tell them, yes the government can do this, no Obama this is clearly a tax stop saying otherwise.


ACIN:

The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

Greyblades:

The ACA was never the goal. Single payer government healthcare has been the DEM/liberal goal since the late 1980s. The ACA was a far as they could go given the political opposition at the time, and was crafted in a manner that was designed to broaden coverage to as many as possible, but then fall short -- "forcing" us to adopt single payer to pick up the pieces and make good on our "commitment" to cover each and all.

It's apparent to every one here that ACA is a bad law - this isn't about" living in a bubble" for us so much as it is America's bubble. If I had a penny for every American who told me the policy "can't work" or they "don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" I'D be able to fund your Single-Payer system personally.

What we are saying is that instead of a bad fudge Obama should have gone on record and told them that ONLY Single Payer can fix American healthcare and make it the world-class institution Americans deserve. If Congress will not support Single Payer he will oppose the Bill because otherwise if the Bill become Law it will just kick the can down the road, everyone will say "we fixed healthcare" and meanwhile things will get worse.

He didn't though - he fudged it - and that sort of political theatre is why the Dems are now a hollowed out shell, because whilst people LIKED Obama, even respected him, he wasn't seen to actually do much.

[Xiahou]

Flynn's efforts left him open to the risk of blackmail (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-white-house-warned-michael-085214813.html?ref=gs). This is a typical reason to deny someone a security clearance and/or to suspend or revoke an existing clearance. An NSA who does not have a clearance is more or less useless....I'm still not sure what to make of the Flynn resignation, but I think there are some hints of conflict between elected officials and the entrenched bureaucracy, or deep state (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/american-deep-state-trump/516780/), that I don't care for.

It's the job of the bureaucrats to implement policy, not to determine policy- no matter who's in charge. Anything else is contrary to our democracy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN:
The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.


It is a bit early, but you know as well as I do Seamus that Republicans have been pushing for repeal and replace for over 6 years now. How do they not have the "replace" locked in yet?



You're playing the "why hasnt he done it yet" card at the one month mark of the president who is set to have the highest amount of fulfilled promises in generations.

Actually I wasn't talking about Trump at all, I was referring to the Congressional Republicans who have had 6 years to come up with an ACA replacement.



With the long term result of jacking up prices through killing competition (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/upshot/obamacare-options-in-many-parts-of-country-only-one-insurer-will-remain.html) and making the fines less painful than joining up (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/obamacare-affordable-care-act-tax-penalties.html).
Obama won't admit it, but I will. That was by design. If you want private insurance to cover poorer and sicker people, the others will need to pay more. That's how it works and the Dems PR ran in circles trying to avoid admitting it.




A tax hike in a recession for something noone is happy with?
A lot of people now eligible for medicare and private insurance are really happy with the ACA.
[/QUOTE]


It's apparent to every one here that ACA is a bad law - this isn't about" living in a bubble" for us so much as it is America's bubble. If I had a penny for every American who told me the policy "can't work" or they "don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" I'D be able to fund your Single-Payer system personally.

What we are saying is that instead of a bad fudge Obama should have gone on record and told them that ONLY Single Payer can fix American healthcare and make it the world-class institution Americans deserve. If Congress will not support Single Payer he will oppose the Bill because otherwise if the Bill become Law it will just kick the can down the road, everyone will say "we fixed healthcare" and meanwhile things will get worse.

He didn't though - he fudged it - and that sort of political theatre is why the Dems are now a hollowed out shell, because whilst people LIKED Obama, even respected him, he wasn't seen to actually do much.

That wouldn't jive in American politics, PVC. The president is seen as a man of action, it's bad optics to sit and wait for Congress to give him the bill he wants.

[Montmorency]

I'm still not sure what to make of the Flynn resignation, but I think there are some hints of conflict between elected officials and the entrenched bureaucracy, or deep state (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/american-deep-state-trump/516780/), that I don't care for.

It's the job of the bureaucrats to implement policy, not to determine policy- no matter who's in charge. Anything else is contrary to our democracy.

The justifications seem to be that the "deep state" swears duty to the Constitution over to the POTUS, but of course that misses a few steps in the process. There should be some specific, likely hidden, acts to reference indicative of serious and prolonged Constitutional violations. Even a President who repeatedly uses the tools of office to issue unConstitutional violations should be left to the courts in due time.

To go toward redeeming the decisions, whoever or however many actors are involved, their material should demonstrate a dramatic case for rapid impeachment very soon, and possibly Republican complicity behind desire to avoid pursuing it. Action-film measures demand action-film results, and it has some precedent.

[Gilrandir]

Flynn's efforts left him open to the risk of blackmail (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-white-house-warned-michael-085214813.html?ref=gs).
Like it transpired AFTER his appointment to the office?

[Idaho]

ACIN:

The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

Greyblades:

The ACA was never the goal. Single payer government healthcare has been the DEM/liberal goal since the late 1980s. The ACA was a far as they could go given the political opposition at the time, and was crafted in a manner that was designed to broaden coverage to as many as possible, but then fall short -- "forcing" us to adopt single payer to pick up the pieces and make good on our "commitment" to cover each and all.

America. Home of Christianity. Where people love shooting each other with guns, and hate looking after the poor. Jesus is proud of you all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

America. Home of Christianity. Where people love shooting each other with guns, and hate looking after the poor. Jesus is proud of you all.

A majority of Americans are no longer churched, so labeling us the "home of Christianity" is at best relative. Most of South America is more staunchly churched than is the USA. Moreover, we are only about 2/3 Christian of one stripe or another.

More than half of our gun violence is concentrated in poor inner-city neighborhoods where the a number of rather self-defeating co-cultures have sprung up. "Love," however sardonically it was used, is a bit overstated.

"Hating" the poor seems a little off too, given the wealth of personal charity provided by most people in the USA source (https://www.nptrust.org/index.php?/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics). The totals for charity and government welfare in the USA are comparable to Britain in terms of %age of GDP. Our system mostly doesn't use the government to accomplish this transfer of wealth.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

[Montmorency]

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

Is donating money to a charity more personally charitable than volunteering extra tax money to the government? :sneaky:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That wouldn't jive in American politics, PVC. The president is seen as a man of action, it's bad optics to sit and wait for Congress to give him the bill he wants.

Like Trump wouldn't fly? Like Obama wouldn't fly?

Come off it, I know you Americans think you're special, but you're not especially stupid.

[Husar]

"Hating" the poor seems a little off too, given the wealth of personal charity provided by most people in the USA source (https://www.nptrust.org/index.php?/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics). The totals for charity and government welfare in the USA are comparable to Britain in terms of %age of GDP. Our system mostly doesn't use the government to accomplish this transfer of wealth.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

That is all a bit weird, the wealth mostly transfers up so far.
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/

It was okay for a while after WW2 until people apparently realized the poor rich people weren't getting enough tax breaks or whatever.
Jesus also preached that you should pay your taxes and accumulate treasures in heaven rather than down here. And that people who put anything but him first, such as money or America, are not really going to get to heaven. Sad.

[Idaho]

A majority of Americans are no longer churched, so labeling us the "home of Christianity" is at best relative. Most of South America is more staunchly churched than is the USA. Moreover, we are only about 2/3 Christian of one stripe or another.

More than half of our gun violence is concentrated in poor inner-city neighborhoods where the a number of rather self-defeating co-cultures have sprung up. "Love," however sardonically it was used, is a bit overstated.

"Hating" the poor seems a little off too, given the wealth of personal charity provided by most people in the USA source (https://www.nptrust.org/index.php?/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics). The totals for charity and government welfare in the USA are comparable to Britain in terms of %age of GDP. Our system mostly doesn't use the government to accomplish this transfer of wealth.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

And yet the results are so poor. Huge economic inequality. Divergent social, educational and health outcomes from birth, etc.

The problem with the right is that the immediate moral itch is scratched (or blamed on the victims) and the overall situation gets worse.

[Shaka_Khan]

Wow! Even FOX News...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0yKJxYcns0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TfqTHlMszA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8BXFfZCWEA

[Husar]

Well, Shepard Smith is someone I can respect even if I do not agree with him on everything.

Trump is a train wreck that is still sliding across the track thinking it has endless momentum.
Of course a lot of people actually saw that coming, but hey, I enjoy the ride so far. :2thumbsup:

[Greyblades]

He actually thinks the russians hacked the DNC? Seems that despite some vindication with Trump, Fox hasnt changed completely since John Stewart was calling it BS mountain.

[Husar]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/donald-trump-not-denying-russia-hacking-report-reince-priebus


Donald Trump no longer denies that Russia orchestrated a cyber-attack against Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her party, according to his top advisers, who also blamed Democrats for the breach and falsely characterized the testimony of an intelligence chief to Congress.

Trump’s incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, told Fox News Sunday the president-elect “is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign”.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/trump-i-think-hacking-was-russian/512819/


After months of equivocating on the origin of cyberattacks that targeted Democrats before the election, President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks Russia was behind the intrusions.

“As for hacking, I think it was Russian,” Trump said at a press conference in New York. “But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”

Later, he emphasized his skepticism. “It could’ve been others also,” he said.

Apparently, so do Trump and a lot of his chosen advisers.

Also, the latest press conference in full, go to around 55 minutes for the questions and answers about Russia, which is what I mostly watched.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUaEFgr4Ho

Complete trainwreck, he rates and berates almost every reporter who asks him something.
And the great announcement about how he learned that nuclear holocaust would be very bad... :wall: :rolleyes:

Did I already mention that his conference with Netanyahu was terrible? He just asked him on stage to wait a bit with new settlements and proposed the best solution would be the one both sides want, ********** genius! :wall:

[Greyblades]

“is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign”.

Later, he emphasized his skepticism. “It could’ve been others also,” he said.

Preemptive ass covering isnt proof husar. Shepard Smith is still regurgitating that baselss line not 10 seconds after accusing trump of "repeating ridiculous throwaway lines that arent true at all".

[Husar]

“is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign”.

Later, he emphasized his skepticism. “It could’ve been others also,” he said.

Preemptive ass covering isnt proof husar. Shepard Smith is still regurgitating that baselss line not 10 seconds after accusing trump of "repeating ridiculous throwaway lines that arent true at all".

You may want to note that I tried not to use selective quoting, but I can prove your point wrong like that just as well:

“As for hacking, I think it was Russian,” Trump said at a press conference in New York.

He just tried to take it back later when he realized that it could be used against him.

As for the allegations not being true at all, that's pretty ridiculous given that neither you nor I can definitely know the truth in that case.
I would say thinking that it was the Russians is perfectly legitimate given that the US intelligence community said so. Whether they are always trustworthy is a different question, but there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that. If you say everyone is an idiot who believes that, then Trump's team of excellent people contains several idiots who were hand-picked by him. :2thumbsup:

[Greyblades]

You may want to note that I tried not to use selective quoting, but I can prove your point wrong like that just as well:

“As for hacking, I think it was Russian,” Trump said at a press conference in New York.

He just tried to take it back later when he realized that it could be used against him.
His prevous behavior indicates my interpritation; that being he's entertaining the idea of russia because he is less certain that it will turn out to not be russia and wants to cover his ass.

I would think you would agree, you are usually the first person to refute claims that "he means what he says" after all.


As for the allegations not being true at all, that's pretty ridiculous given that neither you nor I can definitely know the truth in that case.

I know that no proof has emerged in the months after the allegations were made and the people who propel it as irrefutable either have vested interest in it being true or were appointed by those same people. Strong bias towards false.


I would say thinking that it was the Russians is perfectly legitimate given that the US intelligence community said so. Whether they are always trustworthy is a different question. Not allways trustworthy, proven liars for whichever administration apppointed them, same thing amirte? ~:rolleyes:


there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that.I highly doubt that. Show me one that doesnt present it with some variation of "We cant say 100% that it isnt true".


If you say everyone is an idiot who believes that, then Trump's team of excellent people contains several idiots who were hand-picked by him. I say anyone who presents it as indisputable fact at this stage is either too ill informed for the position of journalist, or a liar. That Shepard Smith also proved himself a blind hypocryte through doing so is a bonus.

[Montmorency]

We can't expect evidence in the form of top-level government intercepts or public defections; what we have is more than adequate.

Is the level of evidence for this hack less than that for any of the other military-industrial cyber attacks of recent times? After all, the Obama administration acknowledged Stuxnet - Putin is unlikely to ever reciprocate unless as a threat during a moment of heightened tension. Or maybe acknowledging Stuxnet was just Western propaganda after all? Can't trust those spies!

[Greyblades]

Fool me once monty.

The word of the organization behind iraq, once again saying what their president wanted to be true without so much as a russian IP (even as succeptable to faking as they are) to support it, isn't worth spit for proof.

[Montmorency]

Fool me once monty.

The word of the people behind iraq, once again saying what their president wanted to be true without so much as a russian ISP to support it, isn't worth spit for proof.

Leaving aside the problem of dissonance once you have to pick and choose what you will deign to believe, the Iraq connection is misunderstood (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-usa-intelligence-idUSN2547519120070525).


U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration before the Iraq war that al Qaeda and Iran could exploit a U.S. invasion to extend their sway in the region, a new Senate report said on Friday.


The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. In January of that year, the Senate report said, the U.S. intelligence community predicted al Qaeda "probably would try to exploit any postwar transition in Iraq by replicating the tactics it has used in Afghanistan during the past year to mount hit-and-run operations against U.S. personnel."

"Some militant Islamists in Iraq might benefit from increases in funding and popular support and could choose to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq," U.S. intelligence concluded.

The 2003 intelligence papers also said, "Some elements in the Iranian government could decide to try to counter aggressively the U.S. presence in Iraq."

The papers, which the report said were circulated widely in the Bush administration, also warned there was a "significant chance that domestic groups (in Iraq) would engage in violent conflict with each other."

2004 even (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/29/iraq.usa)


The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.


One of the prewar assessments said it would take years of tumult before democracy was established in Iraq, and the country could revert to its tradition of authoritarian rule. According to the New York Times, it also warned that the new authorities in Iraq could face a guerrilla war waged by remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, and other militant groups.

Meanwhile, Washington could see a rise in anti-American sentiment across the Middle East, as well as support for some terrorist acts.


Mr Pillar also suggested that the Bush administration was so focused on going to war that it never considered the prospect of an anti-American backlash. "When Pillar was asked why this was not made clear to the president and other higher authorities, his answer was that nobody asked," Mr Novak writes.

Mr Pillar's frustration was widely shared yesterday by intelligence professionals who said they were undermined by an administration in which ideologues often had the final say over policy-making, as well as by the agency's management, which they believed was overly compliant with Pentagon and White House hardliners.

"The CIA had come out before the war, and had been telling the administration all kinds of things it didn't want to hear," said Melissa Mahle, a former CIA operative in the Middle East. "The CIA feels very embattled right now. They feel vulnerable to accusations of politicisation in the run-up to the war, and to a degree they are vulnerable because of the war [former CIA chief] George Tenet played."

2011/16: "Please take a look at what we don't know about WMDs. It is big." (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530)


Rumsfeld was not under any legal or administrative obligation to circulate an internal DoD report, but not doing so raises questions about whether the administration withheld key information that could have undermined its case for war. Time and again, in the fall of 2002 and into early 2003, members of the administration spoke forcefully and without qualification about the threats they said Saddam Hussein posed. The JCS report undercut their assertions, and if it had been shared more widely within the administration, the debate would have been very different.


On September 5, Shaffer sent Myers his findings, titled “Iraq: Status of WMD Programs.” In a note to his boss, he revealed: “We don’t know with any precision how much we don’t know.”

And while the report said intelligence officials “assess Iraq is making significant progress in WMD programs,” it conceded that “large parts” of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs were concealed. As a result, “Our assessments rely heavily on analytic assumptions and judgment rather than hard evidence. The evidentiary base is particularly sparse for Iraqi nuclear programs.”


Rather than heed the JCS’s early warning — as well as similar doubts expressed by some CIA, State Department and Defense Intelligence Agency officers — and seek more reliable intelligence, Rumsfeld and Cheney turned to a parallel intelligence apparatus they created that relied largely on information from Iraqi defectors and a network of exiles led by the late Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress.


As for administration officials’ repeated claims that Iraq had mobile bioweapons plants, which in one especially colorful version were disguised as milk and yogurt trucks, the report says: “We believe Iraq has 7 mobile BW agent production plants but cannot locate them.” It summarizes the knowledge of Saddam’s germ warfare programs by saying: “Our knowledge of what biological weapons the Iraqis are able to produce is nearly complete our knowledge of how and where they are produced is nearly 90% incomplete.”

United States’ knowledge of Iraq’s chemical weapons, according to the JCS intelligence report was just as sketchy. “Our overall knowledge of the Iraqi CW program is primarily limited to infrastructure doctrine. The specific agent and facility knowledge is 60-70 percent incomplete.”


inally, while advocates of an invasion also claimed that Iraq was developing longer range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel with weapons of mass destruction — Bush had made the claim before the U.N. General Assembly three days after Rumsfeld sent the report to Myers — the report says: “We doubt all processes are in place to produce longer range missiles.”


But just because the JCS report wasn’t seen by key officials who might have benefited from its more cautious tone, doesn’t mean it wasn’t available for inspection. Its middling “Secret” classification meant that, in theory, nothing would have prevented sharing the report's contents had any member of Congress requested a briefing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Greyblades]

Leaving aside the problem of dissonance once you have to pick and choose what you will deign to believe, the Iraq connection is misunderstood (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-usa-intelligence-idUSN2547519120070525).

2004 even (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/29/iraq.usa)

2011/16: "Please take a look at what we don't know about WMDs. It is big." (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530)

I dont see the relevance of the first two, whether or not they saw "a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East" coming as a result of the war changes nothing about the CIA's complicity in justfying it.

As for the third, I would not be surprised if there were doubt, disagreement and discontent from within the aparatus of the CIA but the fact remains that the organization produced this report (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf) at the behest of Bush's admin that persuaded politicians such as John Kerry (https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051114-1.html) that Iraq was producing Nuclear weapons.

America has been publically kicking itself for over a decade that it had been fooled by the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi Nukes, which were based on such reports. To put stock in the Obama's admin claims of russian hacking out of hand whose proof comes soley from the same compliant source and founded on the same amount of proof, IE None, Indicates either an epic degree of gullibility, a hideous lack of historical awareness or a desire to believe that has overwhemed any rightful skepticism you posess.

[Montmorency]

The point is that these are not the same sources, that there was much disagreement on how to report the intelligence between various agencies and actors within the agencies, and the conditions for proof are different considering physical scale of alleged activities. The administration chose to represent particular interpretations to Congress and the public which intelligence agencies overall disagreed with. On the other hand, the conclusions on these hacks have broad backing. It is difficult to see the intelligence community as a unified actor with single goals in these histories, let alone that there is some goal apparent now.

You shouldn't excuse partisanship as skepticism.

[Shaka_Khan]

I remember a time when I was accused of being unpatriotic and was ridiculed at the university and at the internet for opposing the invasion of Iraq. A few agreed with me (including my professor fortunately), but I felt very lonesome when I was being hated by so many for such a long time. Of course, they all agree with me now. A few of the friends who agree with me now are war veterans. That's the thing. I tend to express my views regardless of what the majority of the people believe. It's because I tend to have experiences and witnessed the things that they didn't or don't remember. This still goes on with recent events. Whenever I have a debate with the people I strongly disagree with, I realize that they really don't know the issue much.

[Husar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF87ugpgnVo

:clown:

[Gilrandir]

His prevous behavior indicates my interpritation; that being he's entertaining the idea of russia because he is less certain that it will turn out to not be russia and wants to cover his ass.


I have an impression that Trump doesn't remember and isn't really keeping track of what he has said on an issue (at least on international politics issues), so there is no use to look for consistency in what he says.

[Husar]

I highly doubt that. Show me one that doesnt present it with some variation of "We cant say 100% that it isnt true".

Now you're changing the goalposts to something that even I did not claim, besides, you probably mean "We cant say 100% that it is true" because otherwise it sounds like you were trying to make them refute your own argument.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-russia-hackers-republicans-229572
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-republicans-join-democrats-probe-russian-electioneering-hacks/

As Monty explained, your demands for 100% proof are just an expression of your own partisanship, all I said was that someone who takes Russian interference for granted does not deserve to be called an idiot, that's different from saying I'm 100% sure they're right or that they all have to agree 100% or that there were 100% proof. You cannot live life with 100% proof and security in everything.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have an impression that Trump doesn't remember and isn't really keeping track of what he has said on an issue (at least on international politics issues), so there is no use to look for consistency in what he says.

This is an apt comment.

We are used to political leaders whose staff and personal outlook lends itself to measured phrasings and careful use of labels and terminology. Barack Obama was among the most "considered" of Presidential speakers.

Trump, by contrast, mostly just says what he thinks and doesn't let past statements influence his current commentary very much. His core support group, by the way, simply adores this quality as it is very much "true" to everyday speech by most "regular" folks. They did, in part, vote for him precisely because of this quality.

For good or for ill, trying to measure him by the communication standards of his predecessor is a waste of time.

[Greyblades]

The point is that these are not the same sources, that there was much disagreement on how to report the intelligence between various agencies and actors within the agencies, and the conditions for proof are different considering physical scale of alleged activities. The administration chose to represent particular interpretations to Congress and the public which intelligence agencies overall disagreed with. On the other hand, the conclusions on these hacks have broad backing. It is difficult to see the intelligence community as a unified actor with single goals in these histories, let alone that there is some goal apparent now.
Whether the CIA is an actor or merely a tool in this is something I have come to change my mind on through this debacle, but the paralels are the same, claims with broad backing but containing precious little proof, being swallowed by those who we would want to be above such gullability.


You shouldn't excuse partisanship as skepticism.

Partisanship would have me believe one admin's use of the CIA to back thier theories and decry the other's. I decry both. You dont.


Whenever I have a debate with the people I strongly disagree with, I realize that they really don't know the issue much.
Were I you I would not advertise a habit to assume all your opponants are merely ignorant.


Now you're changing the goalposts to something that even I did not claim, besides, you probably mean "We cant say 100% that it is true" because otherwise it sounds like you were trying to make them refute your own argument. You said: "there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that." it is not moving the goalposts to expect belief not to come with a disclaimer.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-russia-hackers-republicans-229572
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-republicans-join-democrats-probe-russian-electioneering-hacks/
Hm, it seems I should have kept my skepticism to claims of the admin believing it.

A rather stupid mistake really; the republican rank and file contain such rabid anti russians, Mcain in paticular, who would automatically believe claims the russians were behind the sky being blue. Of course there'd be some that believe this.


You cannot live life with 100% proof and security in everything. Whereas you can evidently swallow anything that has 0% proof as long as there is enough official looking names attached.

These accusations of partisanship is but a dodge; ridicule to avoid having to acknowledge the possibility that what you want to believe may not be true; as valid as accusations of being unpatriotic was 15 years ago.

[Montmorency]

To dismiss the official bottom-line out of hand merely by the reasoning that spooks lie is either lunacy, where it will not recognize the contradictions it encounters, or hypocritical opportunism, where it will happily accept some claims but not others on no principled distinction.

There are specific demands one could be warranted in making in assessing hackers' chain of command and intentions. You could wonder whether analysts have made some crucial mistakes, or have been misled by a group potentially camouflaging themselves in such a way as to create the red herring of Russian deployment. You would be right to ask officials to take a leap and release as much as feasible should Trump or Congress pursue an escalatory policy much more aggressive or punitive toward Russia, especially if on the basis of Russian cyber attacks.

If the agencies have chosen to go all-out on too little, jumping the gun, or in the worst case if they have indeed conspired to fabricate claims or events in the hope of crippling or removing Trump, then they are quite reckless and should suffer for it. It would be a lot to pin their institution upon, for unclear benefit and illusions of success, and the process for unraveling it isn't obscure. Alternatively, if they are sitting on content because there is a strong connection between the hacks and the Trump administration and there is only one overarching case, it should not take long for the tipping point.

[Husar]

You said: "there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that." it is not moving the goalposts to expect belief not to come with a disclaimer.

Hm, it seems I should have kept my skepticism to claims of the admin believing it.

A rather stupid mistake really; the republican rank and file contain such rabid anti russians, Mcain in paticular, who would automatically believe claims the russians were behind the sky being blue. Of course there'd be some that believe this.

Whereas you can evidently swallow anything that has 0% proof as long as there is enough official looking names attached.

First of all I didn't mean believe as in Scientology-level belief, but that's kinda arguing semantics now. If only you held Trump to that standard...

Anyway, several intelligence agencies saying so plus several other indicators saying Russia is trying to destabilize the Western world in general is not exactly 0% proof. Your "demands" are completely outlandish because you refuse to challenge your own beliefs. I don't even "swallow" anything, I just think it is likely that it was Russia, that's good enough for me s there is not much I can do about it either way. The only thing I can do is be a bit wary concerning potential Russian attempts to influence the election here for example.
You may have missed this, but a lot of pro-Trump Twitter accounts switched to anti-Merkel tweets around the same time after the election. There is no definitive proof here either, but it, too, is widely seen as a Russian bot net of Twitter bots that they use to influence our politics. The reason I can believe it is that it wouldn't be the only measure given that they created an English version of Russia Today to spread their propaganda here as well. Lavrov was apparently praising the downfall of Western hegemony already at the Munich security conference. It also rhymes well with all the other backhanded stuff Putin has done from arresting people on bogus charges, "local defense forces" popping up somewhere and the whole defender of endangered Russians thing. There isn't even any definitive proof that all his critics who mysteriously got poisoned or shot were killed on his order but you probably believe he is a harmless kitten given that there is 0% proof against him... :rolleyes:

I have someone else for you, Kim Jong-Un, can you definitively proof that he ever did anything evil?

[Sarmatian]

The point is that these are not the same sources, that there was much disagreement on how to report the intelligence between various agencies and actors within the agencies, and the conditions for proof are different considering physical scale of alleged activities. The administration chose to represent particular interpretations to Congress and the public which intelligence agencies overall disagreed with. On the other hand, the conclusions on these hacks have broad backing. It is difficult to see the intelligence community as a unified actor with single goals in these histories, let alone that there is some goal apparent now.

You shouldn't excuse partisanship as skepticism.

Do they have? You know they're having issues when they're listing "Putin's revenge on Clinton because she insulted him" as a motive on an official report.

Also, the NSA, which is, according to Snowden, the organization best equipped to get to the bottom of this, expressed least amount of certainty in the report.

In the end, it wasn't even a hack. It was phishing. Which brings us to another problem because one of the most important "proofs" was that it was conducted on such a scale that it could have been only been done by a country like Russia, which is contrary to what phishing is. You don't need anything more than a computer with an internet connection to do it.

It does seem like the report was actually about telling the politicians and parts of the public what they want to hear. In the end, all involved in writing the report refused to categorically state anything or offer any proof. Instead, they covered their own asses by saying that Russian meddling is a probable conclusion based on what they know, so that no one can actually call them on it.

[Gilrandir]

It does seem like the report was actually about telling the politicians and parts of the public what they want to hear. In the end, all involved in writing the report refused to categorically state anything or offer any proof. Instead, they covered their own asses by saying that Russian meddling is a probable conclusion based on what they know, so that no one can actually call them on it.

Russia says something like that on her involvement in Donbas, MH 17, doping scandal and so on.

[Montmorency]

Also, the NSA, which is, according to Snowden, the organization best equipped to get to the bottom of this, expressed least amount of certainty in the report.

Weird of you to say "according to Snowden" - you don't have to get the NSA job description from Snowden - but yes, in the most recent (January) document (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) put the NSA as reporting moderate confidence, or "the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence". This qualifier was for the specific claim that the Russian government wanted to see Trump elected and worked to contribute to his winning; for the rest, the NSA seems to share high confidence.


In the end, it wasn't even a hack. It was phishing. Which brings us to another problem because one of the most important "proofs" was that it was conducted on such a scale that it could have been only been done by a country like Russia, which is contrary to what phishing is. You don't need anything more than a computer with an internet connection to do it.

If the infiltrators were a single organization, then it would need to be more than a single individual given the scale of the operation. But the content accessed and disseminated is clearly political - the contention is that regardless of who or how many specifically executed the task itself, or participated in grabbing data, their employers or paymasters were state agents.


It does seem like the report was actually about telling the politicians and parts of the public what they want to hear. In the end, all involved in writing the report refused to categorically state anything or offer any proof. Instead, they covered their own asses by saying that Russian meddling is a probable conclusion based on what they know, so that no one can actually call them on it.

So we hope to receive updated information in the coming weeks. It seems like buying time or stalling. They made very strong claims, in fact, most significantly:


We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him.

[Husar]

Given Trump's remarks about NATO and Putin's apparent thirst to "come to the aid of Russian citizens" in neighboring countries, a Russian intention to help Trump get elected is really not so far-fetched. You could say Trump promised something and Putin wanted to see if he couldn't get it. He already "influences" elections at home, a little bit of that abroad to soften the hard NATO-bumper around his wannabe-expanding empire does not seem outlandish at all.This requires destabilizing or destroying both NATO and the EU ideally. Sure, there is no definitive proof that it was Russia, but that's kinda their/a thing these days that a lot of things happen and noone has any hard proof for anything. Welcome to the digital age where everything can be faked or disregarded as fake as wanted...

Quite interesting though that both Mattis and Pence tried to assure Europe that the US are fully committed to NATO.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well - NATO was intended to combat the USSR - so it is obsolete.

Anyway, your army is too small and you don't foot your share of the bill.

Trump and Pence may well be worse for Putin and Russia.

[Montmorency]

What makes an institution obsolete? Why is the British monarchy not obsolete?

[Husar]

Anyway, your army is too small and you don't foot your share of the bill.

So we shall become a part of the Russian Federation.
That can be arranged of course.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What makes an institution obsolete? Why is the British monarchy not obsolete?

Why isn't the Monarchy obsolete?

Trump.


So we shall become a part of the Russian Federation.
That can be arranged of course.

Your army is too small, you do not have enough Tanks and Tank Hunters.

Stop pretending this is not a problem.

[Montmorency]

Why isn't the Monarchy obsolete?

Trump.

I don't see the thought.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see the thought.

Britain has an inbuilt immunity to Populism, our Monarch looms so large in the national consciousness that there's no room for a leader like Trump. What's more, there's no room for one man's vision because all is done "by the Crown". Blair came close to being "Presidential" and he is now generally loathed for that and his "sofa style" of government.

[Montmorency]

Britain has an inbuilt immunity to Populism

But that isn't true, and to the extent that it differs from America it might as well be parliamentary government as the factor.

As with other things, for the monarch to genuinely block a populist leader or government in some capacity they would have to sacrifice themselves in the process.

[Husar]

Your army is too small, you do not have enough Tanks and Tank Hunters.

Stop pretending this is not a problem.

You mean the Russians won't want us when we offer to join because we are too weak?
So your only option is to stay alone without being either The USA's or Russia's ally and without getting invaded by anyone?
Woah, that sounds like a big problem.

Just in case you misunderstood me and mean that Russian aggression is a problem, well, yes, but not as long as we stick together in NATO and/or the EU, so why did you just seemingly defend Trump for complaining? As long as NATO has a sufficient nuclear arsenal, the size of our regular armies is sufficient as well. As for the fair share of spending, I don't really believe it would somehow lower the spending of the US if all of Europe spent more on defense. More likely the US would spend more to stay #1. In fact they may secretly have liked the low EU spending levels as it makes us more dependent on them. If we began to spend loads of money and built a huge army, we'd probably get a lot of other complaints... We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU, I'm sure they'd all be quiet if we spent 6% of our GDP on tanks and also disbanded the EU and all our treaties with Poland. Why not also build border fortifications and talk about how they steal our jobs and cars and that their behavior has to have consequences. Aww man, I should go into politics. :dizzy2::sweatdrop:

[Sarmatian]

Weird of you to say "according to Snowden" - you don't have to get the NSA job description from Snowden

I simply consider him a credible expert on the subject. Probably wasn't needed to be pointed out, as it wouldn't be contested but still...

The part I find interesting is that he explicitly stated that NSA has the tools to find out exactly what happened. Hence, I'm surprised at the lack of certainty in their report.



If the infiltrators were a single organization, then it would need to be more than a single individual given the scale of the operation.

What is the scale of operation?


But the content accessed and disseminated is clearly political - the contention is that regardless of who or how many specifically executed the task itself, or participated in grabbing data, their employers or paymasters were state agents.

That implies that all political leaks must have been orchestrated by state agents, which is rather silly. Disclosing information about something that is trendy is human nature. Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were interesting when he was president, then no one cared and became somewhat interesting again 20 years later when his wife was running.

It's simple how society works. There's no need for a master villain. Just like leaks about Trump's pussy grabbing came out when he was running for president and weren't remotely interesting before that. Somebody obviously had that information for a very long time, but simply no one cared. By applying the same reasoning, we must conclude that it was Hillary and Democrats who orchestrated the leak because they had a vested interest in Trump losing the election.

[Greyblades]

To dismiss the official bottom-line out of hand merely by the reasoning that spooks lie is either lunacy, where it will not recognize the contradictions it encounters, or hypocritical opportunism, where it will happily accept some claims but not others on no principled distinction.

There are specific demands one could be warranted in making in assessing hackers' chain of command and intentions. You could wonder whether analysts have made some crucial mistakes, or have been misled by a group potentially camouflaging themselves in such a way as to create the red herring of Russian deployment. You would be right to ask officials to take a leap and release as much as feasible should Trump or Congress pursue an escalatory policy much more aggressive or punitive toward Russia, especially if on the basis of Russian cyber attacks.

If the agencies have chosen to go all-out on too little, jumping the gun, or in the worst case if they have indeed conspired to fabricate claims or events in the hope of crippling or removing Trump, then they are quite reckless and should suffer for it. It would be a lot to pin their institution upon, for unclear benefit and illusions of success, and the process for unraveling it isn't obscure. Alternatively, if they are sitting on content because there is a strong connection between the hacks and the Trump administration and there is only one overarching case, it should not take long for the tipping point. This is blatant misrepresentation of my position; I dismiss it because the russians doing it is a theory and the only thing that supports it is the word of spooks that have twisted the truth before in similar circumstances and whose taskmaster at the time had incentive to do the same.

All your presented theories of mistake or ill intent are made all the more plausable than "russia did it" by the precident that was the Iraq war debacle and the fact that the CIA's entire role is to be the illicit tools of the president of the time, often loyal to the most extreme fault.


First of all I didn't mean believe as in Scientology-level belief, but that's kinda arguing semantics now. If only you held Trump to that standard...Is your english failing you again? The difference between believing something to be true and entertaining a possibility is much greater than mere semantics.

You said members of the trump admin believe it. Prove it or amend your statement.

Anyway, several intelligence agencies saying so plus several other indicators saying Russia is trying to destabilize the Western world in general is not exactly 0% proof. Your "demands" are completely outlandish because you refuse to challenge your own beliefs. I don't even "swallow" anything, I just think it is likely that it was Russia, that's good enough for me s there is not much I can do about it either way. The only thing I can do is be a bit wary concerning potential Russian attempts to influence the election here for example.Testimony of the demonstrateably unreliable and indicators of general ill intent are not proof and it certainly should not be enough for someone in Shepard Smith's profession to state as fact, yet there he is.

If you want to believe that the russians did it, I dont care, I dont even mind but dont blow smoke up my ass about it being proven. I mean the Seth Rich theory has a dead body found with valuables untouched but still labled a mugging by DC cops and it's the russian angle being pushed by the media?


You may have missed this, but a lot of pro-Trump Twitter accounts switched to anti-Merkel tweets around the same time after the election. There is no definitive proof here either, but it, too, is widely seen as a Russian bot net of Twitter bots that they use to influence our politics. The reason I can believe it is that it wouldn't be the only measure given that they created an English version of Russia Today to spread their propaganda here as well. Lavrov was apparently praising the downfall of Western hegemony already at the Munich security conference. It also rhymes well with all the other backhanded stuff Putin has done from arresting people on bogus charges, "local defense forces" popping up somewhere and the whole defender of endangered Russians thing. There isn't even any definitive proof that all his critics who mysteriously got poisoned or shot were killed on his order but you probably believe he is a harmless kitten given that there is 0% proof against him... :rolleyes:

I have someone else for you, Kim Jong-Un, can you definitively proof that he ever did anything evil?

The Kim Jong-Un case has the escapees testimony to fall back on, the CIA's "this is how we think the russians hacked the DNC" has nothing of the sort.

[Montmorency]

We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU, I'm sure they'd all be quiet if we spent 6% of our GDP on tanks and also disbanded the EU and all our treaties with Poland. Why not also build border fortifications and talk about how they steal our jobs and cars and that their behavior has to have consequences. Aww man, I should go into politics. :dizzy2::sweatdrop:

Pak und Flak nach vorne.


What is the scale of operation?

Unauthorized access maintained and developed over the course of a year with respect to emails, chat, research, no financial or donor information taken, basically undetected throughout the time period until discovered and kicked out in spring of 2016.


That implies that all political leaks must have been orchestrated by state agents, which is rather silly. Disclosing information about something that is trendy is human nature. Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were interesting when he was president, then no one cared and became somewhat interesting again 20 years later when his wife was running.

Not at all. We're talking about electronic networks and data accessed remotely and without authorization, over prolonged periods of time.


It's simple how society works. There's no need for a master villain. Just like leaks about Trump's pussy grabbing came out when he was running for president and weren't remotely interesting before that. Somebody obviously had that information for a very long time, but simply no one cared. By applying the same reasoning, we must conclude that it was Hillary and Democrats who orchestrated the leak because they had a vested interest in Trump losing the election.

The Trump audio tape wasn't a leak, it was publicly-available content from media unrelated to Trump that people dug up while combing over his public profile for dirt.

[Montmorency]

This is blatant misrepresentation of my position; I dismiss it because the russians doing it is a theory and the only thing that supports it is the word of spooks that have twisted the truth before in similar circumstances and whose taskmaster at the time had incentive to do the same.


So I correctly represented it.


The Kim Jong-Un case has the escapees testimony to fall back on, the CIA's "this is how we think the russians hacked the DNC" has nothing of the sort.

They were recruited by the CIA.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But that isn't true, and to the extent that it differs from America it might as well be parliamentary government as the factor.

If you are referring to Brexit, I disagree. When it comes down to it Brexit happened because of a lack of consultation on the surrender of parliamentary power to Europe (treaties signed without Referenda first). This caused disenfranchisement.

A lot of the resentment towards Eastern Europeans has to do with the fact that "we" didn't invite them in, "Europe" foisted them upon us.


As with other things, for the monarch to genuinely block a populist leader or government in some capacity they would have to sacrifice themselves in the process.

Debatable - the Queen has publicly intervened once and survived it. Supposedly she put the screws to Gordon Brown in 210, telling him if he didn't step aside and allow the LibCon Coalition she'd dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections.

No proof, though, of course.


You mean the Russians won't want us when we offer to join because we are too weak?
So your only option is to stay alone without being either The USA's or Russia's ally and without getting invaded by anyone?
Woah, that sounds like a big problem.

Just in case you misunderstood me and mean that Russian aggression is a problem, well, yes, but not as long as we stick together in NATO and/or the EU, so why did you just seemingly defend Trump for complaining? As long as NATO has a sufficient nuclear arsenal, the size of our regular armies is sufficient as well. As for the fair share of spending, I don't really believe it would somehow lower the spending of the US if all of Europe spent more on defense. More likely the US would spend more to stay #1. In fact they may secretly have liked the low EU spending levels as it makes us more dependent on them. If we began to spend loads of money and built a huge army, we'd probably get a lot of other complaints... We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU, I'm sure they'd all be quiet if we spent 6% of our GDP on tanks and also disbanded the EU and all our treaties with Poland. Why not also build border fortifications and talk about how they steal our jobs and cars and that their behavior has to have consequences. Aww man, I should go into politics. :dizzy2::sweatdrop:

No - I just mean you don't have enough tanks, or men. Germany is large, but the German army numbers just over 60,000 men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army

More than last year - but still about half the size the army needs to be to contribute effectively to NATO and Germany's own defence. At the same time you're integrating the Dutch, Romanian and Czech armies into your own, increasing the area you are required to cover.

[Husar]

Is your english failing you again? The difference between believing something to be true and entertaining a possibility is much greater than mere semantics.

You said members of the trump admin believe it. Prove it or amend your statement.
Testimony of the demonstrateably unreliable and indicators of general ill intent are not proof and it certainly should not be enough for someone in Shepard Smith's profession to state as fact, yet there he is.

Ok, they think so.
As for Shepard Smith, he is about as professional as the President who states bullshit as facts all the time, so I guess the people get the level of professionalism they voted for. :2thumbsup:
Smith doesn't even call it a fact, he "only" doesn't pronounce any doubts on TV. While that may not be textbook journalism, it's far better than outright lying or presenting "alternative facts". You might as well complain about Stephen Miller not having shown up on all the shows that invited him when he clearly said on TV that he would repeat things on any show anywhere at any time. I mean what professional standard is that for a representative of the POTUS?
Your whole Smith outrage is obviously a smokescreen fueled by partisanship since you never get outraged by similar blunders of the Trump admin.


If you want to believe that the russians did it, I dont care, I dont even mind but dont blow smoke up my ass about it being proven. I mean the Seth Rich theory has a dead body found with valuables untouched but still labled a mugging by DC cops and it's the russian angle being pushed by the media?

Ugh, first you scold me for not using belief correctly and then you talk about me believing something when I clearly said I can't be sure. Is your logic failing you today or is it my fault again?
And what Seth Rich theory? Can you prove it? Can anyone?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/seth-rich-wasnt-just-another-dc-murder-victim-he-was-a-meme-in-the-weirdest-presidential-election-of-our-times/2017/01/18/ee8e27f8-dcc0-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html

All I see there is a bunch of speculation that offers no more proof than the Russian hacking theory. With the added bonus that even if he was the leak and/or murdered to cover the leak, it could still have been done by the Russians. :dizzy2:


The Kim Jong-Un case has the escapees testimony to fall back on, the CIA's "this is how we think the russians hacked the DNC" has nothing of the sort.

Because it would make sense to publicly release the names of their Russian sources who secretly told them so?
And escapees are no proof, they're obviously not happy with the regime and are likely to lie to get asylum in other countries. Unless you can prove that they are not lying, NK is a paradise.


No - I just mean you don't have enough tanks, or men. Germany is large, but the German army numbers just over 60,000 men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army

More than last year - but still about half the size the army needs to be to contribute effectively to NATO and Germany's own defence. At the same time you're integrating the Dutch, Romanian and Czech armies into your own, increasing the area you are required to cover.

As I said, so you think we're not good enough for NATO, how about we just scratch the idea and work with the Russian Federation if we don't deserve NATO protection? Maybe Putin will agree to a cooperation without demanding that we spend more on defense. The Red Army can defend us effectively if the US Army does not want to. :2thumbsup:
And if neither of them want us, well, we have finally achieved complete independence with no threat, might as well disband the army completely to make them want us even less.

[Montmorency]

If you are referring to Brexit, I disagree. When it comes down to it Brexit happened because of a lack of consultation on the surrender of parliamentary power to Europe (treaties signed without Referenda first). This caused disenfranchisement.

A lot of the resentment towards Eastern Europeans has to do with the fact that "we" didn't invite them in, "Europe" foisted them upon us.


But why just Brexit? Populism has had trouble penetrating your national government over its history more because of inertia than any palpable pressure from the monarchy, because conservatives deferential to the monarchy have typically ruled over the national government, because your most significant populist movements have been ethno-national ones seeking dissociation rather than representation, because social authority was contested and compromised on the basis of landed aristocracy embracing market capitalism under state stewardship into the Industrial Revolution. These quirks, and their attendant norms, are smoothing out as time passes.

I don't think the monarchy continues to act as some primitive force distinguishing American results from British ones. Let's say the only discrete forms of democracy are party democracy, and populist democracy. Would you be surprised if there were a referendum towards dissolving aspects of the monarchy in your lifetime?

[Idaho]

Is it just from outside the US that people are pointing and laughing? Bowling green massacres, the Swedish attacks...

He's a laughing stock.

[Husar]

He's also very self-critical it seems:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhf0iLXm70

[Husar]

John Oliver sums up what's weird about the Trump-Putin thing, small language warning for the song at the end.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utzB6oDan0

[Viking]

Why isn't the Monarchy obsolete?

Trump.

Trump cannot be US president for more than 8 years. If there were a suitable UK heir apparent for him to marry, he could haven been close to the centre of power in the UK till his dying day; and his offspring would continue where he left off for generations to come.

[Crandar]

Meaningless as usual. What is an American value (I can easily mention many supposed Russian values, with which America would be gladly associated) and why are Americans supposed to care about Crimea and their country's foreign interests?

An ordinary American shouldn't care at all if their proxies do better than Russian proxies or if X random dictatorship is ruled by a pro-American or a pro-Russian despot. Only nationalists care, and these guys are by definition dump and easily manipulated.

Foreign relations are irrelevant to human rights and if John Oliver has some decency left, I expect the rest of his episodes to comment on America's friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and almost every sub-Saharan state. Jesus, McCarthy is long dead, you aren't gonna get these votes back by russophobic hysteria.

[Husar]

Meaningless as usual. What is an American value (I can easily mention many supposed Russian values, with which America would be gladly associated) and why are Americans supposed to care about Crimea and their country's foreign interests?

An ordinary American shouldn't care at all if their proxies do better than Russian proxies or if X random dictatorship is ruled by a pro-American or a pro-Russian despot. Only nationalists care, and these guys are by definition dump and easily manipulated.

Foreign relations are irrelevant to human rights and if John Oliver has some decency left, I expect the rest of his episodes to comment on America's friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and almost every sub-Saharan state. Jesus, McCarthy is long dead, you aren't gonna get these votes back by russophobic hysteria.

That seems like a somewhat meaningless post considering you make a lot of assumptions about John Oliver not caring about the diplomatic relations to Saudi Arabia etc. He has a 20 minute segment and has to cram a lot of content into it. He cannot explain the entire world and all the problems in one go. And he did cover it by the way when he said that the US are not perfect and even mentioned that he usually talks about the imperfections of the US.
In fact, instead of russophobic hysteria, you could call it a questioning of friendly relationships with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia in general. The use of Russia as an example makes sense given that it is a current hot topic obviously.

As for caring about Crimea and foreign interests, I would agree that the foreign interest thing is a bit weird, especially when it comes to business interests that make foreign people suffer. It is however a topic that people do care about, see people talking about better relations with Russia to intensify trade and create more jobs and so on. Why should Americans not care about what happened to Crimea?

[Crandar]

They should care in the sense that the international law was stomped, but Oliver's propaganda is misleading, because I would personally care more about... let's say the will of the Egyptian people getting stomped.

He skips Saudi Arabia in twenty seconds and focuses on Russia using the cleverest and oldest trick in the book. Casually and quickly recognizing it as valid and then ignoring it for the rest of the episode with a simple "aside".

He didn't lie, even when he implied that Putler should be blamed for every assassination happening in Russia by circular reasoning or that the economy is going to fall (it isn't, it has stabilised and been projected to rise). Not that I'm gonna shed any tears on Boris Nemtsov, the oligarch who ruined Novgorod, but you get the picture.

I know that what I'm saying can easily be dismissed as whataboutism, but the whole russophobic paranoia becomes very fragile, when viewed inside context. Hillary "laughing at extra-judicial murders" Clinton tried to play the patriotic, bald eagle card, but she failed miserably, because Americans had been taught to hate commies, not Russians specificallt and they still remember all these coffins sent by Zarkawi, al-Douri and the rest of the gang.

The only thing I am hopeful for Trump is that he somewhat improves the relations for Russia, regardless of Oliver's condescending opinion about Russians. Look at all these ignorant peasants believing stories about jugs and hating gays. It's Kipling burden all over again, but with Slavs instead of Africans and Asians.

End of rant.

[Husar]

Look at all these ignorant peasants believing stories about jugs and hating gays.

Ugh, even Russia Today doesn't deny those:
https://www.rt.com/news/russia-gay-law-myths-951/


A law was passed earlier this summer that levies a fine of up to 50,000 rubles (about $1,500 dollars) on any individuals, and up to 1 million rubles (about $30,000) on any organizations engaged in “propaganda of non-traditional relationships to minors”. Non-traditional sexual relationships were informally defined by the lawmakers as those that cannot lead to the production of offspring. What constitutes propaganda is also unclear.
[...]
After several one-offs refusals to let them go ahead, and unsanctioned protest rallies, Moscow’s local parliament banned gay demonstrations for a 100 years in 2011, and again in 2012. They have been allowed to take place in St. Petersburg under the guise of human rights demonstrations. These have inevitably ended in bloodshed, as LGBT campaigners have been outnumbered by religious and radical right-wing counter-protesters, with police having to separate the groups.
[...]
According to a May survey conducted by Levada Center, only 21 percent of Russians believe that homosexuality is a sexual orientation people are born with. Forty five percent believe that it is a result of “being subjected to perversion or loose personal morals”, with 20 more believing that it is both a result of circumstances and nature. More than half of Russians believe that homosexuality should be either punished by law (13 percent) or treated medically (38 percent). According to a survey conducted shortly after the gay propaganda law was passed by Levada, 76 percent of Russians support it.

What the people Putin kills or has deconstructed in courts actually did is irrelevant if he only does it to secure his own power. The situation where a president sits out a term limit for one term and then runs again has also never been seen in the US by the way, especially with a close ally of his taking over for the one term while he even takes a different government position. What would you call it if Obama had become Clinton's secretary of state and then ran again as president in 2020?

I will give you that there is such a thing as russophobic paranoia, but the existence of that does not whitewash all the things that are actually "wrong" about Russia.

[AE Bravo]

I like John Oliver, but that was literally seventeen minutes of talking about Putin's personality. The real issues he only addressed in the last three minutes, including the pop song at the end which is actually a strong political statement.

This is the problem with western media right now, everybody focusing on Trump said this and said that instead of his policies.

[drone]

The situation where a president sits out a term limit for one term and then runs again has also never been seen in the US by the way, especially with a close ally of his taking over for the one term while he even takes a different government position. What would you call it if Obama had become Clinton's secretary of state and then ran again as president in 2020?

Against the law, as Obama cannot run again. The 22nd amendment limits a person to <2.5 presidential terms total, regardless of consecutiveness. Grover Cleveland "sat out" a term, winning the popular vote 3 times but losing the electoral college for the middle one.

[Crandar]

There's no proof that Putin killed Nemtsov other than that he didn't like him. Yes, he may have, but he also may not, and mob squabbling sounds much likelier than the president ordering someone to be murdered near Kremlin.

I am not denying that Russia is more homophobic and undemocratic than the US, but Oliver's tone was clearly condescending and borderline racist, treating Russians like some naive idiots, who are clearly not as clever like him and his audience. Why would they vote for Putler other than stupidly swallowing his propaganda?!

Finally, I have no problem with how Putin circumvented the Russian constitution, as he was elected fair and square. Still a noob compared to our Karamanlis who in exactly 40 years was prime-minister for 14 and president for 10 (and maybe more hadn't been for the king and the junta).

Meanwhile, a bunch of Democrats believe that Hillary was liquidated, because Putin hacked their system. If I were Trump, I would enjoy their paranoia, stopping them from seeing the real causes of their dismal failure.

[Husar]

Against the law, as Obama cannot run again. The 22nd amendment limits a person to <2.5 presidential terms total, regardless of consecutiveness. Grover Cleveland "sat out" a term, winning the popular vote 3 times but losing the electoral college for the middle one.

Yes, but that doesn't improve anything about the Russian situation.


There's no proof that Putin killed Nemtsov other than that he didn't like him. Yes, he may have, but he also may not, and mob squabbling sounds much likelier than the president ordering someone to be murdered near Kremlin.

Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...


Finally, I have no problem with how Putin circumvented the Russian constitution, as he was elected fair and square. Still a noob compared to our Karamanlis who in exactly 40 years was prime-minister for 14 and president for 10 (and maybe more hadn't been for the king and the junta).

See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof. :sweatdrop:


As for his policies, they're mostly as bad as the things he says. Let's take these:
https://www.politiplatform.com/trump

Crime: Starts out okay, then come the gun things that I just won'rt ever understand as a nanny statist. Plus replace the meth heads with gang members.

Education: Don't improve the school system, just give more tax money to private schools. :wall:

Environment: Yeah, sure, by shutting down the EPA and making one of its worst nightmares the head of the EPA. :rolleyes: How am I supposed to believe that? Will he invent Clean Oil? As for the pipelines, which are oh so safe: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3rxqUXqPzog/maxresdefault.jpg

Families: Some okay ones, but generally geared towards a population increase = more consumers of resources we are not going to have anymore soon. Yay!

Foreign Policy: Don't have time to think about all of it, but we already know he basically says "America First", huge military increase (why do we need more again if they get more anyway?) and, very funny, no stealing of US tech, not like they would hamper or steal technologies of other countries. No reason for me as a foreigner to like any of this obviously.

Government: :laugh4: Yes, he also placed bankers all over his cabinet and his head advisor is a racist, fascist, fake-news-running ex-banker... :laugh4:

Healthcare: Hard to say on a whim, but I assume more privatization, I like #70, that sounds like a game-changer. I'm curious to see the US cover everyone well with more privatization. Which president didn't promise to fix the VA? (possibly a lot, not like I checked)

Immigration: #90 sounds good, should have been implemented before those entitled millenials automatically got the citizenship. I propose a citizenship exam at age 21, failures get thrown over the wall.

Jobs & Economy: Still waiting to see more Americans with a job while everyone gets a hefty price increase on everything that is or was imported. The lower consumption could be offset by all the babies/new consumers.

Science & Tech: Basically the NSA does not **** me enough yet by saving all my communication?

Taxes: Some of them sound good, want to see them in action though, especially given that he basically promised to tax his friends more when he recently seemed concerned that they can't get enough loans/money.

[CrossLOPER]

treating Russians like some naive idiots
You would be surprised what people are willing to believe. My relatives, for the longest time, could not differentiate between pedophiles and homosexuals. The way they saw it, is that what stops one from committing one lustful sin if they do another. It's just an example, but it is fairly easy to manipulate people with fear of some sort of punishment, whether from a divine source or some imbecile with access to explosives.

[Gilrandir]

Britain has an inbuilt immunity to Populism, our Monarch looms so large in the national consciousness that there's no room for a leader like Trump.

Wait till Charles III ascends the throne - I bet he won't loom that large.



We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU

Don't steal this title from Putin. He will take on so.



Not that I'm gonna shed any tears on Boris Nemtsov, the oligarch who ruined Novgorod, but you get the picture.


First of all, NIZHNY Novgorod.
Second of all, it is an exaggeration to call him an oligarch.
Third of all, as for Nemtsov being responsible for the "ruination" of"Novgorod" - a proof needed. Both for the fact of ruination and for the man being instrumental in it (if any).

[Sarmatian]

Non-traditional sexual relationships were informally defined by the lawmakers as those that cannot lead to the production of offspring.


So, getting a good old b-job after a hard day at work is out of the question?


I like John Oliver, but that was literally seventeen minutes of talking about Putin's personality. The real issues he only addressed in the last three minutes, including the pop song at the end which is actually a strong political statement.

This is the problem with western media right now, everybody focusing on Trump said this and said that instead of his policies.

Yeah, it was really weak. You can't really cover Putin in 20 minutes, anyway. He should have focused on a single, or at best a few aspects.

[Crandar]

Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...
And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...




See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof. :sweatdrop:
Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?

He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.

/snip
Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.

[Husar]

And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...

What? :dizzy2:
Nemtsov is not required to be a murder for all the "accidents" of his enemies to make him look suspicious.


Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?

He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.

I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency. There are probably other dictators who may get a lot of votes, even majorities, but that doesn't change anything about their ruthlessness or that they may have brainwashed to population to get there. It's like saying Hitler didn't need elections anymore because he would have won them anyway, he was just a popular chancellor and not a dictator. :dizzy2:


Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.

I don't think he has an obsession with Russia and every time US shows say about European countries it is partially misleading, just like I have people on Facebook who say misleading things about the US. You have to see the overall picture and he's not so wrong about Russia there.
And they're not irrelevant, he used it to show why Trump's attitude towards Russia is morally and perhaps judicially questionable. Trump is the one who has some strange obsession with talking about how he wants to be friends with Russia. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But why just Brexit? Populism has had trouble penetrating your national government over its history more because of inertia than any palpable pressure from the monarchy, because conservatives deferential to the monarchy have typically ruled over the national government, because your most significant populist movements have been ethno-national ones seeking dissociation rather than representation, because social authority was contested and compromised on the basis of landed aristocracy embracing market capitalism under state stewardship into the Industrial Revolution. These quirks, and their attendant norms, are smoothing out as time passes.

I don't think the monarchy continues to act as some primitive force distinguishing American results from British ones. Let's say the only discrete forms of democracy are party democracy, and populist democracy. Would you be surprised if there were a referendum towards dissolving aspects of the monarchy in your lifetime?

There will never be a Referendum on dissolving "parts of the Monarchy", there might conceivably be a referendum on abolition but that is highly unlikely. It is far more Likely the monarch would see the writing on the wall and voluntarily abolish their position and usher in a Republic.

After all, the Monarch has been placed over us by God to Protect us. I'm not joking here, this is widely acknowledged to be the view of HM Queen. Abolition in the UK is unlikely though, the Queen is outstandingly popular, her son is also generally very popular and her grandson is possibly the post popular of the lot.

On the other hand, Abolition in her other Dominions is a real possibility, but it all depends on timing. The Australians have already rejected abolition under the current Monarch. It's possible that once Charles ascends abolition there and in Canada will move forward but not immediately after his coronation - it would take a few years at least to get going.

In that time he might prove an excellent King, and if he dies early and William ascends then abolitionists will be back to square one, I think.

[Gilrandir]

I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency.



A rumour:
http://24-my.info/putin-wants-to-replace-elections-a-referendum-on-trust-in-leader-media-2/

[Idaho]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/senate-oks-police-power-to-arrest-peaceful-protesters-to-prevent/article_4ef7672c-76e1-50a1-908d-c582062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

[Greyblades]

Need more information, what are the criteria the police are using to identify those who should be arrested. What property is allowed to be siezed.

As it is we dont know if this isnt merely allowing cops to arrest the guy who showed up with a face mask' baseball bat and molotov before he starts causing damage or sieze his weapons without spending time getting a warrent.

[Idaho]

With the narcotics seizure rules, the police pretty much can decide if you are likely to be involved in the drugs industry, and then they can take anything that isn't nailed down.

In some counties the situation is getting extreme and is not necessarily drug related. Any local infraction incurs a large fine, which if you can't pay, results in more fines... Then prison. Consequently large numbers of young (mainly black) people owe the state lots of money they don't have and are in prison for trifling offences.

[Greyblades]

Such things can be contested, if you can prove in a court of law that what has been siezed was not aquired criminally or used in criminal activities (aka "that pile of cash they found under my bed that my job wouldnt pay me in 50 years of continuous labour isnt drug profits but inheritance, here's the will and bank records" or "I have that fertilizer because I am a farmer not a bomber, here's my licence") the property will be returned, fines cancelled or repaid and such misuse leaves the counties open for damage claims.

But this is an issue of the original law and the subject of another thread, what does this extension account for? Would it really extend to siezing people's houses while they are away protesting?

[Idaho]

Such things can be contested, if you can prove in a court of law that what has been siezed was not aquired criminally or used in criminal activities (aka "that pile of cash they found under my bed that my job wouldnt pay me in 50 years of continuous labour isnt drug profits but inheritance, here's the will and bank records" or "I have that fertilizer because I am a farmer not a bomber, here's my licence") the property will be returned, fines cancelled or repaid and such misuse leaves the counties open for damage claims.

But this is an issue of the original law and the subject of another thread, what does this extension account for? Would it really extend to siezing people's houses while they are away protesting?

Of course, because the people most affected by this not only have extensive resources to get legal help, but are also considered impartially by the US justice system.

Ah Tories... Things that affect people who don't look like them are irrelevant and uninteresting. While things that even hint at their privilege are beyond the pale and threaten the very fabric of the world :laugh4:

[Greyblades]

There are legal companies in america that offer "No win, No fee" rates on cases.
Again, what does this extension account for?

[Gilrandir]

When Trump was talking of Sweden, did he know anything beforehand?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/
Or had he traveled with Doc Brown and Marty McFly into the future?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/senate-oks-police-power-to-arrest-peaceful-protesters-to-prevent/article_4ef7672c-76e1-50a1-908d-c582062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

That looks more like out-and-out corruption than Fascism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When Trump was talking of Sweden, did he know anything beforehand?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/
Or had he traveled with Doc Brown and Marty McFly into the future?

There are, actually, often minor disturbances in Sweden involving immigrants and the Police.

This doesn't look like it really qualified as a real "riot" in the French sense.

[Idaho]

There are legal companies in america that offer "No win, No fee" rates on cases.
Again, what does this extension account for?

You are right. The market can efficiently deal with this. The system works!

[Idaho]

That looks more like out-and-out corruption than Fascism.

When the state allows its enforcers free reign over its citizens, the individual examples do look like corruption.

[Greyblades]

You are right. The market can efficiently deal with this. The system works!
Not much of a refutation.

Nor an answer to the question.

[Greyblades]

Doublepost.

[drone]

Here is a good Washington Post series on asset forfeiture from a couple of years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?utm_term=.224f7ec3b968

I remember back when this got started during the heyday of the "War on Drugs", easy to pass laws when spun as cops seizing yachts and Ferraris from big time dealers. I think the general gist of the story for lawful citizens is, don't carry more than $200 in cash. If they take it, it's generally not worth your time/money to try to get it back. You may be innocent, but your property is guilty as hell!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/senate-oks-police-power-to-arrest-peaceful-protesters-to-prevent/article_4ef7672c-76e1-50a1-908d-c582062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.


Idaho and I are not normally on the same side of most issues. However, the civil forfeiture rules for drug crimes in America are far too easily abused and applying the same rules for such things as protesting without a permit would be ludicrous. I cannot see that application as anything other than an infringement of the first amendment. Injunct it now and strike it down soon after.

If I recall, Strike For The South is also quite leery of this forfeiture stuff.

[Idaho]

You guys only live there, what would you know. Greyblades has a deeper understanding, based on a sense of moral superiority that only an English tory could nature.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As with a number of well-intentioned things, the forfeiture process in the war on drugs was well meant but did not think through the unintended consequences.

Goal: Make drug dealers pay for the cost of the war on drugs, tying the property forfeiture to the presence of illegal drugs or paraphernalia that tested positive for same. Confiscate the (house, boat, car, etc.) and auction for cash which then funded the anti-drug effort.

In practice: tying forfeiture to the item's use for drugs and NOT to the owner's or operator's actions allowed for confiscation of lots of stuff -- even if it had been stolen or rented from its rightful owner who then received no compensation. Even if there was no evidence to link any person to a crime that would meet the minimum needed to arraign someone, the stuff could still be taken and sold. Sadly, it is all to easy to teach yourself to justify raids and confiscation that can't really generate legal evidence, but can get you loot. Most police departments have not abused this.....most.

The potential for abuse in these situations is galling.

[Pannonian]

You guys only live there, what would you know. Greyblades has a deeper understanding, based on a sense of moral superiority that only an English tory could nature.

GB is as enthusiastic about Corbyn as you are.

[Greyblades]

I am?

I cannot see that application as anything other than an infringement of the first amendment.

You cant? I could easily see the police wanting to using it on protestors wielding various weapons before they get the chance to use them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When the state allows its enforcers free reign over its citizens, the individual examples do look like corruption.

Fascism is a political system, throwing it around in inappropriate ways cheapens that.

[AE Bravo]

Don't worry about that. The "Putin is still a fascist" posts have cheapened it enough here.

[Idaho]

GB is as enthusiastic about Corbyn as you are.
Heh. I think you should keep your pet topic limited to its own thread.

[Pannonian]

Heh. I think you should keep your pet topic limited to its own thread.

You're the one calling him a Tory, and I corrected you on that. Check out his posts in the Corbyn thread for his sympathies. If you want to stick to the thread topic, then GB is a Trump supporter. So he's been on the winning side in 3 votes so far: Corbyn, Brexit and Trump.

[Husar]

So he's been on the winning side in 3 votes so far: Corbyn, Brexit and Trump.

Wonderful! :2thumbsup:

[Greyblades]

Looks like someone rolled a 1 on sense motive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fascism is a political system, throwing it around in inappropriate ways cheapens that.

Except that Putin's government can be demonstrated to be of a Fascist nature.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am?


You cant? I could easily see the police wanting to using it on protestors wielding various weapons before they get the chance to use them.


In the USA, police already have the right to use force to disarm or stop an attacker who poses grievous threat to them and/or bystanders. Property confiscation when it is clearly used as part of a criminal act for which the person has been judged guilty is not without its place, but public protest is both Constitutionally guaranteed and, in the vast majority of instances, reasonably peaceful.

If you are starting a riot, then the cops will wade in with their truncheons and a whiff of teargas. Confiscating your property because you failed to get a permit for your peaceful protest would be government intimidation and specifically counter to the first amendment. The police can, and have, arrested such persons for trespass or blocking public thoroughfares (misdemeanors), but to do more would be outrageous.

[Greyblades]

I should clarify: the impression I am getting is that these legal expansions are there so that, when the police see anyone in a protest crowd that appear to be wanting to turn violent, they can either arrest or confiscate what they need to premptively prevent escalation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I should clarify: the impression I am getting is that these legal expansions are there so that, when the police see anyone in a protest crowd that appear to be wanting to turn violent, they can either arrest or confiscate what they need to premptively prevent escalation.

I am sure that is the intent. I worry that it will encourage "preemptive violence on the part of the police. In addition, curtailing protests BEFORE they turn violent violates the spirit of our Constitution and, I suspect, the letter of it as well.

[Strike For The South]

Civil forfeiture is robbery. It's original intent, during the drug war, was to nueter the drug lords ability to access their cash. However, this has devolved into taking whatever a cash a black guy has on him during a traffic stop in east Texas. The cops then use this cash to further militarize, and what's the point of those toys if you can't use them?

Its totally insane that a tool originally intended for drug king pins and pension swindlers is now used to fund police departments and an incentive to uncover "wrong doing". Meaning, a bit of weed in the house.

Total 8th amendment violation. Total bastardized version of due process.

Also so Arizona is now looking to apply racketeering charges to protesters. Fascists man.

seamus summoned me

[Montmorency]

Protest is inherently an act of political violence and therefore any individual intending to protest may conceivably be indicted along with his or her property under the proposal.

Fundamental civil rights contradiction. The bill won't stand (long).

[Strike For The South]

We are going to have define terms. You're not going to weasel your out of this using your vocabulary.

[Montmorency]

We are going to have define terms. You're not going to weasel your out of this using your vocabulary.

Is TacFlamers damage in the 30s?


En garde!

Hannah Arendt wants to distinguish between violence and power. One perspective she briefly cites (in On Violence) is one that, while not exactly equating the two or linking violence to a manifestation of power, describes power as like a subset of violence. (But Arendt would not agree, arguing that violence and power are opposite.) Speaking on democracy, the institutions and laws of republican government are maintained not by power of men or laws, but of the people's consent in the legitimacy of the two. In other words, the people exercise the power over the state to give the state power, or to diminish it (separate from authority).


There are plenty of conceptions of political violence today, but I think most which don't simply limit or predicate the definition to or on bodily force, harm, or intimidation for political cause or in political context, are related to the musings above. (Though again Arendt would disagree, seeing violence as instrumental rather than as a relationship inflicting "damage".)

A legally unrestricted majority rule, that is, a democracy without a constitution, can be very formidable in the suppression of the rights of minorities and
very effective in the suffocation of dissent without any use of violence. But that does not mean that violence and power are the same.
So, in light of a recursive power to power of republican subjects, protest could be interpreted directly as an act of violence against the state in that it aims to turn that power against itself, to diminish it.

To be clear, you would be much likelier to see leftist activists espousing views on political violence that can label most acts of policy as potentially or inherently violent, and probably only radicals who accept protest itself as inherently violent. I don't actually follow anarchist theory or praxis to be precise about it, but have encountered various Internet conversations, so I look to the classic work for familiar ground. What I mean with my post above is that Republicans hoping to expand laws in the interest of limiting undesirable protest, or punishing those who engage in it, fall into the trap of playing with this logic of power. The legislation can't operate without the assumption that protest is violence diffuse, with individual eruptions emerging therefrom, which on its face then has to contradict the letter of the Constitution - which would have to be interpreted as legitimizing this specific violence of people over state. Now we're in Steve Bannon territory or sommthin. A Republican sticking to their more natural instinct that the process of protest and any given violent event must be distinguished cannot simply find "a protest" a violent enterprise, so law or policy should only be used to either balance the exercise of protest against other rights or somehow trim about a "true" core of protest. So traditionalists can defend the Boston Tea Party by pointing out holistic virtues, or by separating out the destruction or rowdiness for condemnation apart from the rest. But that's another story

Just a notion.
:shrug:



On a more concrete note, some old surveys (https://books.google.com/books?id=-QmeFSAE8G8C&pg=PA195&lpg=PA192#v=onepage&q&f=false) from the early 70s suggest an interesting diversity in common understandings of violence.

https://i.imgur.com/1IlvnSe.png
https://i.imgur.com/vwbKjIE.png

[Greyblades]

Sounds to me like political entities were/are looking to redefine the word violence in such a complex (or at least intentionally confusing) way as to let them call thier actually peaceful opponents violent and thus attach the original stigmas in the eye of the common man while simultaneously allowing them to stigmatise any intellectual calling this out as ignorant or irrationally opposed to the term's redefining.

[Husar]

I completely agree with whatever Monty just said.

There are also reports about an increasing number of "attacks" on Jewish cemeteries in the US since Trump took office, it sounds a lot like the increase of attacks on immigrants after the Brexit referendum.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/26/dozens-headstones-toppled-at-philadelphia-jewish-cemetery.html

And meanwhile in German carnival:
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/trump-karneval-101~_v-videowebl.jpg

[Montmorency]

And meanwhile in German carnival:
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/trump-karneval-101~_v-videowebl.jpg

"Pension fund"?

[Husar]

"Pension fund"?

Deutsche Rentenversicherung is the public pension fund of Germany.
I assume it's the one you pay into via automatic deductions from your paycheck and that will later pay your pension according to the law.
At least the 73 million members would suggest that is what it is.

[Greyblades]

They ever figure out who toppled the tombstones?

Im going to refrain from comment untill then, not going to set myself up for embarrassment should the suspected perps turn out to be the exact ones to make me look like an idiot.

Edit: oh these are new ones, not yet it seems.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They ever figure out who toppled the tombstones?

Im going to refrain from comment untill then, not going to set myself up for embarrassment should the suspected perps turn out to be the exact ones to make me look like an idiot....

The coming of wisdom...

[Greyblades]

Hallelujah brother.

[Montmorency]

That's "father" to you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's "father" to you.

Nah...the trope he is riffing on is the "we are all brothers in Christ" slogan. And that version kindly does NOT emphasize that I am old enough to have sired him.

[Husar]

Unless they have the perps on camera or someone saw them, it would seem that we're all reserving comment until kingdom come.
Next time someone drives a car into a group of people....oh wait, that just happened, driver turned out to be a native German but some say the police can't be trusted on that anyway, has to be a refugee. :dizzy2:

http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/02/trump-to-japan.html


Washington (dpo) - US President Donald Trump today offered his condolences to the Japanese government. He said that he was deeply moved by the devastation wreaked upon Tokyo by Godzilla and that he was shocked to the core when he saw the bloodbath on television yesterday evening.

[Beskar]

I will just leave this Bern right here...

https://i.imgur.com/mkIzP8Z.png
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/835488569850494976
Really, why is he still President? He is a petulant child.

[Husar]

Here are some more carnival impressions including some explanatory text:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170227/in-pics-german-carnival-floats-show-trump-no-mercy

[Montmorency]

A few more in this list (http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/duesseldorf/karneval/rosenmontag-2017-die-mottowagen-beim-rosenmontagszug-in-duesseldorf-bid-1.3184806).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can't wait to see his speech to Congress. He could say "I own you all." and they would all clap for him

[Montmorency]

They say Trump is calling for the remilitarization of the Rhineland (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39108194).

[Hooahguy]

The defense spending hike still wouldnt have as much an impact as cutting wasteful spending would do. Like for years we have been building more tanks despite the military saying they dont need any more tanks yet Congressman X from wherever doesnt want to close the tank factory in his district. That and arbitrary troop limits which forces commanders to make use of really expensive contractors instead of bringing in more soldiers who are on our dime anyways.

Plus diverting money away from our soft power apparatuses is a horrible idea.

[Montmorency]

The defense spending hike still wouldnt have as much an impact as cutting wasteful spending would do. Like for years we have been building more tanks despite the military saying they dont need any more tanks yet Congressman X from wherever doesnt want to close the tank factory in his district. That and arbitrary troop limits which forces commanders to make use of really expensive contractors instead of bringing in more soldiers who are on our dime anyways.

Plus diverting money away from our soft power apparatuses is a horrible idea.

Argument for tanks and other items is that expertise of engineers and technicians must be maintained. Solution: directly pay them comparatively-little to tinker with related stuff on at least a part-time basis, keep them sharp. Not complete contracts or products, just anything related to the necessary skill set for our major platforms.

At some point remember, it is more straightforward and cost-effective for the government to disembody private military-industrial corporations and absorb their skilled workers as operators of internal (federal) agencies.

It's best-suited for a proper great-power war, but you really have to wonder at the opportunity scale of paying ever more to keep renters on your property in anticipation of a future boom.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.
Argument for tanks and other items is that expertise of engineers and technicians must be maintained. Solution: directly pay them comparatively-little to tinker with related stuff on at least a part-time basis, keep them sharp. Not complete contracts or products, just anything related to the necessary skill set for our major platforms.
Doesn't work that well. There are all sorts of "never written down anywhere" micro-behaviors etc. that those people working in the assembly process have to keep current in institutional memory in order to generate the best possible results. And that body of knowledge is often so specialized to the military product that the company cannot use it on "civvy street" effectively. I used to live near Newport News Shipbuilding -- the folks who make CVNs and will be making the CVNX's. They could not build an oil tanker to spec on time and under budget...but could make a supercarrier. Refueling jobs helped, but not enough; building a sub....did not work well as all the good sub builders work at a different place so it was slow and not as high quality, etc.


At some point remember, it is more straightforward and cost-effective for the government to disembody private military-industrial corporations and absorb their skilled workers as operators of internal (federal) agencies....

Like our old "arsenal" system....which was never efficient enough. Or maybe the PLA's factory system....which is NOT the most effective center for manufacturing.


All in all, the stuff is too specialized; has periods of non-production that are simply too long to maintain staff through; and then gets wrecked/bent/broken/expended in job lots when in actual use mandating rapid full replacement.


Military manufacture is likely never to be fully rationalizable.

[Montmorency]

In other words, it should depend on how much of a warmup-phase, and where, we are willing to tolerate for advanced production. The existing base wouldn't be sufficient for a real surge anyway and would be delayed in expansion for such a war footing (pretending that any sort of war now would depend on swamping a theater with many thousands of tanks or planes). It's not something to determine out of hand, but is worth looking into as a cost-saver while still maintaining adequate institutional and technical knowledge.

[Beskar]

So every fact Trump said was wrong. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-speech-fact-check-lies-claims-joint-address-congress-jobs-immigration-pipeline-a7604861.html)

But nothing to see here, run along. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

[Greyblades]

So every fact Trump said was wrong. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-speech-fact-check-lies-claims-joint-address-congress-jobs-immigration-pipeline-a7604861.html)

...says the independant.

[Husar]

...says the independant.

And everyone else...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/28/fact-checking-president-trumps-address-to-congress/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-address-congress/
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/516717981/watch-live-trump-addresses-joint-session-of-congress
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-congress-speech-fact-check

[Gilrandir]

I wonder was there ever such a prolonged opposition to any President after he had been sworn in and election battles had been left behind?

[Gilrandir]

Et tu, Brutes?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.fb07aca9bee1

[Greyblades]

Not quite, the article neglects to include the context of the statement; specifically the question it answers:


Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Sessions can say that the context gave him the impression that they were asking specifically about information exchanges which he didnt consider the meetings with the ambassador as, without any record of the meetings noone can claim he was wrong to do so.


And everyone else...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/28/fact-checking-president-trumps-address-to-congress/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-address-congress/
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/516717981/watch-live-trump-addresses-joint-session-of-congress
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-congress-speech-fact-check

These do not make the assertion of trump's speech being exclusively lies, as the independant does. Such a claim in a title that the content does not sustain is the hallmark of a fox news style propaganda outlet.

Edit it seems the independant changed the title since yesterday, I wonder why...

[Husar]

Not quite, the article neglects to include the context of the statement; specifically the question it answers:

Sessions can say that the context gave him the impression that they were asking specifically about information exchanges which he didnt consider the meetings with the ambassador as, without any record of the meetings noone can claim he was wrong to do so.

And if that is a lie and he gets away with it, is still a good thing of course.


These do not make the assertion of trump's speech being exclusively lies, as the independant does. Such a claim in a title that the content does not sustain is the hallmark of a fox news style propaganda outlet.

Edit it seems the independant changed the title since yesterday, I wonder why...

No, if you want to be pedantic, it said every fact was a lie, but a speech is not exclusively made up of facts as the subtitle also explains now.
Of course I didn't check whether those were all the fact in his speech, but you shouldn't blame them for misrepresenting things and then misrepresent their claim yourself. :stare:

It is quite telling that you always comment on the small misrepresentations of the press and completely ignore the enormous misrepresentations of Trump...

[Greyblades]

And if that is a lie and he gets away with it, is still a good thing of course.If. It's not exactly uncommon for senators to meet with diplomats in official capacities, sessions meeting the russian ambassador twice without mentioning the election is completely plausable.


No, if you want to be pedantic, it said every fact was a lie, but a speech is not exclusively made up of facts as the subtitle also explains now.
Of course I didn't check whether those were all the fact in his speech, but you shouldn't blame them for misrepresenting things and then misrepresent their claim yourself. :stare:
I checked the way back machine and apparantly it hasnt changed it's title, I mistook Beskar's title for the article's. I'll own up to that one.


It is quite telling that you always comment on the small misrepresentations of the press and completely ignore the enormous misrepresentations of Trump...
Thus far the "enormous misrepresentations" of trump that have been posted here have either pendantic crap I couldnt care less about him lying about, like inaugeration numbers, or the media spinning what he says, as with the sweden comments.

The media's "small misrepresentations" on the other hand have been dominated by either stupid (Russia hacked the election, update #8,925), blatant character assassination (pissgate) or flirting with treason (CNN's "wouldnt it be sad if 18 people were assassinated as they gether for swearing in and an obama appointee got to be president? Hint. Hint.")

I will admit to jumping on the left wing propaganda sources that are used here, Beskar and Hopalong being repeat offenders, but I do that more out of annoyance at seeing a lack of objections from the rest of board, whereas right wing propaganda invariably gets you a group tounge lashing.

[Husar]

If. It's not exactly uncommon for senators to meet with diplomats in official capacities, sessions meeting the russian ambassador twice without mentioning the election is completely plausable.

Of course it is, it's just a bit strange that every meeting Trump team members had with Russians somehow never seems to have happened until someone finds out it did.


Thus far the "enormous misrepresentations" of trump that have been posted here have either pendantic crap I couldnt care less about him lying about, like inaugeration numbers, or the media spinning what he says, as with the sweden comments.

The media's "small misrepresentations" on the other hand have been dominated by either stupid (Russia hacked the election, update #8,925), blatant character assassination (pissgate) or flirting with treason (CNN's "wouldnt it be sad if 18 people were assassinated as they gether for swearing in and an obama appointee got to be president? Hint. Hint.")

Bogus is stuff like this: http://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/14753248/trump-steak-well-done-ketchup-personality

It's a bit like saying you're a terrible person because you try not to get Ebola instead of embracing the new experience.

As for his lies being unimportant, now that is also bogus since he uses these lies to justify his retarded policies. He lies about Mexicans and then builds a wall, he makes a bullshit point about islamic countries and then bans their citizens from entering the US. He makes bogus claims about the economy in an attempt to gather more support and so on and on. Not to forget his bogus claim of draining the swamp and being there for every American, and then he greenlights two pipelines without any further consideration while several agencies like the EPA are basically shut down "until further consideration" or however it was justified.
He's so deep in the swamp, he can't even reach his bootstraps anymore. And it's certainly not small stuff noone cares about.

[Montmorency]

Make America Great Again? :smash:


Morning finds us slowly nosing out to sea. The huge ‘Landing Ship (Tank)’, with its collapsible bows, is a ponderous and slow craft. It turns with a kind of arthritic limping and skewing. Its path is complicated by the mass of shipping which lies like the tufts of a continuous carpet from Southampton out past the Isle of Wight and into the Channel.
Ships are detaching themselves from the mass and heading in the same general direction towards the mists of the sea horizon. The departing ships ease out into a formation reminiscent of hounds and huntsmen. Somewhere out on the flanks, naval destroyers, minesweepers and patrol boats ride flank on our main procession. For a while the incredible multitude of ships fascinates us, and we search for words: shoals, armadas, swarms, swaths, hordes – clustered upon the grey-green sea like blackfly on a leaf.
Then we turn to conversation with the American sailors. In 1944 Yanks are still strange creatures to most British people except in southern towns invaded by their new armies. From childhood I have seen Texans bidding for bulls in the market at Hereford, but Yanks in general are still a novelty, a mixture of Edward G. Robinson, Gary Cooper and Bing Crosby. Obviously to them we are an equal novelty – our rough clothes, our primitive armaments, our meagre rations, our pale faces, our stilted speech.
The Stuart is an American-built tank, as is also the Sherman, but it is obviously unknown to the sailors, who clamber over it with interest. One sailor fingers my Sten gun superciliously. ‘What’s this, son? A toy for your little brother back home?’ I too am not impressed by the Sten, which, they say, is patched together in back street garages. It is liable to jam and, when actually firing, sprays its bullets wildly, depending on profusion of bullets rather than accuracy of aim.
‘Are you aiming to fight Germans with this, son?’ persists the sailor, waving the fragile-looking Sten. ‘Aw, don’t give me that. Here, come and look at some real guns.’
We go up to the seamen’s quarters. My friend pulls out an old blue kitbag. Opens it. Extracts a tommy-gun. The style of the old gangster films. Solid, compact, sinister. ‘Accurate!’ says my Yank. ‘Reliable. That’s a real gun. Take it, son. You’ll be fighting Fritzies. We won’t be meeting any Fritzies in this baked bean tin of a ship. Take it and shoot a few for me and my friends from Tacoma, Washington.’
‘You can’t mean it,’ I say. ‘Don’t you have to sign for it? Or return it to stores? Or lay it out for kit inspections?’
‘Sign for it? Stores? Kit inspections? Where do you think you are? Bucking-Ham Palace? Take it, son. There’s plenty more where that came from.’
Sid is also in the seamen’s quarters, squatting on a bunk and laying out our forty-eight hours ration pack for the Yanks to see. We have a small cake of soup powder looking like a solidified version of the scum one finds at the sea’s edge. We have tea powder, incorporating coarse tea, lumpy dehydrated milk and grey sugar. We have porridge powder looking similar to, but even more anaemic than, the soup. We have hard biscuit. We have all the luxuries of the Cafe Royal. Someone has described our powdered soup as ‘dehydrated tablecloth’.
One of the seamen snorts in disgust. ‘If the Germans don’t bump you off, that chow will. You can’t go ashore with nothing to eat. Hey, Barney, fetch the Quartermaster. These boys can’t starve on those beaches.’
The Quartermaster has an even thicker jungle of stripes than our guide of yesterday. He picks over our pocket-sized rations for forty-eight hours. Looks sad. ‘Bloody graveyard food,’ he says. ‘Wouldn’t feed a hundred-year-old corpse. This a joke of that thin beanpole Montgomery? We must do something about this. Follow me, boys.’
We descend a number of iron ladders into a large storeroom. Rows and rows of cardboard boxes stand piled around the iron walls. ‘Help yourselves, boys. Take what you want. Nothing to pay. A birthday present from your Uncle Sam. Bloody beanpole Montgomery! Take what you want. One thing: don’t leave any half-empty boxes. If you open a box, empty it and throw the box over the side. And give the Fritzies hell.’
We tear a box out of the nearest pile. Rip open the cover. Tinned ‘Chicken’, carol the labels. We reach for another pile. ‘Tomato Juice’, the labels laugh. We stagger to the other end of the room. ‘Corned Beef Hash’, the labels chant. And across the room, ‘Yellow Cling Peaches’, the labels whisper. This is Paradise, Aladdin’s Cave and Fortnum & Mason’s all in one. Glory, glory, Hallelujah. Hip! Hip! for Uncle Sam! AND his Quartermaster!
Sid, Johnny and I fill two cartons with assorted goods. Lug them up ladders, along gangways past grinning Americans, down into our cavern. Load up the American tank with American luxuries. I see the Sherman behind us, not one of our Regiment, tossing out 75-mm shells. Laying the shells on the engine covers. Loading on more American goods.
‘What are you going to do with those shells?’ I ask the driver of the Sherman. 75-mm shells are massive contraptions. Made in one piece, bright brass case and black iron shot joined together, the finished product is about as long as my arm and about as broad as my lower thigh. They take up a lot of room in the turret and in the storage spaces in the hull called ‘sponsons’.
‘Bugger me if we’re going to carry all that lot ashore when we can stock up with Yankee food,’ says the driver. ‘We’ll toss the shells into the sea once it gets dark.’
‘They’ll get shot at dawn,’ says Bernard. ‘We’re not going to do that are we, Ken?’ My disciplined body shudders at the thought. ‘If I’m going to get shot,’ I reply, ‘I leave it to some Jerry at a thousand yards and not a dozen blokes in a firing squad at ten paces, thank you!’ But we discard a spare can of water, and Sid throws out an old case from in his compartment, and we grow more like Lipton’s without specifically infringing any regimental ordinances.

[HopAlongBunny]

A nice little summary of The Russian Invasion so far:

http://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide

Main takeaway: Much smoke, no fire
Some of the stuff has been (or perceived as) "true enough" to cost Flynn his job, and raise questions about Sessions veracity.
It could be "Bigger than Watergate!" as some claim; it could be just another embarrassing speed bump

[Gilrandir]

Of course it is, it's just a bit strange that every meeting Trump team members had with Russians somehow never seems to have happened until someone finds out it did.


And it is even stranger, that those meeting were with Russians only - no Chinese, Germans, Turks or Syrians.

[HopAlongBunny]

The "shadowy" Russian ambassador:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39150526

"Nice guy", "Dogged pursuit of nation's objectives", "Hosts great lunches"; he must be a spy!!!
The line between being an effective diplomat or a spy is awfully fine; as yet, no substance to the charge he is a spy (anymore than any diplomat)

[Shaka_Khan]

They ever figure out who toppled the tombstones?

Im going to refrain from comment untill then, not going to set myself up for embarrassment should the suspected perps turn out to be the exact ones to make me look like an idiot.
It was the erosion from severe rainfall, climate change denier.

[Sarmatian]

And it is even stranger, that those meeting were with Russians only - no Chinese, Germans, Turks or Syrians.

Actually...

19519

[Brenus]

Me think Trump reorganised USA deployment: Russia not big threat, China much bigger threat (in building and sea grubber), let's encircled China with help (or neutralised) Russia.

[Husar]

In some ways this whole Russia smoke seems to distract people from really scary details like Jeff Sessions being a racist and that Stephen Miller, the fascist minion who said the emperor is not to be questioned, worked as Session's aide and they both got chosen by Trump, who promised to choose "the best people".

Which should really make one wonder about the intentions of someone who thinks these are the best people...
Russians don't even need to enter the equation to see a problem there.

[Gilrandir]

Actually...

19519

Is this valid about Flynn as well?

[Greyblades]

Indeed, which is why flynn wasnt let go for it, but for making pence look like a fool through not giving him the full picture before pence went to bat for him.


Bogus is stuff like this: http://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/14753...up-personality

It's a bit like saying you're a terrible person because you try not to get Ebola instead of embracing the new experience. No, bogus is turning this:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. "

Into this:
Drug dealers, criminals, rapists': What Trump thinks of Mexicans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37230916) - BBC
He referred to Mexicans as “rapists,” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-not-chaos-its-trumps-campaign-strategy/2015/12/09/9005a5be-9d68-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html) -Washington Post
Mr. Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-donald-trump-saturday-night-live-host-20151026-story.htmlhttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-donald-trump-saturday-night-live-host-20151026-story.html) -LA Times


As for his lies being unimportant, now that is also bogus since he uses these lies to justify his retarded policies. He lies about Mexicans and then builds a wall, he makes a bullshit point about islamic countries and then bans their citizens from entering the US. He makes bogus claims about the economy in an attempt to gather more support and so on and on.
Many of his scandalous about mexicans and muslim comments have been either proven a cassandra truth or a couple of repeat offending media outlets spinning it to make him sound worse than he is. See the sweden debacle for a prime example of both; the media claimed he was making up an attack when he was referring to an interview on sweden that aired the night before, and sweden isnt the multicultural paradise his detractors ended up eating crow over claiming in response.

Might I suggest getting your news from the entire political spectrum instead of just left wing ones?

Not to forget his bogus claim of draining the swamp and being there for every American, and then he greenlights two pipelines without any further consideration while several agencies like the EPA are basically shut down "until further consideration" or however it was justified.
He's so deep in the swamp, he can't even reach his bootstraps anymore. And it's certainly not small stuff noone cares about.
A declaration of failure at draining the swamp 2 months in is premature and reeks of losers spite. Such assessments are to be saved for the end of his tenure not the first few months, for the last days are where every previous effort at swamp draining has been taken back during the previous admins.


It was the erosion from severe rainfall, climate change denier.
Not sure if this is is a joking or serious accusation.

[Gilrandir]

Indeed, which is why flynn wasnt let go for it, but for making pence look like a fool through not giving him the full picture before pence went to bat for him.



I meant did Flynn surreptitiously confer with such a number of different overseas politicians as well?

[Husar]

No, bogus is turning this:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. "

Into this:
Drug dealers, criminals, rapists': What Trump thinks of Mexicans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37230916) - BBC
He referred to Mexicans as “rapists,” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-not-chaos-its-trumps-campaign-strategy/2015/12/09/9005a5be-9d68-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html) -Washington Post
Mr. Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-donald-trump-saturday-night-live-host-20151026-story.htmlhttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-donald-trump-saturday-night-live-host-20151026-story.html) -LA Times

No, that's not bogus, it is partially exaggerated. You even quote his exact sentence: "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."
The context of "And some, I assume, are good people." does not make it better, it makes it worse, because he's implying a majority of them are criminals.
The claim that he speaks to border guards as "evidence" from a notorious liar is just terrible and about as reliable as the claim that he is a Russian puppet. So basically, according to your own standard of proof, everybody who believes him is an idiot.


Most of his scandals about mexicans and muslim comments have been either proven as a cassandra truth or a couple of repeat offending media outlets twisting what he said. See the sweden debacle for a prime example of both; the media claimed he was making up an attack when he was referring to an interview on sweden that aired the night before, and sweden isnt the multicultural paradise his detractors ended up eating crow over claiming in response.

Might I suggest getting your news from the entire political spectrum instead of just left wing ones?

First of all the Sweden thing is also partially bogus. Not to say Sweden doesn't have problems with immigrants, but the impact often appears to be highly exaggerated and sensationalized by right wing media. As for where people get their news from, maybe you should stop reading right-wing fake news and listening to crazy libertarian metalhead fascists? I've seen their articles and watched their videos and I do not get my news from them because they're full of shit and far more biased than any of the media bias you came up with above.
I don't need fascist ********* who tell me what to believe and how to feel like a superior "winner".

I prefer my news from somewhat neutral sources, mostly German ones, that I can sometimes only find "left wing" sources in English to link to here is a problem with your culture (or your interpretation, or the fact right wing sources ignore things), not mine. :stare:

As for Trump being right about Mexicans or Muslims, provide an example because I'm not aware of one.


A declaration of failure at draining the swamp 2 months in is premature and reeks of losers spite. Such assessments are to be saved for the end of his tenure not the first few months, for the last days are where every previous effort at swamp draining has been taken back during the previous admins.


Not sure if this is is a joking or serious accusation.

Not sure whether you are merely unaware of his cabinet choices and the contexts or whether you just prefer to ignore them. If I wait until the end of his term to rate the direction he is going in, it could already be too late, that's idiocy. And if you think his cabinet choices are fine, how do you judge him and his advisors talking about his daughter's business, her using official meetings to make photos for advertisement campaigns for her private business, or him talking to the President of Turkey about his Turkish business partners? If it looks like a glibbery swamp monster, talks like a glibbery swamp monster and walks like a glibbery swamp monster, and all of its friends are glibbery swamp monsters, then it can pay off to be rather cautious about its claims that it wants to drain the swamp...

[Sarmatian]

I meant did Flynn surreptitiously confer with such a number of different overseas politicians as well?

Probably, because Paul Ryan said:


"With respect to Michael Flynn talking to other governments during the transition: That's his job. That's what he is supposed to be doing. It is entirely appropriate, it is actually the job description, to talk to other nations, to ambassadors, to start beginning relationships. That is very much appropriate," Ryan said.

This is also illustrating how flawed it is to rely on various comedy/late night shows to digest the news for you, which I see a lot of people doing. They don't have deep enough understanding of politics and their primary function is to entertain.

Even serious news organizations are starting to rely on questionable sources, and news are getting published with less and less expert scrutiny beforehand.

[Brenus]

Even serious news organizations are starting to rely on questionable sources, and news are getting published with less and less expert scrutiny beforehand.

Social media and new journalism schools for you: The Buzz, speed and conformism.

[Husar]

But in the end all that does is blame the consumer since the news organizations try to do what increases their ad revenue or sales or whatever makes them more money. In other words, they only react to what the users want. If they uphold journalistic standards and go down because only five people read their articles, that doesn't help anyone either.

Now we can go further and ask ourselves why many/most people don't take the time to read well-researched articles...

[rory_20_uk]

The Russians recently said that their propaganda wing has updated from the Soviet era where they tried to argue logically that their way was right (and generally failed). Now they try just to drown the airways with noise as most of the time people loose sight of what is in fact true amongst everything else.

Trump also appears to be using the same playbook.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

'blades:

The US media has done this kind of reporting with every GOP Presidential nominee or President since Goldwater (I should note that they hammered Johnson and Carter pretty hard at times too). It is an established norm of US political life. GOP folks get to score a few points with their core constituencies by bashing the media from time to time (Trump is just doing it a little more forcefully than most).

FOX is nearly as bad in their treatment of non-GOP types (fair and balanced stops when the business news shows end in the late afternoon). US talk radio programs are almost ubiquitously hard-right and some are darned-near rabid in their anti liberal (USA definition) stance.

[HopAlongBunny]

The "distraction game" had another curve-ball recently.
Obama wire-tapping Trump! Whoa!!! IF TRUE this could be bigger than Watergate!
Trump provided no evidence of his Twitter claim, no one seems to have seen any evidence but IF TRUE we may see a retroactive impeachment!!! (I mean, why not if we're just making stuff up)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16D21T

[HopAlongBunny]

At least Trump is "righting the ship" and sailing America on its traditional course.
Immigration bans are a proud tradition in America and here we go again

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/america-rsquo-s-long-sordid-history-of-immigration-bans/

The tradition is almost as old as America itself, and usually follows a "Moral Panic" (They are coming for our jerbs, or wemen, and stuff!; They are different, they have drugs, they are low-lifes...etc.)
As usual, the data that backs up these panics is either non-existent, fabricated, or false.
Of course its not just America, its a game all the world plays at some point in time; Why do we fall for it?

http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/immigration-perennial-moral-panic/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Immigration never really stops. We go through periods where the numbers are very low and we are relatively selective. This usually follows a stretch where we have a lot of immigration in a short time frame and we need to assimilate the wave. At least that is how it has been.

[Greyblades]

I'll get to husar when I find the time.


They ever figure out who toppled the tombstones?

Im going to refrain from comment untill then, not going to set myself up for embarrassment should the suspected perps turn out to be the exact ones to make me look like an idiot.

Edit: oh these are new ones, not yet it seems.

Turns out I was right not to comment but, funnily enough, it turns out husar shouldnt have commented either. As Shaka khan mentioned: this time it it was the weather:

Headstones were found toppled in Brooklyn’s Washington Cemetery on Sunday morning. Early reports characterized the incident as a 'possible hate crime' however the cemetery director confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that the tombstones in question had long been deteriorating and some had toppled over years ago. (http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Headstones-toppled-in-Brooklyn-Jewish-cemetery-483246)

In other News they found the guy behind some of the bomb threats; it wasnt the KKK or the Islamic State, no, it was allegedly a false flagger (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/former-journalist-arrested-hoax-jewish-bomb-threats/):


A former journalist has been charged with being behind a wave of hoax bomb threats against Jewish organisations that led to fears of a rise in anti-Semitism across the United States.

Juan Thompson, 31, was arrested in St. Louis, Missouri as part of an investigation into more than 100 threats made by phone and email since January to Jewish community centres, schools, and child care facilities in three dozen states.

Until last year Thompson, was employed by The Intercept, a campaigning news website where one of the editors is Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who revealed classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden.

In a statement The Intercept said it was "horrified" by Thompson's actions, and that he was fired last year for making up sources and quotes. It added: "These actions are heinous and should be fully investigated and prosecuted."

Prosecutors charged Thompson with cyberstalking in relation to eight threats, and it was not clear whether they believed he was responsible for scores more.

It was alleged that Thompson carried out the fear campaign with the intention of blaming it on a girlfriend who had ended their relationship last summer.

He made up an email address to make it seem like the woman was sending the threats, prosecutors said.

In one message he said the woman "hates Jewish people" and wanted to "kill as many Jews asap".

And for the kicker, this was the fellow:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/03/170303_SLATEST_Juan-Thompson.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg

[Husar]

Turns out I was right not to comment but, funnily enough, it turns out husar shouldnt have commented either.

That's like, your opinion. Without commenting on it here I might have never found out what actually happened since I don't scour US news for the latest updates every day. And then you should not forget that it was apparently not the only incident:
I'll go out on a limb here and say this was not the weather at least: http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Chicago-synagogue-plastered-with-swastikas-in-antisemitic-attack-480598
What's more interesting is this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/06/friendly-reminder-7000-antisemitic-incidents-occurred-under-obamas-presidency-and-the-media-was-silent-why-n2294553
Although his question why there was no reporting under Obama seems a bit weird given that his own numbers talk of a continuing decline, there'd have to be actual data for 2017 to see whether there is actually a considerable uptick now.


And for the kicker, this was the fellow:

What exactly is the kicker here?

[AE Bravo]

What exactly is the kicker here?
Why would you even bother asking. We all know at this point.

Continue.

[Husar]

Why would you even bother asking. We all know at this point.

Continue.

Well, it would be rather weird for Greyblades to try and absolve his political movement of anti-semitism by making a clearly racist argument for what seems like no good reason at all. :shrug:
Obviously he will now say that we're the racists for thinking about racism first and he posted the picture because the guy is clearly wearing his shirt and pullover in traditional British style, pointing out how terrible British culture is. :no:

[Gilrandir]

Probably, because Paul Ryan said:

This is also illustrating how flawed it is to rely on various comedy/late night shows to digest the news for you, which I see a lot of people doing. They don't have deep enough understanding of politics and their primary function is to entertain.

Even serious news organizations are starting to rely on questionable sources, and news are getting published with less and less expert scrutiny beforehand.

The key word in my post was "surreptitiously", that is without notifying the boss. Evidently this very fact (and not that the talks did take place) was what got the Americans' hackles up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, it would be rather weird for Greyblades to try and absolve his political movement of anti-semitism by making a clearly racist argument for what seems like no good reason at all. :shrug:
Obviously he will now say that we're the racists for thinking about racism first and he posted the picture because the guy is clearly wearing his shirt and pullover in traditional British style, pointing out how terrible British culture is. :no:

His political movement?

I *think* the kicker is that we would all have assumed it was White Supremacists or Islamists, and that guy looks like neither.

[Greyblades]

Exactly, a hate crime is in all the news, one side says radical islamist, another says nazi thugs, and all along its some ex journalist with a grudge against a former lover who seems to be the epitome of the middle class african american.

It coupd only be more absurdly out of left field if it turned out he was a Buddhist.

[Husar]

His political movement?

I think they go by the name "Hydra" and Trump appears to be a leading figure. ~;)

As for the rest, I may have slightly misinterpreted Greyblades post, but since you always defend people for not getting my humor without smileys of explanations, you will probably understand how merely posting a picture can easily lead to misunderstandings.

On the topic of pictures, the one in your signature seems to be broken.

[Strike For The South]

Wikileaks is Russian propaganda. I will never be truly happy until Snowden is tried and imprisoned for his crimes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wikileaks is Russian propaganda. I will never be truly happy until Snowden is tried and hung for his crimes.

Not gonna happen. He hasn't done anything warranting death in the jurisdictions in which he is accused of some crime. Mind you, if he is guilty as charged, a prolonged "reborative" stay in a penal institution would be quite appropriate.

[Montmorency]

I was not aware of a link between Snowden and Wikileaks, other than sometimes-overlapping interests and ideology.

[Strike For The South]

Think of my posts like you would a Trump tweet. So meaningless, people end up being convinced they are deep. Like looking at a glass of tap water and convincing yourself it's the Pacific.

[Hooahguy]

Should have been written in crayon.

Link (http://theweek.com/speedreads/684736/gop-health-care-proposal-titled-worlds-greatest-healthcare-plan-2017-yes-really)


If House Republicans' recently introduced American Health Care Act doesn't work out, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) has another proposal in the works that he seems pretty darn confident about. The bill, introduced March 1, is modestly titled, "World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017."

[HopAlongBunny]

American Health Care reminds me of some third-world famines.

Oh sure, we could feed you, but really...there's no money in that.

[Idaho]

And yet, as a nation you spend more on healthcare than anywhere else - with significantly poorer outcomes. The $750bn health insurance business is a leech sucking out money in exchange for inefficiently managing health provision.

[Husar]

Well, the new Republican healthcare bill will apparently fix all the problems wealthy people had with the healthcare system.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-entertainment/video-entertainment-news/scarlett-johansson-mocks-ivanka-trump-20170312-4rn63.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And yet, as a nation you spend more on healthcare than anywhere else - with significantly poorer outcomes. The $750bn health insurance business is a leech sucking out money in exchange for inefficiently managing health provision.

At one end of the spectrum we have central government managed healthcare mandated for all, equally provided, and extra-system efforts criminalized and prosecuted.

At the other end we have pure fee-for-service care with no guarantee of any care being provided for those unable to pay. Extra system efforts are not possible, as there is no system per se.


NEITHER of these extremes exists.


I am quite willing to stipulate that the USA's current system, the system prior to the ACA, and the system likely to result from the current Congress, are less then efficient. I am aware of numerous statistics that suggest US healthcare is less effective than that provided in other places -- at least by some measures. I even accept that some of this is certain to be true and that healthcare in the USA is imperfect (though I have always been frustrated by the lack of an 'apples to apples' style comparison (e.g. infant mortality before age 10. What constitutes mortality? Is a child who dies in the womb at 12 weeks counted or not? The counting systems are not always parallel).

If we fall behind in certain categories, how much of the shortfall is a product of cultural mores and behavior rather than medical efficacy?

[Greyblades]

I find myself wondering how america compares to nations of similar population and wealth. Does china have as good healthcare as america, does india?

[Beskar]

I find myself wondering how america compares to nations of similar population and wealth. Does china have as good healthcare as america, does india?

America has this bubble, where it compares the healthcare exclusive to billionaires as being indicative of the entire system. Reminds me when Panzer was blowing his trumpet about we were all talking rubbish as "USA has the best healthcare in the world!", when it pointed out that no one can access it, it was returned with "So?".

In the real world, especially on matters like this. We should evaluate how the Healthcare system treats the least fortunate members of society, not the most fortunate. No point saying you got the best healthcare when 40% of your population cannot even afford the basics and requires charities which operate in the third world to open shop in your backyard to treat a first world nation's populace.

What is even sadder is the fact that in the USA, the costs of healthcare are on average 10x the cost of the NHS. So they are getting fleeced left-right-and-centre by 'superior' private healthcare.

[Husar]

I find myself wondering how america compares to nations of similar population and wealth. Does china have as good healthcare as america, does india?

How are those two of similar population and wealth? The population of each is about 3-4 times that of the US, their population density is a lot higher and the GDP per capita is, I assume without looking it up, significantly lower. :shrug:

To some extent the whole apples to apples comparison seems a bit like a pink herring anyway since Germany is what?, eight times the population of Sweden? And I doubt Sweden's healthcare is eight times better than ours just because they have fewer people to care for. I can see a bit of a point when comparing population density since a lower density means the healthcare providers need to be spread out more. Even here some people talk about issues with a lack of incentives for doctors to go to the countryside. It is of little use to have an excellent, cheap clinic in the next city when you have your stroke a two hour helicopter ride away from there... :shrug:

As for the new Republican plan, I described it as such in a recent chat:
Their idea of more choice is to remove all the VWs and Fords and replace them with more choices in Porsche, Ferrari and Koenigsegg, and then say "Everyone can choose a great car now!"

So, similar to what Beskar just said.

[Greyblades]

We're comparing a nation the size of a continent with ones the size of single american states, I believe that through concentraiting on the european models we are unable to assess the issue of compounding costs and complexities that come with administering a state health care on such scale.

I have heard arguments that the size of america makes having one grand single payer healthcare system impractical and that america should delageate; have each state have a seperate health service. So I find myself wondering how america compares to the other continental sized states.

[HopAlongBunny]

Even here some people talk about issues with a lack of incentives for doctors to go to the countryside. It is of little use to have an excellent, cheap clinic in the next city when you have your stroke a two hour helicopter ride away from there... :shrug:

This is where things can get complicated (one of many)
Canada used to have a program subsidizing education in health care; in return the recipient would contract to work in the north for a few years.
The program was ruled unconstitutional; something about restricting the individuals right to pursue their well being.

[Husar]

We're comparing a nation the size of a continent with ones the size of single american states, I believe that through concentraiting on the european models we are unable to assess the issue of compounding costs and complexities that come with administering a state health care on such scale.

I have heard arguments that the size of america makes having one grand single payer healthcare system impractical and that america should delageate; have each state have a seperate health service. So I find myself wondering how america compares to the other continental sized states.

So compare it to Australia then, or Canada. They're both continental sized states (if the USA are one) and first world countries.
Comparing the luxuries and benefits of a first world country to those of a second or third world country tends to always have the first world country come out ahead in some way. That's why it's called first world after all....

But if you really want India, you could also use Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India


India does not have a National health insurance or universal health care system for all its citizens which has allowed the private sector to become the dominant healthcare provider in the country.[1]
[...]
Non-availability of diagnostic tools and increasing reluctance of qualified and experienced healthcare professionals to practice in rural, under-equipped and financially less lucrative rural areas is becoming a big challenge.[21] Rural medical practitioners are highly sought after by residents of rural areas as they are more financially affordable and geographically accessible than practitioners working in the formal public health care sector.[22] But there are incidents were doctors were attacked and even killed in rural India [23] In 2015 the British Medical Journal published a report by Dr Gadre, from Kolkata, exposed the extent of malpractice in the Indian healthcare system. He interviewed 78 doctors and found that kickbacks for referrals, irrational drug prescribing and unnecessary interventions were commonplace.[24]

Then compare to China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_China

Healthcare in China consists of both public and private medical institutions and insurance programs. About 95% of the population has at least basic health insurance coverage. Despite this, public health insurance generally only covers about half of medical costs, with the proportion lower for serious or chronic illnesses. Under the "Healthy China 2020" initiative, China is currently undertaking an effort to cut healthcare costs, and the government requires that insurance will cover 70% of costs by 2017.[1][2][2] The Chinese government is working on providing affordable basic healthcare to all residents by 2020.[3]
https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/chinas-healthcare-reform-how-far-has-it-come/

The pace of China’s healthcare reform has matched the government’s goals so far, indicating that China will likely reach its targets. The quality of medical services remains to be seen, however, and efforts to develop a social healthcare plan are still in progress. China is working toward tough goals, such as improving medical care in rural areas and tackling, with limited funding, entrenched reimbursement plans for insurance, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.

So basically India has a private system and it is terrible and China has a mixed system and is currently in the process of improving the public part of it to get closer to the better quality of the private part. What does it tell us? Probably nothing other than that full private is terrible.

[HopAlongBunny]

A quick summation of the CBO's report on TrumpCare:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-repeal-cbo-uninsured-236016

Too bad if you're poor...

I would anticipate a lot of pushback from people up for midterm elections.
The Republican fog machine wails that the report does not take into account the "measures yet to come" which will make it all better.
Possibly true but the CBO evaluates policy enacted, not hypothetical policies that may or may not exist.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A quick summation of the CBO's report on TrumpCare:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-repeal-cbo-uninsured-236016

Too bad if you're poor...

I would anticipate a lot of pushback from people up for midterm elections.
The Republican fog machine wails that the report does not take into account the "measures yet to come" which will make it all better.
Possibly true but the CBO evaluates policy enacted, not hypothetical policies that may or may not exist.

The GOP malfed this one up. They all ran against Obamacare, but assumed Hillary would win and they would not have to DO anything because few changes if any would pass by a margin that was veto-proof.

So they DID nada to get ready for their big policy change effort. Now they are playing catch up and looking a little foolish.

[Strike For The South]

So can we talk about how the Trump administration fired a bunch of federal employees and didn't replace them?


In a few months they will be all like "the EPA doesn't even work" when the one guy left in the office is killed when the lone printer has a malfunction

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bit of an Andrew Jackson moment going on. Trump is going to see his patrons in jobs and not holdovers who bear little loyalty for him. Plus, he wants to downsize some of those departments anyway.

[Strike For The South]

Bit of an Andrew Jackson moment going on. Trump is going to see his patrons in jobs and not holdovers who bear little loyalty for him. Plus, he wants to downsize some of those departments anyway.

Genralissmo Bannon will see to it none of those positions are filled. LOL at some, it's all.

Also Steve King is going whole hog nativist. I'm watching that very closely

[HopAlongBunny]

A nice reminder that while criticizing Dear Leader, it is unproductive to dehumanize those who voted for him:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/dont-demonize-trump-voters/

[rory_20_uk]

More of a time to pause and reflect whether votes for all is such a great idea. One Trump voter was swayed by the "argument" he would make healthcare "better", and is now dismayed to find that the current plan the GOP has would (for her at least) make it significantly more expensive.

Policies are complicated and often there are risks as well as downsides to any course of action. But since everything has to be rendered down to the quickest, simplest, most positive sound-bite we end up everybody saying how they will make everything great.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

There is a silver lining to this healthcare bill and budget proposal, Most Trump voters will be dead by 2020. If I see one more article with some slack jawed peckerwood clamoring to keep the ACA but get rid Obamacare, I'm putting my foot through my fake tv.

Im going to take some time today and rifle through the "go fund me" pages for medical expenses and explain to them how cutting capital gains taxes will help them. For those of you in half decent countries, I'll explain what those are. Here in America people ask for charity on a website because we dont have healthcare. So a person starts a page, and that persons friends donates money for their fucking cancer treatment.

God bless America

[Husar]

There is a silver lining to this healthcare bill and budget proposal, Most Trump voters will be dead by 2020. If I see one more article with some slack jawed peckerwood clamoring to keep the ACA but get rid Obamacare, I'm putting my foot through my fake tv.

Im going to take some time today and rifle through the "go fund me" pages for medical expenses and explain to them how cutting capital gains taxes will help them. For those of you in half decent countries, I'll explain what those are. Here in America people ask for charity on a website because we dont have healthcare. So a person starts a page, and that persons friends donates money for their fucking cancer treatment.

God bless America

Already stumbled across a few links to that site. It's the wonderful kind of healthcare that some libertarians want, where people have to beg for their lives and others can then ignore them as that is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a silver lining to this healthcare bill and budget proposal, Most Trump voters will be dead by 2020. If I see one more article with some slack jawed peckerwood clamoring to keep the ACA but get rid Obamacare, I'm putting my foot through my fake tv.

Im going to take some time today and rifle through the "go fund me" pages for medical expenses and explain to them how cutting capital gains taxes will help them. For those of you in half decent countries, I'll explain what those are. Here in America people ask for charity on a website because we dont have healthcare. So a person starts a page, and that persons friends donates money for their fucking cancer treatment.

God bless America

And you claim to never write any thing profound.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Already stumbled across a few links to that site. It's the wonderful kind of healthcare that some libertarians want, where people have to beg for their lives and others can then ignore them as that is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

And the great contrast to this Libertarian indifference is a system that mandates that any person of substance or substantial income subsidize the healthcare of those who could not afford to pay for their own care, usually operating on the premise that health care is a basic human right that must be afforded to all (though some claim it is of general benefit to society instead or/in addition to the rights argument).

Taxing me to pay for the basic education of others -- I do derive benefit for me and mine from a public that can read road signage, make change, and fill various job positions from which I derive benefit.
Taxing me to pay for the common defense -- I do derive benefit from my country not being subject to invasion and being less subject to the threats posed by crime and terrorism/asymmetric attack.
Taxing me to pay for infrastructure -- clearly I derive benefits from public works such as roads, water treatment, the standardization of certain products and certain basic health promoting regulations.

NONE of these are rights, but taxing me to pay for these services which are more practicable when provided in common makes sense. Whole point of governance really. Does healthcare follow this pattern?

Insurance is another tool entirely, parsing out the risk and choosing to accept greater base costs than required in order to transfer the risk of catastrophic payments in the case of an unlikely but not impossible catastrophic "damage" for which the insurance has been taken. To work effectively, however, insurance has to calculate the likely total risk involved and to base fees on the need to cover "Z" numbers of catastrophic events spreading the cumulative cost of the likely number of these and other events over the premiums of all persons participating in that insurance.

[CrossLOPER]

Panzer
That guy also could not, no matter how much it was explained to him, understand why it was impolite to refer to the first black man holding the highest office in the country as a monkey. It was too PC for him. I also remember him getting really huffy whenever someone made fun of him or suggested that being daddy's bitch wasn't something to brag about.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That guy also could not, no matter how much it was explained to him, understand why it was impolite to refer to the first black man holding the highest office in the country as a monkey. It was too PC for him. I also remember him getting really huffy whenever someone made fun of him or suggested that being daddy's bitch wasn't something to brag about.

He got better about such things -- was actually embarrassed by his earlier posts when I necro-threaded one or two.