WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.
The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.
Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
“Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”
When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.
The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.
The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.
Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.
Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.
“Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”
Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.
No idea if Trump'll will sign the bill... as it'll potentially reduces his impact...
I'll have some crow to eat if he does sign either one of those...
Nor, it's a given that the Senate Democrats would be on board (the need for 60th vote)... dude... do you wanna rein in the Cheeto Jesus? This is one way, especially if you retake Congress.
It's just classic republican "regulation is bad because reaons" gak. This isn't exactly anything knew. Same gak, different label.
I'm wondering when they'll feth over the country again by putting in loopholes for the oil and gas industry in the clean water act. Again.
God forbid lawmakers to restore 'lawmaking' authority where it belongs, yaknow... the the entire purpose of the legislative branch... regulation should be focused on enforcing statutes passed by Congress.
We've all bitched before how Congress handed their balls to the Executive... take 'em back yo. (not sure Trump would hand 'em over though)
The REINS Act, which would mandate that any regulation with an estimated cost of $100 million or more be put to an up or down vote by Congress. What's so unreasonable about this?
The biggest one I'm anxious about, is Sen. Mike Lee's "Separation of Powers Restoration Act" to render null & void the doctrine of the Chevron-deference. This bill would replace the Chevron-deference standard with traditional judicial review of administrative actions.
whembly wrote: God forbid lawmakers to restore 'lawmaking' authority where it belongs, yaknow... the the entire purpose of the legislative branch... regulation should be focused on enforcing statutes passed by Congress.
The issue is that congress doesn't have the resources to handle all those regulations. Congress can set high-level policy goals, but there's a reason the executive branch has whole departments full of people making regulations to handle all the details. The actual goal here is not to fix a problem with the balance of power, it's to make regulations harder to create and support conservative ideology.
The REINS Act, which would mandate that any regulation with an estimated cost of $100 million or more be put to an up or down vote by Congress. What's so unreasonable about this?
That's not what the law says. It isn't an up or down vote, it's "no regulation unless we approve it first". And that's what's unreasonable about it. If either house of congress declines to vote at all then the regulation is struck down by default. It's a complete reversal of the current situation, where congress has to vote in favor of abolishing or altering a regulation for any change to happen. If congress fails to vote or the two houses can not agree the executive branch proceeds as they wish. You know, checks and balances, not "give all power to whatever part of the government the republican party controls".
What is likely to happen under the REINS Act is a vast increase in the power of republican obstructionism. The republican party's goal is to minimize government regulations as a general principle, and to achieve this goal all they have to do is prevent a "yes" vote from happening in at least one house of congress. If congress is stuck in partisan gridlock as it has been nothing gets done, and the republicans win by default. And because of the way gerrymandering and disproportionate representation of rural areas skews the house of representatives in favor of the republicans it's very likely that even if the democrats take the senate and the presidency the republican party will retain the ability to say "no regulations are permitted" and strip the executive branch of its power. If the republican party has 40% of the senate OR 51% of the house the executive branch might as well not exist.
It's a lot like what is happening with the state republican party in NC. We elected a democrat to replace McCrory, so the legislature immediately voted to take away a lot of the governor's power (some of which it had just recently granted to McCrory) and give it to the legislature. For example, previously the NC election boards were appointed by the governor. When McCrory won he appointed the people who did all the various questionably-ethical things like cutting early voting hours (since early voting tended to lean democrat) to bias the system in favor of republicans. Now that a democrat might make appointments that reverse the changes the NC legislature changed it to having a 50/50 split between the parties. This might seem "fair" in theory, but it has the result of creating permanent deadlock and leaving McCrory's policies in place by default. The only real difference is that the REINS Act is being proposed in the aftermath of a republican victory, while the stuff in NC is the last desperate attempt by the losers to declare themselves the permanent winners instead.
whembly wrote: God forbid lawmakers to restore 'lawmaking' authority where it belongs, yaknow... the the entire purpose of the legislative branch... regulation should be focused on enforcing statutes passed by Congress.
The issue is that congress doesn't have the resources to handle all those regulations. Congress can set high-level policy goals, but there's a reason the executive branch has whole departments full of people making regulations to handle all the details. The actual goal here is not to fix a problem with the balance of power, it's to make regulations harder to create and support conservative ideology.
That's a lot of horse puckey.
Congress is perfectly able to pass laws with specific intent. Sometimes, it should be broad so that the Executive Branch can have some leeway within the parameters of the statutes.
The REINS Act, which would mandate that any regulation with an estimated cost of $100 million or more be put to an up or down vote by Congress. What's so unreasonable about this?
That's not what the law says. It isn't an up or down vote, it's "no regulation unless we approve it first". And that's what's unreasonable about it. If either house of congress declines to vote at all then the regulation is struck down by default. It's a complete reversal of the current situation, where congress has to vote in favor of abolishing or altering a regulation for any change to happen. If congress fails to vote or the two houses can not agree the executive branch proceeds as they wish. You know, checks and balances, not "give all power to whatever part of the government the republican party controls".
What is likely to happen under the REINS Act is a vast increase in the power of republican obstructionism. The republican party's goal is to minimize government regulations as a general principle, and to achieve this goal all they have to do is prevent a "yes" vote from happening in at least one house of congress. If congress is stuck in partisan gridlock as it has been nothing gets done, and the republicans win by default. And because of the way gerrymandering and disproportionate representation of rural areas skews the house of representatives in favor of the republicans it's very likely that even if the democrats take the senate and the presidency the republican party will retain the ability to say "no regulations are permitted" and strip the executive branch of its power. If the republican party has 40% of the senate OR 51% of the house the executive branch might as well not exist.
Oo
Read the Act. It only kicks in for anything that the CBO scores costing over $100 million dollars.
Furthermore, it'll have the capability of PUTTING A CHECK ON TRUMP!
Jaysus... even *I* don't want the Cheeto Jesus to wield the same sort of executive overreach power like his predecessors.
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
If anything, showing the names of all the legislators who voted it down would work wonders for making sure those kinds of people don't get reelected. It'd also be the same if one of the legislators voted to reduce congressional pay. THAT would be a fast way to "drain the swamp" right there: submit a bill that lowers congressional pay or forces them to choose either their congressional pay or their private sector interests ie. lawfirms and such. Vote out anybody who votes "no" to that.
It wouldn't work. Over here we had our MPsget a 10% pay rise from a review by an independent body and they then voted to increase their pay by 1.3% on top of that 10% increase only 9 months later. Meanwhile all other public sector workers (nurses, police, firefighters, doctors, civil servants, teachers etc.) had their pay capped at a 1% increase per year. They did not get voted out.
Then the citizens of your country must have been happy with the changes. US citizens tend to be more... volatile.
Congress is perfectly able to pass laws with specific intent. Sometimes, it should be broad so that the Executive Branch can have some leeway within the parameters of the statutes.
Yes, of course congress can pass laws with specific intent. That's not the issue here, because executive branch regulations don't apply. The actual issue is cases where congress sets high-level policy and depends on the executive branch to figure out all the details of implementing that policy. There is absolutely no way that congress can handle this job. There aren't enough people with experience in the relevant fields, and they don't have anywhere near enough time.
Read the Act. It only kicks in for anything that the CBO scores costing over $100 million dollars.
AKA "anything worth arguing about".
Furthermore, it'll have the capability of PUTTING A CHECK ON TRUMP!
No it won't. Aside from the fact that republicans have shown no spine at all in falling in line behind Trump once he showed that he could offer them power the law only applies to adding regulations. Trump's explicitly stated policy goal is to remove regulations. This is not an attempt to stop Trump, it's a NC-style attempt to ensure that even if the republican party loses the elections in 2018 their policies continue to win by default because it's impossible to overturn them.
Congress is perfectly able to pass laws with specific intent. Sometimes, it should be broad so that the Executive Branch can have some leeway within the parameters of the statutes.
Yes, of course congress can pass laws with specific intent. That's not the issue here, because executive branch regulations don't apply. The actual issue is cases where congress sets high-level policy and depends on the executive branch to figure out all the details of implementing that policy. There is absolutely no way that congress can handle this job. There aren't enough people with experience in the relevant fields, and they don't have anywhere near enough time.
Read the Act. It only kicks in for anything that the CBO scores costing over $100 million dollars.
AKA "anything worth arguing about".
Furthermore, it'll have the capability of PUTTING A CHECK ON TRUMP!
No it won't. Aside from the fact that republicans have shown no spine at all in falling in line behind Trump once he showed that he could offer them power the law only applies to adding regulations. Trump's explicitly stated policy goal is to remove regulations. This is not an attempt to stop Trump, it's a NC-style attempt to ensure that even if the republican party loses the elections in 2018 their policies continue to win by default because it's impossible to overturn them.
Right... it's so beyond the pale that if a proposed regulation is going to cost the public over $100 million dollars, that Congress shouldn't have a say.
I mean, the alternative is to shut down the government since they hold the purse... amirite? Because passing legislation when the other party hold the Whitehouse worked out so well...
whembly wrote: Right... it's so beyond the pale that if a proposed regulation is going to cost the public over $100 million dollars, that Congress shouldn't have a say.
They can have a say. Congress is already free to pass laws that create new regulations or overturn/modify existing regulations, we don't need a new law to do that. The issue with the proposed law is not that congress gets a say, it's that congress gets the final say and the executive branch is completely powerless to do anything but rubber stamp whatever congress decides. And if congress can't agree on what its position is then the answer defaults to "no" instead of "the executive branch acts without interference".
Here's a quote from your article on the subject:
And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
I mean, the alternative is to shut down the government since they hold the purse... amirite?
Apparently, if you're the republican party. "Give us what we want or we'll shut down the government" seems to be the standard republican party murder-suicide threat.
Because passing legislation when the other party hold the Whitehouse worked out so well...
I believe there's a name for that: checks and balances. You know, it does mean more than just "republicans in congress get the final say on everything the federal government does".
whembly wrote: Right... it's so beyond the pale that if a proposed regulation is going to cost the public over $100 million dollars, that Congress shouldn't have a say.
They can have a say. Congress is already free to pass laws that create new regulations or overturn/modify existing regulations, we don't need a new law to do that. The issue with the proposed law is not that congress gets a say, it's that congress gets the final say and the executive branch is completely powerless to do anything but rubber stamp whatever congress decides. And if congress can't agree on what its position is then the answer defaults to "no" instead of "the executive branch acts without interference"..
So you don't believe the Executive branch has ever pushed, bend or even exceeded Congressional intent?
Okay. Then when the GOP loses one or both houses in Congress... and stalemates Trumps... I don't want to hear from you that Trump would use his 'phone & pen' ala, Obama.
I mean, the alternative is to shut down the government since they hold the purse... amirite?
Apparently, if you're the republican party. "Give us what we want or we'll shut down the government" seems to be the standard republican party murder-suicide threat..
Because Republicans are unreasonable rascals. Got it.
Because passing legislation when the other party hold the Whitehouse worked out so well...
I believe there's a name for that: checks and balances. You know, it does mean more than just "republicans in congress get the final say on everything the federal government does".
Okay... if that's your view, it'll be interesting to how you'll react in the next couple of years.
whembly wrote: So you don't believe the Executive branch has ever pushed, bend or even exceeded Congressional intent?
Of course they have, but what's your point? If the executive branch exceeds the intent of congress then congress, under current laws, can pass a law saying "don't do that". The REINS Act is not necessary for this.
Okay. Then when the GOP loses one or both houses in Congress... and stalemates Trumps... I don't want to hear from you that Trump would use his 'phone & pen' ala, Obama.
Are you aware that there is a difference between government regulations (as the REINS Act applies to) and executive orders? The "phone and pen" criticism of executive orders has nothing to do with regulatory agencies.
Because Republicans are unreasonable rascals. Got it.
Exactly. Their behavior in the debt ceiling hostage crisis they created should have already made this clear.
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
Would it have put in more dems voting? Trump didn't won because he got lots of votes(his result was at best average for republican candinate) but because dem voters stayed home.
What wikileak could have released about Trump that would make more dem voters go and vote?
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
Would it have put in more dems voting? Trump didn't won because he got lots of votes(his result was at best average for republican candinate) but because dem voters stayed home.
What wikileak could have released about Trump that would make more dem voters go and vote?
The issue is that Dems don't fething vote unless their candidate is absolutely perfect. I doubt it would have raised turnout much.
"Vote for me of I'll have the Trojan horse I have been installing in all MS products for the last 10 years activate and shut off all access to internet porn...for ever!"
Anyway, enough of the negatives, let's focus on the positives
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and because of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
If Trump doesn't play ball, we'll dust off the old war plans, the two pronged attack:
Stage 1: 10,000 redcoats invade from Canada and cut off the rebels at Boston.
Stage 2.: The Royal Navy blockades the Chesapeake, and the loss of trade will force the influential New England Merchants to pressure Congress into asking for a peace treaty.
Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to take business away from the UK, it has been reported.
Wilbur Ross, the incoming US Commerce Secretary, said Britain was facing a "period of confusion" following the vote to leave the EU and that it was "inevitable" there would be "relocations", according to The Times.
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
If Trump doesn't play ball, we'll dust off the old war plans, the two pronged attack:
Stage 1: 10,000 redcoats invade from Canada and cut off the rebels at Boston.
Stage 2.: The Royal Navy blockades the Chesapeake, and the loss of trade will force the influential New England Merchants to pressure Congress into asking for a peace treaty.
We can't lose.
You you can goad him into things by making fun of him on twitter.
Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to take business away from the UK, it has been reported.
Wilbur Ross, the incoming US Commerce Secretary, said Britain was facing a "period of confusion" following the vote to leave the EU and that it was "inevitable" there would be "relocations", according to The Times.
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
If Trump doesn't play ball, we'll dust off the old war plans, the two pronged attack:
Stage 1: 10,000 redcoats invade from Canada and cut off the rebels at Boston.
Stage 2.: The Royal Navy blockades the Chesapeake, and the loss of trade will force the influential New England Merchants to pressure Congress into asking for a peace treaty.
We can't lose.
You you can goad him into things by making fun of him on twitter.
On a serious note, I do worry what Trump's reactions will be if he gets into an argument on twitter or feels insulted. It would be bad if he started using his status for petty acts of punishment against those he feels have insulted him.
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
Would it have put in more dems voting? Trump didn't won because he got lots of votes(his result was at best average for republican candinate) but because dem voters stayed home.
What wikileak could have released about Trump that would make more dem voters go and vote?
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
I assume they are talking about the "Fourteen words"
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
It's a white supremacist thing. And it's often seen paired with 88, which is a neo-nazi thing ("H" is the eigth letter in the alphabet, 88=HH=Heil Hitler). Wihtout context, however, it's hard to figure our what she is talking about. Then again it is Ann Coulter.
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to take business away from the UK, it has been reported.
Wilbur Ross, the incoming US Commerce Secretary, said Britain was facing a "period of confusion" following the vote to leave the EU and that it was "inevitable" there would be "relocations", according to The Times.
You do realize the US has fially implemented our "Hail Hydra" strategy to government and international affairs right? In the most diabaolocally clever scheme ever created, we will now implement multiple strategies for everything AT THE SAME TIME!!!
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
311? I haven't heard of that one.
It's honestly depressing the number of neo-nazi code-words I've learned over the past year.
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
311? I haven't heard of that one.
It's honestly depressing the number of neo-nazi code-words I've learned over the past year.
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
311? I haven't heard of that one.
It's honestly depressing the number of neo-nazi code-words I've learned over the past year.
311 can refer to KKK (K being the 11th letter), but it's better used as the california police code for public nudity, and the name of this glorious 90's rap-rock act.
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
311? I haven't heard of that one.
It's honestly depressing the number of neo-nazi code-words I've learned over the past year.
311 can refer to KKK (K being the 11th letter), but it's better used as the california police code for public nudity, and the name of this glorious 90's rap-rock act.
I always knew those Klanners were naked under their bed sheets.
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
311? I haven't heard of that one.
It's honestly depressing the number of neo-nazi code-words I've learned over the past year.
311 can refer to KKK (K being the 11th letter), but it's better used as the california police code for public nudity, and the name of this glorious 90's rap-rock act.
I always knew those Klanners were naked under their bed sheets.
Eww.
"Cletus! Why are there holes and skidmarks on the bed?!"
So Florida AG Bondi is getting a job in the Trump administration? After getting a political donation from the Trump Foundation and a fundraiser after declining to investigate him?
d-usa wrote: So Florida AG Bondi is getting a job in the Trump administration? After getting a political donation from the Trump Foundation and a fundraiser after declining to investigate him?
d-usa wrote: So Florida AG Bondi is getting a job in the Trump administration? After getting a political donation from the Trump Foundation and a fundraiser after declining to investigate him?
At least he's not Hillary I guess...
As a reminder, daily facepalm for me from here on in.
What do you guys think about this? Is Zuckerberg a contender? Or is this just wishful thinking on the part of his cult of personality?
I hope not. He appears to be one of those "my morals for everyone" guys. Fine for optional social media, not fine for government.
Um, isnt "My Morals for everyone" A cornerstone of the Republican Conservative Christian platform?
No.
Really? Then why does it want to abolish federal funding of abortion, if not outright make abortion illegal?
If you want abortion, pay for it yourself.
Abolishing federal funding of abortion <> abolition of abortion.
'Tis okay... it's a common mistake.
If you want armed forces, pay for it yourself. If you want HIV medication, pay for it yourself. If you want hospitals, pay for them yourself. If you want painkillers to allow you to move after an injury, pay for them yourself. And so on. Why should pacifists be forced to pay taxes to support a military which goes against their own beliefs?
Magister wrote: Creationism being taught as a viable alternative to evolution?
While not a Catholic (or all that religious myself), I send both my boyz to Catholic school.
They teach both Creationism AND Darwinism.
So, no... it's not an "alternative" where the kids aren't exposed to Darwinism.
Creationism has no place in a science class other than an example of a previous belief which was overturned by discoveries brought about by the scientific method, like the concept of the Earth-centric solar system, the luminiferous aether or aristotlean physics.
What do you guys think about this? Is Zuckerberg a contender? Or is this just wishful thinking on the part of his cult of personality?
I hope not. He appears to be one of those "my morals for everyone" guys. Fine for optional social media, not fine for government.
Um, isnt "My Morals for everyone" A cornerstone of the Republican Conservative Christian platform?
No.
Really? Then why does it want to abolish federal funding of abortion, if not outright make abortion illegal?
If you want abortion, pay for it yourself.
Abolishing federal funding of abortion <> abolition of abortion.
'Tis okay... it's a common mistake.
If you want armed forces, pay for it yourself. If you want HIV medication, pay for it yourself. If you want hospitals, pay for them yourself. If you want painkillers to allow you to move after an injury, pay for them yourself. And so on.
Nice strawman you got there... here's some :
It's not a stretch to believe abortion is murder of an innocent to some people... and that they don't want their tax dollars funding such programs. However, in the US... there's nothing stopping the likes of Planned Parenthood from operating without federal dollars. So, if you support them, I'm sure they'll support your donation.
Word that Pope Francis on Monday said that faith and creationism aren’t at odds with one another may have shocked many Americans, but the comments don’t actually reflect any deviation from long-standing church teaching.
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
Catholics have long accepted that the creation story as written in the book of Genesis in the Bible can stand along the scientific theory of evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive.
“It should be non-news but it’s new especially for American Catholics because in America the debate on faith and science and the question of evolution is still very much a part of our day-by-day intellectual menu,” says Massimo Faggioli, a theology professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. “This statement will be met with almost total indifference in Europe while in America it’s a completely different story.”
[READ: Middle East Sees Religious, Ethnic Hatred as Greatest Global Threat]
Rev. Paul Sullins of the Catholic University of America says that the Big Bang Theory was embraced by Catholics and most Protestants when it was first explained.
“The scientific idea that everything began at a moment of time is very consistent with the idea that there’s a personal creator God who spake the world into existence in a moment of time,” Sullins says. “The mythopoeic account that we read in Genesis is very consistent with the scientific account of the Big Bang.”
Modern Catholic teaching on evolution stems from the papal encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950, a letter on Catholic doctrine dictating that evolution and Catholic faith are not necessarily at odds.
“The teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God,” the document states.
Creationism and evolution have been considered incompatible in American society, one which reads and interprets the Bible very literally. But Faggioli says the U.S. has a “Biblical culture,” which lends itself to literal interpretations.
“Americans know the Bible much, much better than Europeans but at the same time there is still in some churches more than others is this tendency to read the Bible literally, that God created the universe in six days,” Faggioli says. “That is not part of European cultural landscape anymore. In America it’s still part of that because [of a] fundamentalist refrain that is very, very visible.”
[ALSO: Catholic Church Backs Off More Inclusive Posture Toward Gays]
The Supreme Court has banned the teaching of creationism in public schools and several states require students to “crucially analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory.” The ability to teach intelligent design theory in public schools was also struck down by the courts.
“American public schools are essentially Protestant in character so anyone who went to a public school is going to have some background of being taught in a science class that there was this conflict between creationism and evolution,” Sullins says.
Maureen Ferguson, a senior policy adviser at the Catholic Association, says Francis’ ability to speak in a way that gets people’s attention leads his comments to make the headlines.
“Pope Francis has a real knack for expression Catholic teaching in very plain language, in the vernacular, but in very ordinary language,” Ferguson says. “And sometimes people have only heard perhaps the sort of more complex more theological explanations for things and are surprised to learn what that teaching is.”
The Pope, who took office after the surprise resignation of Pope Benedict, has consistently made news during his year and a half tenure. His comments on economics and social issues like divorce and gays in the church have made him popular worldwide as public opinion on those topics shifts.
I'm sure Manchu can eloquently chime in, but more boyz are not harmed in this...
Dead issue. Interesting, this is an attempt to try to bring down the whole of the GOP party. Yet, nary a peep that clinton and obama once opposed it.
Obama never did anything to oppose marriage equality though, and I remember the outrage from the GOP when he said he would not defend the "defense of marriage act"
but it never ceases to amuse me that the right wingers will take a life long stance agreeing with something a democrat said or did once, years or decades ago.
Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Whether you believe it or not, creationism should only be taught in private schools that don't receive public funding. Creationism does not deserve a place in public education.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
Only if you're a fetus. Once you're born, you're on your own.
I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate. If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people, and practical health education in schools.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide
healthcare...
What do you guys think about this? Is Zuckerberg a contender? Or is this just wishful thinking on the part of his cult of personality?
I hope not. He appears to be one of those "my morals for everyone" guys. Fine for optional social media, not fine for government.
Um, isnt "My Morals for everyone" A cornerstone of the Republican Conservative Christian platform?
No.
Really? Then why does it want to abolish federal funding of abortion, if not outright make abortion illegal?
If you want abortion, pay for it yourself.
Abolishing federal funding of abortion <> abolition of abortion.
'Tis okay... it's a common mistake.
If you want armed forces, pay for it yourself. If you want HIV medication, pay for it yourself. If you want hospitals, pay for them yourself. If you want painkillers to allow you to move after an injury, pay for them yourself. And so on.
Nice strawman you got there... here's some :
It's not a stretch to believe abortion is murder of an innocent to some people... and that they don't want their tax dollars funding such programs. However, in the US... there's nothing stopping the likes of Planned Parenthood from operating without federal dollars. So, if you support them, I'm sure they'll support your donation.
many people believe the same of the military (not that I agree). Many people think nuclear weapons are inherently an unsafe existential threat and want no part in supporting their existence. Many people believe police or DEA or other law enforcement are no more than uniformed thugs and dont want their tax dollars supporting them. Many people think the IRS exists solely to perpetrate theft from common citizens on behalf of the government. Many people think that if you chose to smoke in your earlier years, they shouldnt have to pay for your organ transplant. We could go through that reasoning all day with just about every possible issue.
Magister wrote: Creationism being taught as a viable alternative to evolution?
While not a Catholic (or all that religious myself), I send both my boyz to Catholic school.
They teach both Creationism AND Darwinism.
So, no... it's not an "alternative" where the kids aren't exposed to Darwinism.
Creationism has no place in a science class other than an example of a previous belief which was overturned by the scientific method.
That's a crock of gak.
Creationism is not scientifically testable. By definition, it relies on faith in something you cannot analyze via the scientific method.
Study it in a religious class, or a philosophy class, or whatever. That's totally fine. It does not belong in a biology class as an 'opposite', 'companion', or 'alternative' to evolutionary theory.
So the Bible does not say that the Earth was made in seven days? Or that God created vegetation on Earth before stars in the sky (including stars whose light has taken more years to reach us than the Earth has even existed)? Or that sea creatures and birds came into being around the same time? Or that creatures of the earth (such as reptiles) came into being after birds?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide
healthcare...
Find the power that explicitly forbids them from doing so?
I'm sure Manchu can eloquently chime in, but more boyz are not harmed in this...
I don't think you really understand what Christian Evangelicals are trying to introduce to the education system, but the guy is right, Creationism literally has no place in a SCIENCE class room. It is anti-science by definition.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
But hey, we can't be like Europe for some reason.
they're to progressive for the states, they all have government run health care.
and FYI, no federal money is used for abortions, it's been that way for decades, but for some reason that myth is still around and planned parenthood is still demonized for it.
I'm sure Manchu can eloquently chime in, but more boyz are not harmed in this...
I don't think you really understand what Christian Evangelicals are trying to introduce to the education system, but the guy is right, Creationism literally has no place in a SCIENCE class room. It is anti-science by definition.
I think this is the one time I want to say "Amen!"
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide healthcare...
Find the power that explicitly forbids them from doing so?
Not needed. The constitution grants the Fed Gov't specific powers. It also says powers NOT granted remain with the states. It is a restrictive document, not a permissive one.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
Since when is healthcare just about preventing immediate death? Lots of surgery is elective. Doesnt mean it isnt "healthcare".
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
But hey, we can't be like Europe for some reason.
It's like I'm looking at California firearms laws...but with "Abortion" copypasta'd over "firearms". Mandatory waiting periods, pointless paperwork requirements intended just to make things onerous, I'm seeing double I tells ya!
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
But hey, we can't be like Europe for some reason.
Well, most (possibly all) of those countries have socialised healthcare and so those abortions are free at point of care as the health system is funded through taxation. So you want a system where the taxpayer funds abortion with limits on when the procedure can be carried out.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate.
1) understand that money, by definition, is fungible. 2) the vast bulk of PP's revenue *is* abortion, as huge part of their business. 3) the Senate just release their report on PP and the Fetal Tissue procurement business. The AP breaks down breaks down the amount of federal funding PP receives: Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that of more than $1.1 billion in yearly revenue, around half — $554 million — comes from government grants and reimbursements. It provides no breakdown.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million annually in federal funds, mostly $390 million in reimbursements from the Medicaid program for low-income people.
If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people,
Who's going to pay for it? Just have congress pass a law so that it can be debated and funded on it's own.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
Many surgeries are not to fix life threatening situation but to increase quality of life. A person can live for a long time on dialysis, for example. It's a crap life but hey, kidney failure isn't life threatening when you're hooked up to a machine to clean your blood 3 days a week.
Or lets say you've got a bone spur in your foot which makes it incredibly painful to walk. Sure you can't walk but it won't kill you.
Vaktathi wrote: Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
That's extremely misleading as it suppose that all services are counted equally... unless, you believe PP makes just as much revenue from a pap smear test as the abortion procedure they provide? Is that it?
Anyways... The Washington Post gives that statement a Three Pinocchio.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide
healthcare...
Find the power that explicitly forbids them from doing so?
Not needed. The constitution grants the Fed Gov't specific powers. It also says powers NOT granted remain with the states. It is a restrictive document, not a permissive one.
It's started out as a permissive document, then people wanted to add restrictive rules to it, and now it's all jacked up. That was one of the better arguments against the Bill of Rights, but it fell on deaf ears.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
War is killing and destroying, the Founders were pretty fething familiar with war and its associated destructiveness.
The document gives the Feds the power to raise funds to pay for it. The amendments specifically give the Feds the power to impose an income tax. So, yeah, you're being purposely ignorant, and you're clearly smarter than that.
Can't wait to see how this plays out. A very conservative-leaning paper, WSJ, reported Wednesday evening that Trump and his transition team were working on a plan to restructure the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA because Trump believes they are biased against him. But incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that reports President-elect Donald Trump is working on plans to restructure the intelligence community are "100 percent false."
Now somebody is lying here. If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the WSJ reporting as being accurate and that our thin-skinned, exaggerator-in-chief is feeling picked on and wants to do something about it. How does this not weaken our country when an individual vendetta seeks to override the apolitical, independence of the Intelligence Services?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate.
1) understand that money, by definition, is fungible.
2) the vast bulk of PP's revenue *is* abortion, as huge part of their business.
3) the Senate just release their report on PP and the Fetal Tissue procurement business. The AP breaks down breaks down the amount of federal funding PP receives:
Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that of more than $1.1 billion in yearly revenue, around half — $554 million — comes from government grants and reimbursements. It provides no breakdown.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million annually in federal funds, mostly $390 million in reimbursements from the Medicaid program for low-income people.
If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people,
Who's going to pay for it? Just have congress pass a law so that it can be debated and funded on it's own.
Vaktathi wrote: Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
That's extremely misleading as it suppose that all services are counted equally... unless, you believe PP makes just as much revenue from a pap smear test as the abortion procedure they provide? Is that it?
Anyways... The Washington Post gives that statement a Three Pinocchio.
sure, hence why I noted "services" and not "expenditures", primarily to point out that they do a whole lot more than just abortions.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
War is killing and destroying, the Founders were pretty fething familiar with war and its associated destructiveness.
The document gives the Feds the power to raise funds to pay for it. The amendments specifically give the Feds the power to impose an income tax. So, yeah, you're being purposely ignorant, and you're clearly smarter than that.
I wasn't intending to cause offence and I apologise if I did so. However I am genuinely curious; as there have been and still are different interpretations of what the constitution actually allows.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate.
1) understand that money, by definition, is fungible.
2) the vast bulk of PP's revenue *is* abortion, as huge part of their business.
3) the Senate just release their report on PP and the Fetal Tissue procurement business. The AP breaks down breaks down the amount of federal funding PP receives:
Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that of more than $1.1 billion in yearly revenue, around half — $554 million — comes from government grants and reimbursements. It provides no breakdown.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million annually in federal funds, mostly $390 million in reimbursements from the Medicaid program for low-income people.
If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people,
Who's going to pay for it? Just have congress pass a law so that it can be debated and funded on it's own.
The largest source of revenue for Planned Parenthood is government funding.
While it's true that federal funds can’t be used for abortions, PP does not separate its federal, state and non-governments funds in its annual reports. There are NO itemized report to ascertain how to distinguish the money trail.
So, stop regurgitation PP propaganda and acknowledge for once that something isn't right here.
Vaktathi wrote: Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
That's extremely misleading as it suppose that all services are counted equally... unless, you believe PP makes just as much revenue from a pap smear test as the abortion procedure they provide? Is that it?
Anyways... The Washington Post gives that statement a Three Pinocchio.
sure, hence why I noted "services" and not "expenditures", primarily to point out that they do a whole lot more than just abortions.
I don't think I implied otherwise... only that abortion services (and evidently the tissue procurements) is a huge revenue stream for PP.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
You've got that backwards buddy...
The Articles are permissive, they give the powers to the respective branches of the government and state what they can do. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that they were not needed because nothing on the Constitution gave the government the power to make a Church, regulate firearms, search your home, etc. The Bill of Rights mixed a restrictive set of rules into the permissive rules, and subsequent amendments have been a mix of "government can" and "government can't". So now both "show where it says we can" and "show where it says we can't" are valid and conflicting points.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
You've got that backwards buddy...
The Articles are permissive, they give the powers to the respective branches of the government and state what they can do. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that they were not needed because nothing on the Constitution gave the government the power to make a Church, regulate firearms, search your home, etc. The Bill of Rights mixed a restrictive set of rules into the permissive rules, and subsequent amendments have been a mix of "government can" and "government can't". So now both "show where it says we can" and "show where it says we can't" are valid and conflicting points.
...okay. I stand corrected. (i get the whole permissive/restrictive things garbled up all the time... 40k rules can be taxing at times. )
Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
Many are still ongoing as these cases tend to fight a long time in the court system.
• Despite the clear legislative history of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, the executive branch across multiple administrations has failed to enforce the law’s safeguards.
• Since 2010, three companies - Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.; StemExpress, LLC; and Novogenix Laboratories, LLC (Novogenix has since gone out of business) - have paid affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to acquire aborted fetuses, and then sold the fetal tissue to their respective customers at substantially higher prices than their documented costs.
• The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) initially had a policy in place to ensure its affiliates were complying with the law, but the affiliates failed to follow its fetal tissue reimbursement policy. When PPFA learned in 2011 of this situation, PPFA cancelled the policy rather than exercise oversight to bring the affiliates back into compliance. Thus, PPFA not only turned a blind eye to the affiliates’ violations of its fetal tissue policy, but also altered its own oversight procedures enabling those affiliates’ practices to continue unimpeded.
• The cost analyses provided by affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America lack sufficient documentation and rely on unreasonably broad and vague claims of costs for “the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage of” fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood attorneys acknowledge that the affiliates had failed to follow procedures put in place to ensure compliance with the law. In addition, the cost analyses were only performed long after the fact and at the insistence of the committee.
The full report details the long history of the controversy surrounding human fetal tissue research and the bipartisan legislative approach taken to resolve the issue at the time, as well as the subsequent lack of enforcement. As the report explains, “Support for the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act was premised on the idea that the ban on buying or selling fetal tissue would be a safeguard against the development for a market for human fetuses. Tragically, the executive branch has either failed or simply refused to enforce that safeguard. As a result, contrary to the intent of the law, companies have charged thousands of dollars for specimens removed from a single aborted fetus; they have claimed the fees they charged only recovered acceptable costs when they had not, in fact, conducted any analysis of their costs when setting the fees; and their post hoc accounting rationalizations invoked indirect and tenuously-related costs in an attempt to justify their fees.”
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide
healthcare...
Find the power that explicitly forbids them from doing so?
Is said the US. Under the US federal system all powers were held at the People or state level if not specifically granted to the federal government.*
*repealed in two key cases: Lee vs. Grant, and FDR vs. SCOTUS.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
Whembly, there is no way that, at the prices talked about in those videos (regardless of whether they were genuine), Planned Parenthood could ever make a profit from those fetal tissue samples due to the requirements for storage and transport of them. If they did not follow the regulations governing moving and storing that kind of stuff, they would have been sued by the people who received the samples.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
Many are still ongoing as these cases tend to fight a long time in the court system.
• Despite the clear legislative history of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, the executive branch across multiple administrations has failed to enforce the law’s safeguards.
• Since 2010, three companies - Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.; StemExpress, LLC; and Novogenix Laboratories, LLC (Novogenix has since gone out of business) - have paid affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to acquire aborted fetuses, and then sold the fetal tissue to their respective customers at substantially higher prices than their documented costs.
• The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) initially had a policy in place to ensure its affiliates were complying with the law, but the affiliates failed to follow its fetal tissue reimbursement policy. When PPFA learned in 2011 of this situation, PPFA cancelled the policy rather than exercise oversight to bring the affiliates back into compliance. Thus, PPFA not only turned a blind eye to the affiliates’ violations of its fetal tissue policy, but also altered its own oversight procedures enabling those affiliates’ practices to continue unimpeded.
• The cost analyses provided by affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America lack sufficient documentation and rely on unreasonably broad and vague claims of costs for “the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage of” fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood attorneys acknowledge that the affiliates had failed to follow procedures put in place to ensure compliance with the law. In addition, the cost analyses were only performed long after the fact and at the insistence of the committee.
The full report details the long history of the controversy surrounding human fetal tissue research and the bipartisan legislative approach taken to resolve the issue at the time, as well as the subsequent lack of enforcement. As the report explains, “Support for the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act was premised on the idea that the ban on buying or selling fetal tissue would be a safeguard against the development for a market for human fetuses. Tragically, the executive branch has either failed or simply refused to enforce that safeguard. As a result, contrary to the intent of the law, companies have charged thousands of dollars for specimens removed from a single aborted fetus; they have claimed the fees they charged only recovered acceptable costs when they had not, in fact, conducted any analysis of their costs when setting the fees; and their post hoc accounting rationalizations invoked indirect and tenuously-related costs in an attempt to justify their fees.”
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
Just because one is hopelessly foolish politically doesn't mean one is that way on all subjects. To put someone on ignore they would have to be a loss in nearly all threads they post and not just one. There is also the amusing 'train wreck' element to it as well.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report. ...
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report. ...
Yeah, except again:
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
So either A) the videos were faked in way that did not have to deal with video tampering (staged actors, etc.) or B) the allegations and evidence have not been enough to convict PP. Either way, PP hasn't been charged. CMP was indicted, but the charges were dropped.
You can't claim PP is selling fetuses unless you have evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report.
...
Yeah, except again:
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
So either A) the videos were faked in way that did not have to deal with video tampering (staged actors, etc.) or B) the allegations and evidence have not been enough to convict PP. Either way, PP hasn't been charged. CMP was indicted, but the charges were dropped.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report.
...
Yeah, except again:
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
So either A) the videos were faked in way that did not have to deal with video tampering (staged actors, etc.) or B) the allegations and evidence have not been enough to convict PP. Either way, PP hasn't been charged. CMP was indicted, but the charges were dropped.
That until it goes to court and they get convicted (or settle), that I don't see PP as being guilty. Plenty of companies get investigated without being found criminally guilty. Also, I'm in favor of abortions/stem cell research, so don't expect me to be outraged.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report.
...
Yeah, except again:
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
So either A) the videos were faked in way that did not have to deal with video tampering (staged actors, etc.) or B) the allegations and evidence have not been enough to convict PP. Either way, PP hasn't been charged. CMP was indicted, but the charges were dropped.
That until it goes to court and they get convicted (or settle), that I don't see PP as being guilty. Plenty of companies get investigated without being found criminally guilty. Also, I'm in favor of abortions/stem cell research, so don't expect me to be outraged.
Of course they should have their day in court should it get there....
Novel and interesting that the US Navy would be operating in a Mexican waters on a conservation effort that looks like is run by an NGO. Not exactly a traditional mission for the Navy. Alas, it sounds like the plan if high risk and not universally supported. Also have to wonder who is paying for the US Navy's time planning and then executing the mission? Sounds very expensive. I think the person advocating better enforcement has the right of it.
Rosebuddy wrote: The confederate flag should be banned, yes. It is the flag of traitors, losers and scum. The eradication of slaver culture didn't go far enough.
Sorry I missed how this ties to anything else in this thread. What did I miss?
EDIT: We need to build an (undersea) wall to protect are domestic navy dolphin jobs from cheap Mexican immigrant dolphins.
Rosebuddy wrote: The confederate flag should be banned, yes. It is the flag of traitors, losers and scum. The eradication of slaver culture didn't go far enough.
Sorry I missed how this ties to anything else in this thread. What did I miss?
Rosebuddy wrote: The confederate flag should be banned, yes. It is the flag of traitors, losers and scum. The eradication of slaver culture didn't go far enough.
while I would not disagree with the latter, the government cant just ban the confederate flag. They can choose not fly it themselves on government property, but thats about it. And thats as it should be, otherwise they could just as easily ban anything that whoever happens to be in power doesnt like, which is good for nobody.
SAN JUAN
Puerto Rico’s new governor was sworn in Monday, promising an immediate push for statehood in a territory facing a deep economic crisis.
Gov. Ricardo Rossello, 37, proposed several measures aimed at alleviating the crisis shortly after he was sworn in at midnight. Among them is a proposal to hold a referendum that would ask voters whether they prefer statehood or independence. Many have argued that Puerto Rico’s political status has contributed to its decade-long crisis that has prompted more than 200,000 people to flee to the U.S. mainland in recent years.
“The United States cannot pretend to be a model of democracy for the world while it discriminates against 3.5 million of its citizens in Puerto Rico, depriving them of their right to political, social and economic equality under the U.S. flag,” Rossello said in his inaugural speech, delivered in Spanish. “There is no way to overcome Puerto Rico’s crisis given its colonial condition.”
The crowd rose to its feet and cheered as Rossello announced that he would fly to Washington, D.C., Monday to back a bill to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st state.
He also said he would soon hold elections to choose two senators and five representatives to Congress and send them to Washington to demand statehood, a strategy used by Tennessee to join the union in the 18th century. The U.S. government has final say on whether Puerto Rico can become a state.
Rossello said he also aims to boost public-private partnerships and use that revenue to save a retirement system that faces a $40 billion deficit and is expected to collapse in less than a year. He pledged to work closely with a federal control board that U.S. Congress created last year to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances, and he has said he supports negotiations with creditors to help restructure a public debt of nearly $70 billion.
“Puerto Rico’s recovery begins today,” he said.
Rossello announced that he has already signed several executive orders, including one to promote bilingual education and others ordering agencies to reduce their budgets and contracts for professional services by 10 percent.
He also seeks to privatize services such as the generation of energy, establish an office to oversee and distribute federal funds to cut down on corruption, and to create financial incentives for doctors to boost the number of dwindling specialists. In addition, Rossello pledged to provide female government employees with the same pay as their male counterparts.
Thousands of supporters cheered as they clutched umbrellas to protect themselves from a searing sun.
“This is a historic moment for Puerto Rico,” said 50-year-old Jose Davila as he waved a large flag from Rossello’s pro-statehood party. “He’s the hope of our island, he’s the hope for statehood, he’s the hope for a people that have suffered.”
Puerto Ricans have been hit with dozens of new taxes in the past four years and increases in utility bills as former Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla aimed to generate more revenue for a government he said was running out of money. Despite those and other measures, the island’s government has defaulted on millions of dollars’ worth of bond payments and declared a state of emergency at several agencies.
The federal control board has requested a revised fiscal plan that has to be approved by end of January, saying that the one Garcia submitted last year was in part unrealistic and relied too heavily on federal funds. Garcia had refused to submit a revised plan to include austerity measures. Rossello has said he would request an extension of that deadline as well as an extension of a moratorium that expires in February and currently protects Puerto Rico from lawsuits filed by angered creditors.
As supporters streamed early on Monday toward the Capitol building, one yelled out, “Today, a new Puerto Rico begins!” to the cheers of others, including those holding U.S. flags.
I'm for this...
I get that the parties may slap some conditions, but I'd at least look at the PR's Constitution / Judicial system to ensure everything's kosher.
Rosebuddy wrote: The confederate flag should be banned, yes. It is the flag of traitors, losers and scum. The eradication of slaver culture didn't go far enough.
Sorry I missed how this ties to anything else in this thread. What did I miss?
EDIT: We need to build an (undersea) wall to protect are domestic navy dolphin jobs from cheap Mexican immigrant dolphins.
It was in response to a remark my Whembly about "being like European countries", to which I used banning the confederate flag as something that would be like a European nation (like how many ban Swastikas), for a "well should we be the same as them or not". I wasn't actually proposing we should (because I do believe in free speech, even gakky speech, I just think we should also tell them how dumb and horrible they are, and exclude them from society as a whole).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So... I'm seeing from a friend's FB post (which was via CSPAN (maybe?) that the Senate has officially voted, today, to repeal ACA.
WTF. Let's hope the morons replace it with something better, and fast, or there will probably be millions of pissed off people.
I think the plan was to make it kick in right after the mid-terms, so they don't catch any flak. It's just more political BS.
I think we'll need to just make a few more states so there's a more evener amount of stars. How much does Canada cost? Although I think I would rather we buy Mexico, because tacos.
Necros wrote: I think we'll need to just make a few more states so there's a more evener amount of stars. How much does Canada cost? Although I think I would rather we buy Mexico, because tacos.
Necros wrote: I think we'll need to just make a few more states so there's a more evener amount of stars. How much does Canada cost? Although I think I would rather we buy Mexico, because tacos.
Rosebuddy wrote: The confederate flag should be banned, yes. It is the flag of traitors, losers and scum. The eradication of slaver culture didn't go far enough.
Sorry I missed how this ties to anything else in this thread. What did I miss?
EDIT: We need to build an (undersea) wall to protect are domestic navy dolphin jobs from cheap Mexican immigrant dolphins.
It was in response to a remark my Whembly about "being like European countries", to which I used banning the confederate flag as something that would be like a European nation (like how many ban Swastikas), for a "well should we be the same as them or not". I wasn't actually proposing we should (because I do believe in free speech, even gakky speech, I just think we should also tell them how dumb and horrible they are, and exclude them from society as a whole).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So... I'm seeing from a friend's FB post (which was via CSPAN (maybe?) that the Senate has officially voted, today, to repeal ACA.
WTF. Let's hope the morons replace it with something better, and fast, or there will probably be millions of pissed off people.
I think the plan was to make it kick in right after the mid-terms, so they don't catch any flak. It's just more political BS.
I think the Dems have a sensible game plan so far, from what I have heard.
Work with the GOP if their goal is a Repeal AND Replace bill, to preserve important aspects of the ACA.
Let the GOP come up with their own solution and to help bail them out if they Repeal WITHOUT a replacement lined up. Let them own a flat Repeal.
Necros wrote: I think we'll need to just make a few more states so there's a more evener amount of stars. How much does Canada cost? Although I think I would rather we buy Mexico, because tacos.
I have a question for my fellow Dakkanauts from the U.S.
Apparently your President-Elect is in very bad term with your intelligence agencies, and is also Donald, a famous reality-TV guy and very angry twitter tough guy. Now, your intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, have some interesting reputation in some foreign countries. They are seen as manipulative, murdering bastards with no regards for democracy or human rights. That's because of, well, their involvement in overthrowing and organizing the murder of elected leaders, to replace them with dictators who commits terrible human right abuse. It really happened! More than once! It is actually really the first thing that pops into people's mind about the CIA in many places around the world. So here is my question: do you see the CIA poisoning your president(-elect) Donald and setting up a coup to put a puppet dictator in charge? Also, would you personally support this? While I would definitely feel a little bad about the various human right abuses, it would still feel a bit like karmic justice, and, who knows, it might be much better for the rest of the world if that means no Trump laws allowing you to destroy the climate and pollute the earth we all have to share. So, I'm a bit nuanced on this opportunity. Hard to determine which one is worse.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So here is my question: do you see the CIA poisoning your president(-elect) Donald and setting up a coup to put a puppet dictator in charge?
No. For many reasons this is a bad movie plot idea, not anything remotely resembling a plausible reality.
Also, would you personally support this?
No. I wouldn't shed a single tear for someone as horrible as Trump being killed, but I think it should be obvious why a CIA coup to install a puppet dictator would be a bad thing for the country.
and, who knows, it might be much better for the rest of the world if that means no Trump laws allowing you to destroy the climate and pollute the earth we all have to share.
Don't forget that Trump is only the symbolic head of the republican party. The whole party shares his beliefs on climate, pollution, etc. Getting rid of Trump is not going to fix the problem.
So here is my question: do you see the CIA poisoning your president(-elect) Donald and setting up a coup to put a puppet dictator in charge?
Also, would you personally support this?
.
The death of President Trump, while in office, would lead directly to the administration of President Pence. Which is not an improvement. I would much prefer his comeuppance arrive at the ballot box in 2018 and 2020, rather than arrive at the hands of an assassin.
The CIA has done a lot of terrible things in many places, but mostly in places that either invited the CIA in or were relatively weak to begin with and far more internally divided than the US, and a lot of the stuff they are attributed is beyond their actual capabilites.. For the CIA to try such a thing would probably result in immediate and violent backlash, and probably wouldnt pass internal muster.
I would neither be in favor nor of nor support such actions. That is absolutely not the CIA's place.
Rosebuddy wrote: The confederate flag should be banned, yes. It is the flag of traitors, losers and scum. The eradication of slaver culture didn't go far enough.
while I would not disagree with the latter, the government cant just ban the confederate flag. They can choose not fly it themselves on government property, but thats about it. And thats as it should be, otherwise they could just as easily ban anything that whoever happens to be in power doesnt like, which is good for nobody.
That's already happening, tho. Drugs, abortions, trans people. The basic concept of working against something is a lot less interesting than the question of who has power and why.
Peregrine wrote: Don't forget that Trump is only the symbolic head of the republican party. The whole party shares his beliefs on climate, pollution, etc. Getting rid of Trump is not going to fix the problem.
squidhills wrote: The death of President Trump, while in office, would lead directly to the administration of President Pence. Which is not an improvement. I would much prefer his comeuppance arrive at the ballot box in 2018 and 2020, rather than arrive at the hands of an assassin.
Well, the idea was that the CIA would put the leader of some military or paramilitary group that they can control in power, rather than follow the rule of law and let Pence be president. That's what they usually do. They don't kill the current elected head of state and then let democracy decide for the replacement leader, as that would inevitably lead to people electing a government even more hostile to them. Which is what happened most of the time when US-backed dictators were ousted, with a few exceptions like in South Korea.
I am not sure if there is any US general that would be sufficiently impulsive, power hungry and easily manipulated, though. What are the political opinions of the US army highest ranking commanders, in general?
Vaktathi wrote: The CIA has done a lot of terrible things in many places, but mostly in places that either invited the CIA in or were relatively weak to begin with and far more internally divided than the US, and a lot of the stuff they are attributed is beyond their actual capabilites..
Well, at the very least both events I linked to have been quite well documented. Obama even explicitly apologized for Operation Ajax. Definitely not beyond the CIA's actual capabilities. However, I guess I have to believe you if you say that the US are still united rather than divided, despite all that happened during the election.
The CIA gets involved in places that suit America's moneyed elite interests. There seems no one greater suited to further America's moneyed elite's interests than Donnie "the fethwad" Trump.
Well, at the very least both events I linked to have been quite well documented. Obama even explicitly apologized for Operation Ajax. Definitely not beyond the CIA's actual capabilities. However, I guess I have to believe you if you say that the US are still united rather than divided, despite all that happened during the election.
I was mostly referring to stuff that you hear out of Russia or Venezuela and a couple other placrs where everything bad is attributed to the CIA almost as reflex, but yes, they have done some absolutely horrific stuff like Ajax and in Chile and others.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, the idea was that the CIA would put the leader of some military or paramilitary group that they can control in power, rather than follow the rule of law and let Pence be president. That's what they usually do. They don't kill the current elected head of state and then let democracy decide for the replacement leader, as that would inevitably lead to people electing a government even more hostile to them. Which is what happened most of the time when US-backed dictators were ousted, with a few exceptions like in South Korea.
For that to happen you need to find a group that will do it. The military leans conservative and has a tradition of being apolitical and supporting the integrity of the system as a whole. The various militia groups are way too few in number and are generally far-right extremists who aren't going to be interested in overthrowing a right-wing government. There just isn't anyone in the US that is both willing to participate in a military dictatorship and capable of accomplishing it.
I am not sure if there is any US general that would be sufficiently impulsive, power hungry and easily manipulated, though. What are the political opinions of the US army highest ranking commanders, in general?
It doesn't matter. Even if the CIA could find a single leader for the coup the military as a whole isn't going to follow their orders.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, the idea was that the CIA would put the leader of some military or paramilitary group that they can control in power, rather than follow the rule of law and let Pence be president. That's what they usually do. They don't kill the current elected head of state and then let democracy decide for the replacement leader, as that would inevitably lead to people electing a government even more hostile to them. Which is what happened most of the time when US-backed dictators were ousted, with a few exceptions like in South Korea.
For that to happen you need to find a group that will do it. The military leans conservative and has a tradition of being apolitical and supporting the integrity of the system as a whole. The various militia groups are way too few in number and are generally far-right extremists who aren't going to be interested in overthrowing a right-wing government. There just isn't anyone in the US that is both willing to participate in a military dictatorship and capable of accomplishing it.
I am not sure if there is any US general that would be sufficiently impulsive, power hungry and easily manipulated, though. What are the political opinions of the US army highest ranking commanders, in general?
It doesn't matter. Even if the CIA could find a single leader for the coup the military as a whole isn't going to follow their orders.
Peregrine has the right of it...
Even then, if it somehow happens, you'd be looking at a very bloody American Civil War part deux...
No, it would be much more subtle if the CIA actually wanted to be rid of him (release documents that would incite a public backlash that he would either be impeached or so weakened politically as to be irrelevant, for example).
Just watched Biden's extended interview on PBS Newshour: man we really would have done better with him.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you want armed forces, pay for it yourself. If you want HIV medication, pay for it yourself. If you want hospitals, pay for them yourself. If you want painkillers to allow you to move after an injury, pay for them yourself. And so on. Why should pacifists be forced to pay taxes to support a military which goes against their own beliefs?
I actually think this is a really good idea here, we should find a way for pacifists to have their own country, so they don't have to fund a military to participate in wars at all. That country would last JUST long enough to gain a tiny bit of wealth and resources that one of the more... volatile nations on the planet would pave it over and scavenge anything of value. I feel if someone wants to refuse to pay for a service they take advantage/enjoy the benefits of, then those advantages/benefits should be denied to them. Does Britain have a clause where you can refuse to pay taxes on services you don't want/support?
Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
Increasingly, it looks like Republicans simply had no real plan whatsoever on how to repeal the ACA this year. They didn't need one all these years because they knew all along every attempt was just political theater doomed to fail. And once Trump was their nominee, they figured they were going to have another four years of that same political theatre.
But Trump won.
And now they have to actually do something. And they're acting like someone who suddenly decides to sell their car for the money to buy something shiny they want, only to realize the next day that they now have no way to get to work.
BigWaaagh wrote: Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
Rosebuddy wrote: How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.
Yeah, maybe it seems pedantic to pick you up on 'a decade' but this is a really good example of where vague thinking produces terrible political analysis.
"a decade" means we are talking about the 2006 to 2016 series of political elections (2017 and it's almost one week of no elections doesn't count). In 2006 Democrats had one of the most historic wins in the history of the party. They won a majority of governorships, took the House of Reps, and won 6 new senate seats to take the senate, including winning senate races in Missouri and Montana). In 2008 they extended those gains, took the presidency, retained the house and extended their senate majority to a filibuster proof 60 votes (as long as the independents came along for the party). Describing that as a massive political loss is utterly clueless - you are in fact talking about one of the most dominant four year periods of Democratic election results in the history of US politics.
So what you're actually talking about with the Democratic decline is a six year period - 2010 to 2016. But even that is a fairly mixed story. The mid-terms in were real bad for Democrats, in both 2010 and 2014, they got proper thumped and had really bad turn out. But in between that Obama's second term saw Democrats not only retain the presidency, but also win a majority of House of Reps seats (though the house remained Republican because of the districting problems), and actually gain senate seats.
That brings us to the last election, the 2016 presidential election. There will be books written about what happened there, and maybe we won't ever know. Democrats certainly showed a much lower level of enthusiasm, they not only lacked enery for Clinton but also for the Democratic cause, as their voting down-ticket also declined. Republicans on the other hand were energized enough to turn out and vote, even when their candidate was Donald Trump. But even within that the results are mixed, as Trump won by taking a lot of states by small margins, and in the house and senate Democrats gained slightly. It was still a big defeat considering their opponent is the worst candidate in living memory, but the post election stories of massacre are utterly ignorant.
So, once we actually add some facts to your claim, what we see is there hasn't been any kind of decade long decline at all. What there's been is a decline in the energy base of the party that holds the presidency. This was no more shocking when it happened to Republicans from 2006 to 2008 (it took longer to kick due to the rally around the flag effect post-911), to Democrats 1994 to 2000, to Republicans from 1986 to 1992 (the effect there was masked when Dukakis fumbled strong advantages in 1988 presidential election).
Which makes your conclusion of 'going through' the Democrats laughable, to be frank. Everytime a political party loses an election people call for the death of the party, and it is always wrong. What will return Democrats to a position of strength will be the same master strategy that's always returned the minority party to power - continue to exist and benefit as people get pissed off with the party in power. No matter how well a government is run, no matter how favourable the headwinds the party in power will bleed support - the opposition is energised by all the bad stuff you're doing, and your own base gets frustrated that you're not doing enough stuff fast enough.
And that natural advantage democrats just gained by losing power will be boosted because what Republicans want to do is incredibly unpopular, even among their own base. They'll get their conservative SC, but besides that it will be tax cuts for the wealthy and ending healthcare coverage for 20 million people (with a vague promise to put something else in place). These are things that are woefully unpopular among Republican voters, let alone the rest of the country.
tldr - your socialist revolution isn't happening. Democrats might move left due to a natural effect of a more energised youth vote and an end to Clintonian tri-angulation, but that will be unrelated to the almost inevitable Democratic gains you will see under a Trump presidency.
Verviedi wrote: Somewhat agreed. The Democrats must learn that it is impossible to compromise with the deluded. The modern GOP is the party that wants everything, burns the house down when it doesn't get what it wants, and then blames the Democrats for the fire. And their supporters believe it. Democrats must go scorched earth, run more candidates in every election, refuse to compromise, just like the GOP, and attack Republicans in the same ways that Republicans attack them. It's been proven that the high road doesn't work. The GOP suppresses minority votes and gerrymanders heavily. The Democrats cannot tolerate that. Attack it. HATE it.
And if they succeed and finally get a majority, they can justify it, as it was for the greater good. Time to go Full Machiavelli.
The last thing the US needs is two terrible political parties. Democrats certainly have to change up their game but that doesn't mean going down the same path as the Republicans. Remember the Republicans didn't just go crazy overnight. It started with a commitment that the most important thing was winning and keeping Democrats out of power, and from the decline of the party to a collection of ideologues began. We don't need Democrats to become just as bad, and there were signs of the during the primary*.
What Democrats need to do right now is simple. Just keep talking about Republican policy. The real challenge is what they do when they win back power. The utter failure of the Bush presidency faded from the minds of voters very quickly, this time they need to make sure when Trump collapses that it isn't written off as just a Trump thing. They need to show that feth ups like Bush and Trump are where the Republican party is now, and will be until they massively reform.
*Not saying Sanders is as bad, because he isn't. But there were elements of his campaign, not even necessarily from Sanders himself, where the cause was beyond pesky facts, such as his economic plan and the insistence that they were cheated out of an election where they got 10% less votes because something, something super-delegates.
whembly wrote: In a weird flip, I see it quite likely that the Democrats would take the house, where GOP barely retains Senate in 2018.
I doubt it. The house is just too thoroughly gerrymandered and generally biased in favor of republicans. It would take a borderline miracle for the democrats to flip that many seats, especially in a midterm election where the democrats have done poorly in their past few attempts.
whembly wrote: ...and don't forget seb, that the Democrats are facing leadership issues. They need new blood stat!
That's true. Really the two things go hand in hand - a rising political tide brings in new faces. Most of the major public faces of the Republican party, Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Ryan, they all came on the scene in or around 2010, either as part of the Tea Party or benefiting from its wake. And Trump makred his return to politics through birtherism at this time.
Something similar may well happen with Democrats, but we can't just assume it. And even then it makes for a tight timeline - win in 2018, build national profile in two years. Republicans couldn't do that from 2008 to 2012, the primary that year was a weird split of very new faces and very old faces (Gingrich!), with the nomination eventually going to Romney, who sat between those two factions.
In a weird flip, I see it quite likely that the Democrats would take the house, where GOP barely retains Senate in 2018.
Democrats will need to win the vote in the House by a lot to take control. They managed that in 2006 but by that stage Bush was crazy unpopular. Can Trump get that unpopular in just two years? Well if anyone can Trump can, but it would still be a crazy thing.
I agree on the senate. Democrats need to gain two seats and while that doesn't sound like much, I can't see where those gains are coming from. The issue is that it will be the 2012 senate cycle up for grabs, which only has 8 Republican seats in it, and they're all very safe. There were only two close Republican wins last time around, Nevada and Arizona, the third closes race believe it or not was Cruz in Texas, and he won by 15 points. At the same time Democrats will be defending five seats they won last time by 6 points or less.
So the way I see it there's a few possible outcomes;
1) Democrats gain lose the vote total in the house by about the same amount, and make little no headway in seats. They gain no senate seats or maybe even lose a couple. This can happen if it turns out that the recent Democratic failure to turn out in mid-terms is not due to holding the presidency, but something deeper in the party. If true, this doesn't mean anything for the 2020 election, but it does mean Republicans can count on only ever being two years away from power. It is a sign of a malaise in Democratic politics that is beyond Trump. It would make it near impossible for Democrats to ever develop policy, and continue to hurt their development of a leadership pool.
2) Democrats win the vote total in the house, but not enough to actually take the house. They gain nothing in the senate. Power remains with Republicans, but there is evidence of the normal movement away from the party of the president. This is a bad sign for Trump because his win was wafer-thin in 2016, he can't give up any votes at all.
3) Democrats win the vote total in the house, by a lot. Democrats either win control of the house, or they gain the two senate seats needed to retake the senate, maybe even both. This is full panic stations for Republicans. Not because losing control of the house or senate is uncommon for the party controlling the presidency, but because it is unlikely that Republicans will ever have structural advantages like 2018 ever again. If they can't keep control with those advantages, then things are looking really grim for 2020.
I'm not going to put any kind of probabilities on any of those three results. We've got two years to stare at poll results and 538 before those elections, plenty of time to declare we know what's going to happen
whembly wrote: I'm sure Manchu can eloquently chime in, but more boyz are not harmed in this...
I don't think you really understand what Christian Evangelicals are trying to introduce to the education system, but the guy is right, Creationism literally has no place in a SCIENCE class room. It is anti-science by definition.
We need to be careful with this term creationism. In the broadest sense, we're talking about a belief that God is the Creator. That of course is a basic tenant of Catholic faith and of all Christianity (third clause of the Nicene Creed) - but there is a more particular meaning of that term denoting opposition to the theory of evolution, and that meaning is simply not current with Catholics generally, from the cardinals in Rome right through to lay people in every part of the world. The creationism that Catholics universally accept is not an alternative to evolutionary theory generally much less a buzzword signalling some agenda of opposition to evolutionary theory.
Peregrine wrote: I doubt it. The house is just too thoroughly gerrymandered and generally biased in favor of republicans. It would take a borderline miracle for the democrats to flip that many seats, especially in a midterm election where the democrats have done poorly in their past few attempts.
Democrats last regained the House in a mid-term, in 2006. Even with the gerrymandered headwind, Bush was just so unpopular that Democrats won anyway. Will Trump be as unpopular after two years as Bush was after 6? That's one question.
The second question is whether Democrats poor showing in mid-terms has been due to them being less disciplined and less organised than Republicans, or is it because the party that doesn't hold the presidency has tended to do better in mid-terms in recent history? There's arguments both ways. 2018 will tell us a lot about the state of both parties.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Increasingly, it looks like Republicans simply had no real plan whatsoever on how to repeal the ACA this year. They didn't need one all these years because they knew all along every attempt was just political theater doomed to fail. And once Trump was their nominee, they figured they were going to have another four years of that same political theatre.
But Trump won.
And now they have to actually do something. And they're acting like someone who suddenly decides to sell their car for the money to buy something shiny they want, only to realize the next day that they now have no way to get to work.
Agreed. The GOP's platform has more or less been 'oppose the Democrats' with little else for a decade, only getting worse and worse each year. They no longer have an ability to actually govern because in addition to being 10 years out of practice they are now as detached from reality as GW was in 2015. They simply cannot produce an agenda that will function because they perceive a nation that is very, very different from what actually exists. Whembly's spin of facts seems near-completely rational by comparison. I mean we are talking about a party which still believes, actually believes, that cutting taxes on the rich will somehow help the poor despite an overabundance of evidence otherwise.
The GOP has its head planted so firmly up it's own ass that the only thing they eat is their own crap.
tldr - your socialist revolution isn't happening. Democrats might move left due to a natural effect of a more energised youth vote and an end to Clintonian tri-angulation, but that will be unrelated to the almost inevitable Democratic gains you will see under a Trump presidency.
The Democrats had a chance to turn left. They picked Clinton instead. So much for energising the youth vote. Faith in them as a remotely leftist option is gone and the entire controlling caste will have to be cleared out completely before anything can change with the party. You're talking about people whose main understanding of "opposition" is to calmly invite a fascist to respectfully follow the rules and hope that some clown will totally eviscerate him on TV when he ignores them. Real leftism and not simply the veneer of it is a greater enemy to the Democratic Party than Trump is. Clintonian triangulation was and is the party. Their first instinct will be to move rightwards because they can't stomach leftism. They lack the ability and desire to energise masses of new voters because they aren't a real political party. They're a club for lawyers and Harvard grads to build a sweet career.
*Not saying Sanders is as bad, because he isn't. But there were elements of his campaign, not even necessarily from Sanders himself, where the cause was beyond pesky facts, such as his economic plan and the insistence that they were cheated out of an election where they got 10% less votes because something, something super-delegates.
The DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Thousands of voters were purged from the rolls. You keep going on about facts but pick and choose the ones that allow you to think that politics as usual are possible. Here's a fact for you: Clinton lost to Trump. The most qualified, most electable candidate who was so guaranteed to win because the Democrats had a computer that told them The Facts that she didn't even campaign in key states, lost to Donald J. Trump.
And in the face of this you insist on more liberalism.
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democrats had a chance to turn left. They picked Clinton instead.
Heh. Yeah, political parties only ever get one chance to tack more to the left or right. That's why political parties only ever last a decade or so, before being replaced by something that better suits the politics of internet posters living in other countries.
I mean, hell, imagine a world in which political parties could move in direction, then move in another direction at another point in time. Or even crazier, considering that a political party is made up of millions of people organised in to large and small groups within the party, consider each trying to move the party in different ways at different times, with a result that the party is at all times pushing in all directions, with the most electorally successful elements have the greatest impact on party direction? Why if such a crazy thing were to
Clintonian triangulation was and is the party.
Clintonian triangulation was a particular variation on centrism, a strategy both parties have found success with at different times in US history. The idea that Democrats always undertook Clintonian triangulation is just fething staggering. I mean, did you stop to think about why it was called Clintonian? Did you think Bill Clinton started his campaign in '92, and was just tickled pink that this supposed strategy that "was and is the Democrats" shared his name? Must have been a good omen!
Their first instinct will be to move rightwards because they can't stomach leftism. They lack the ability and desire to energise masses of new voters because they aren't a real political party. They're a club for lawyers and Harvard grads to build a sweet career.
Your sweeping generalisations continue. I spent time and effort taking apart your total piffle about a decade of Democratic decline, and after seeing that you just nod, and move on to this new bit of nonsense.
Inside players posted in emails that they supported the inside player. Breaking fething news. Note the collusion you talk about is alleged, there's no sign of them actually doing anything to shift votes.
Thousands of voters were purged from the rolls.
Sanders lost by millions.
You keep going on about facts but pick and choose the ones that allow you to think that politics as usual are possible. Here's a fact for you: Clinton lost to Trump. The most qualified, most electable candidate who was so guaranteed to win because the Democrats had a computer that told them The Facts that she didn't even campaign in key states, lost to Donald J. Trump.
Clinton lost to Trump. Sanders isn't Clinton therefore Sanders beats Trump.
There it is people. The same piece of not logic I've been batting down over and over again, from the same poster, for months. And here on my first day back from holiday I'm doing it again.
And in the face of this you insist on more liberalism.
I'm not insisting on anything. Stop making up random nonsense.
sebster wrote: There it is people. The same piece of not logic I've been batting down over and over again, from the same poster, for months. And here on my first day back from holiday I'm doing it again.
Yeah, that's true. And FWIW, I respect your perseverance. You're a better man than I for trying.
BigWaaagh wrote: Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
Clinton lost to Trump. Sanders isn't Clinton therefore Sanders beats Trump.
There it is people. The same piece of not logic I've been batting down over and over again, from the same poster, for months. And here on my first day back from holiday I'm doing it again.
Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did. The Democrats lost a couple of million voters not to Trump nor to third parties but to the option of not voting at all. The doubts over Clinton were there from day 1 and her total lack of desire to acknowledge them felled her.
In a country where people are growing more fearful for their futures day by day, the Democratic leadership thought it was a great idea to push for the candidate whose retort to her opponent's core message was that America already was great because America is good. The party that became the Clinton machine has to be reborn if it wants to be relevant and even then it must clear its debt to the American peoples before it can be trusted. Considering that the party spent the time after their loss blaming Russia and raging about Berniebros, I do not think it will ever become a useful party.
Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?
And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.
Compel wrote: Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?
And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.
It has been claimed that they voted for like 93% the same bills and such. This puts each thing they voted for on the same level. This is a problem because two people who vote for nine suggestions to serve fresh fruit in workplaces (strong orchard lobby I suppose) and then differ on whether there should be a separation of church and state aren't 90% the same. And that's without considering that voting is the last step in a process of writing and supporting bills. Not everything makes it to the vote.
Rosebuddy wrote: Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did.
And, has been pointed out over and over again when this has been mentioned in the past, those poll numbers are not reliable. Because Sanders was in a clear losing position early on the republican party focused most of its efforts on attacking Clinton and put very little into attacking Sanders. If Sanders had won the nomination he would have become the primary target, and it's very likely that his numbers would have dropped. After all, "SOCIALISM IS TREASON" has been a very successful attack in the past, and the republican party would have been broadcasting ad after ad of Sanders saying "I am a socialist".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: It has been claimed that they voted for like 93% the same bills and such. This puts each thing they voted for on the same level. This is a problem because two people who vote for nine suggestions to serve fresh fruit in workplaces (strong orchard lobby I suppose) and then differ on whether there should be a separation of church and state aren't 90% the same. And that's without considering that voting is the last step in a process of writing and supporting bills. Not everything makes it to the vote.
Ok then, provide the evidence of major issues that Clinton and Sanders disagreed on. All you're likely to find is the war stuff, other than that the only real difference between the two is in the details. For example, Sanders might have argued for a higher minimum wage increase than Clinton, but they both acknowledged the existence of a problem and wanted an increase.
"Just" the war stuff is pretty major by itself but there's positions on universal healthcare and on Wall Street as well. Clinton saying there will never, ever be good healthcare and taking large sums to hold speeches to her donors where she tells them you got to have a private and a public position on things doesn't do good for her credibility.
And, has been pointed out over and over again when this has been mentioned in the past, those poll numbers are not reliable. Because Sanders was in a clear losing position early on the republican party focused most of its efforts on attacking Clinton and put very little into attacking Sanders. If Sanders had won the nomination he would have become the primary target, and it's very likely that his numbers would have dropped. After all, "SOCIALISM IS TREASON" has been a very successful attack in the past, and the republican party would have been broadcasting ad after ad of Sanders saying "I am a socialist".
Sanders is just a democratic socialist and the view on socialism is changing with people's circumstances. If people like Sanders and what he says and everyone says he's a socialist they'll figure that perhaps socialism is pretty ok. Any scaremongering could be counteracted by mobilising demographics that don't vote, for example the poor. The political establishment wailing that Trump wasn't like them at all didn't hurt his chances.
Rosebuddy wrote: "Just" the war stuff is pretty major by itself but there's positions on universal healthcare and on Wall Street as well. Clinton saying there will never, ever be good healthcare and taking large sums to hold speeches to her donors where she tells them you got to have a private and a public position on things doesn't do good for her credibility.
This is what I mean about Clinton being a somewhat more realistic version of Sanders. You say there's a difference on healthcare, but it's not like Clinton was part of the angry mob trying to repeal Obamacare. She favored health care reform that would help the same people Sanders is trying to help, just by working within the existing system and accomplishing what can be done now instead of trying to fix the system all at once. And, after Obama's failure to get universal healthcare done, we have to be skeptical that Sanders could have accomplished his more ambitious goals and not just ended up settling for something like Clinton's plan to get it through congress.
Sanders is just a democratic socialist and the view on socialism is changing with people's circumstances. If people like Sanders and what he says and everyone says he's a socialist they'll figure that perhaps socialism is pretty ok. Any scaremongering could be counteracted by mobilising demographics that don't vote, for example the poor. The political establishment wailing that Trump wasn't like them at all didn't hurt his chances.
None of that matters. The simple fact is that lots of people in the US hate everything associated with the word "socialism", and the republican party has videos of Sanders saying "I'm a socialist". You can't just assume that the democrats would magically be successful at countering the attack.
And the "socialist" thing is just one example of how they could have attacked Sanders. We know Sanders had vulnerabilities with things like his economic plan, where the numbers behind it were shaky at best and open to attack. In the real world these vulnerabilities weren't exploited because the republican party spent all of their effort on preparing for Clinton, but in a hypothetical world where Sanders wins he becomes a target. And he has to defend himself against the republican campaign ads and fact checkers and such saying "Sanders' numbers are fiction, how can you trust him to lead our economic recovery?". It's certainly possible that he could have successfully overcome the attacks and still won the election, but it's incredibly misleading to talk about his poll numbers in the absence of any serious attempt to attack him.
On a side note, I'll never understand the American distaste for social healthcare.
The main argument I've seen against is not wanting to pay for someone else's cover.
Except.....that's exactly how all insurance actually works. Ultimately an Insurance Contract is a gamble between both parties - with the underwriter gambling you'll never need to use your policy, allowing them to keep all the premiums paid.
Biggest difference? With social healthcare, there's not someone actively looking for ways to decline your claim.
But, to each their own. I've lived my life with the NHS, and it's saved my life on at least four occasions, so there's definite bias. Through work, I now have comprehensive private cover. And that's is something I feel all those who can afford should take out - you get a faster level of care, and the NHS can then see to those who aren't so lucky.
A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce after all.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On a side note, I'll never understand the American distaste for social healthcare.
The main argument I've seen against is not wanting to pay for someone else's cover.
Except.....that's exactly how all insurance actually works. Ultimately an Insurance Contract is a gamble between both parties - with the underwriter gambling you'll never need to use your policy, allowing them to keep all the premiums paid.
Biggest difference? With social healthcare, there's not someone actively looking for ways to decline your claim.
But, to each their own. I've lived my life with the NHS, and it's saved my life on at least four occasions, so there's definite bias. Through work, I now have comprehensive private cover. And that's is something I feel all those who can afford should take out - you get a faster level of care, and the NHS can then see to those who aren't so lucky.
A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce after all.
Agreed. For me, that's always been the tragedy about America - this great nation that suffers from a gak healthcare service.
It's not even me being biased about the NHS - there are so many other good models they could copy or adopt: Canada, most of Western Europe etc etc
They have the money, the skill, and the expertise to do this, but sadly, blind ideology, and people wanting the status quo maintained because it makes them richer at their fellow citizen's expense, would continue to rule the day.
That article I read a few months before the November election was a real eye opener.
In rural Virginia, volunteers set up tents and give out free healthcare for the weekend, the volunteers being doctors, dentists, etc
poor people come from miles around, and the contrast is so stark.
The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
It's as if they don't look at the long term, at all.
Consider this situation.
Person of working age, say mid-50's, does their hip in over their life. Walking is painful. They can't stand for long. Driving it right out.
But, because the condition developed over time, their health insurer declines the claim.
Person has to leave their chosen vocation, taking a tax payer out of the loop, and leaving them on Social Security.
But it gets worse! Because they're of limited mobility, family members have to help out - this impacts their ability to work, especially if one winds up doing it full time.
That's two people on state handouts for the foreseeable.
Or, the state coughs up for a hip replacement. Two tax payers return to the workforce.
Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.
It is expensive, especially when first set up (it can take a while for the increased workforce benefits to be felt, economically speaking) but in the long term it is so utterly worth doing.
And it's not just physical injuries. Consider Epilepsy. My Mum has pretty severe Epilepsy. If she didn't take her pills one day, she will have a fit. And if she has a fit, bang goes the driving license. Which again, restricts her work options. But being a UK citizen, she gets her pills on the NHS, and for my entire life (36 years, fact fans) she's never had a fit. At all.
Now. Make Mumsie pay for those out of her own pocket, because clearly a debilitating neurological disorder is all her own fault, and not just horrifically bad luck? Well, she could probably still get them. BUT OH NO! Here comes someone like Martin 'waste of skin' Shrkelli. And he's just arbitrarily jacked up the pill price!
All that money on medicine just flows towards the one industry, which from my understanding tends to be quite centralised, and, uh.....highly tax efficient.
If the state picks up the tab centrally, there's actually less of that nonsense. Collective bargaining is ace.
And the money the sufferer saves by not having to meet the cost out their own pocket? (again, pre-existing medical condition, good luck getting private insurance) Well, that's money in their pocket. Which will most likely be spent in the local area. Supporting local businesses, local jobs, local economy.
It's as if they don't look at the long term, at all.
Consider this situation.
Person of working age, say mid-50's, does their hip in over their life. Walking is painful. They can't stand for long. Driving it right out.
But, because the condition developed over time, their health insurer declines the claim.
Person has to leave their chosen vocation, taking a tax payer out of the loop, and leaving them on Social Security.
But it gets worse! Because they're of limited mobility, family members have to help out - this impacts their ability to work, especially if one winds up doing it full time.
That's two people on state handouts for the foreseeable.
Or, the state coughs up for a hip replacement. Two tax payers return to the workforce.
Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.
It is expensive, especially when first set up (it can take a while for the increased workforce benefits to be felt, economically speaking) but in the long term it is so utterly worth doing.
And it's not just physical injuries. Consider Epilepsy. My Mum has pretty severe Epilepsy. If she didn't take her pills one day, she will have a fit. And if she has a fit, bang goes the driving license. Which again, restricts her work options. But being a UK citizen, she gets her pills on the NHS, and for my entire life (36 years, fact fans) she's never had a fit. At all.
Now. Make Mumsie pay for those out of her own pocket, because clearly a debilitating neurological disorder is all her own fault, and not just horrifically bad luck? Well, she could probably still get them. BUT OH NO! Here comes someone like Martin 'waste of skin' Shrkelli. And he's just arbitrarily jacked up the pill price!
All that money on medicine just flows towards the one industry, which from my understanding tends to be quite centralised, and, uh.....highly tax efficient.
If the state picks up the tab centrally, there's actually less of that nonsense. Collective bargaining is ace.
And the money the sufferer saves by not having to meet the cost out their own pocket? (again, pre-existing medical condition, good luck getting private insurance) Well, that's money in their pocket. Which will most likely be spent in the local area. Supporting local businesses, local jobs, local economy.
Social healthcare just makes sense.
Exactly.
You would think that a nation like the USA, which is so good at making money, would understand this.
You can give people free heart medicine that costs pennies, or you can wait until something goes wrong and then have to pay a team of surgeons thousands in order to fix it...
No brainer for me...
That's what I like about the NHS when they do their vaccination programs and give out free medicine, because it is proven to save money and they can buy the stuff in bulk, which makes it even cheaper.
But as I said, those who can afford private medical really should do so.
Take as much strain and pressure off the NHS as you personally can. It's there for everybody, but try not to get in the way of those who solely depend upon it.
And imagine a pharmaceutical company trying to cook the books when it's biggest customer is the state....you say you made no profit, and only took in £1billion......but our order books from the NHS kinda show we paid you £2billion....do you think we're daft?.
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
We don't look in our neighbors bowl to make sure he has enough, we make sure the damn chump doesn't have more than us!
Joking aside, my country sadly makes me sick with the way we run things like a gak show. Our infastructure is falling apart, our healthcare is a joke, and our education system is a farce that teaches mythology over history.
But hey, lets just keep screaming USA at the top of our lungs and pretend we're not a damn joke.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
Citation needed.
Also, consider it from this angle: How many people throughout the years may have been put off leaving their job to start their own business due to the impact which losing their employers healthcare coverage would have on their family? Universal healthcare coverage removes that risk, so your people are more free to pursue whatever goals in life they may have and to better themselves, rather than having to stick with a job because it has the healthcare coverage they need.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
That's the beauty of state funded healthcare, it's paid for from central taxation. So as long as they're earning, they ARE buying it on their dime. It's not free.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
Not having a go at you, but your statement and statements like that, highlight the two great tragedies about the USA IMO
1. The rich, the elites, who have rigged the game and pulled up the drawbridge behind them, have convinced vast swathes of society that if you work hard, then you too can have what we have...
In Britain, we have millions of people in jobs, and they're barely above the poverty line, and I imagine the same is true in the USA.
Hard work does not always ensure success. My elderly father is the hardest working person I have ever know, and what does he have to show for 50+ years of hard work and working his finger to the bone, quite literally, as he's lost two fingers in industrial accidents? Riches? A Castle? His own Trump Towers?
Hell no. He has two false hips, two less fingers, and a set of dodgy knees for his old age...
2. The people who are effected most, the people who have the most to gain, listen to and believe frauds and fakes who have convinced them its in their own interest to have gak poor health services, roads, schools, etc etc
and they vote for these people every 4 years
I'm not calling for full blown socialism to flood the USA and there is nothing wrong with aiming high, but 99.9% of people don't make it that far and never will.
But it's not beyond the richest country on Earth, that is full of smart people, capable people, to give people decent jobs, decent healthcare, and ultimately, a good standard of living for them and their children...
And yes, I know Britain is just as bad...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.
Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
Not having a go at you, but your statement and statements like that, highlight the two great tragedies about the USA IMO
1. The rich, the elites, who have rigged the game and pulled up the drawbridge behind them, have convinced vast swathes of society that if you work hard, then you too can have what we have...
In Britain, we have millions of people in jobs, and they're barely above the poverty line, and I imagine the same is true in the USA.
Hard work does not always ensure success. My elderly father is the hardest working person I have ever know, and what does he have to show for 50+ years of hard work and working his finger to the bone, quite literally, as he's lost two fingers in industrial accidents? Riches? A Castle? His own Trump Towers?
Hell no. He has two false hips, two less fingers, and a set of dodgy knees for his old age...
2. The people who are effected most, the people who have the most to gain, listen to and believe frauds and fakes who have convinced them its in their own interest to have gak poor health services, roads, schools, etc etc
and they vote for these people every 4 years
I'm not calling for full blown socialism to flood the USA and there is nothing wrong with aiming high, but 99.9% of people don't make it that far and never will.
But it's not beyond the richest country on Earth, that is full of smart people, capable people, to give people decent jobs, decent healthcare, and ultimately, a good standard of living for them and their children...
And yes, I know Britain is just as bad...
Do you wanna know the irony about the state of US healthcare?
It's damn near the social model of the UK or even Canada.
This is one of, if not the most, heavily regulated industry in the US. The difference is where & when healthcare transactions are paid for...
'Tis why I'm an advocate of two things:
a) we don't need to gut everything to go to NHS/Canadian Medicare model... just nationalize the INSURANCE side of the industry, state Medicaid funding and change the requisite tax laws to fund it to be modeled as the Canadian single-payor system.
b) more importantly, especially before 'a)' above is done, mandate transparency at EVERY STAGE of each delivered healthcare transactions. Because, right now, it's nothing more than a massive shell game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.
Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?
He didn't have an official role... he was simply a member of the transition team. I suspects he had enough of the transition team. Even Gen. Mattis is getting frustrated, as he wanted some qualified people at the DoD, but who were #NeverTrumpers... and the transition team are being petulant asses about it.
Rosebuddy wrote: Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did.
There is a thing stuck to my shoe that is more valuable than May polls comparing Trump to Sanders. You keep forgetting, every fething time we have this conversation, that Sanders was always losing that campaign, and never got one second of attention from the conservative rage machine.
I mean look at the ludicrous bs they got people to believe were Clinton scandals. You think they wouldn't have done twice the job with an actual socialist?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?
And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.
That's exactly it. There's a lot of people saying Clinton needed a different, more progessive set of policies. They're missing that there was almost no policy debate through the entire campaign. Right now there are Trump voters giving interviews saying they didn't realise they might lose their ACA healthcare if Trump repeals ACA like he said it would. In that environment the idea that Sanders would triumph where Clinton didn't because he was promising the reach a $15 minimum wage sooner is laughable.
Manchu wrote: We need to be careful with this term creationism. In the broadest sense, we're talking about a belief that God is the Creator. That of course is a basic tenant of Catholic faith and of all Christianity (third clause of the Nicene Creed) - but there is a more particular meaning of that term denoting opposition to the theory of evolution, and that meaning is simply not current with Catholics generally, from the cardinals in Rome right through to lay people in every part of the world. The creationism that Catholics universally accept is not an alternative to evolutionary theory generally much less a buzzword signalling some agenda of opposition to evolutionary theory.
While that may be true for Catholics, they are a traditionally vilified group in the US, and thus not really ones to push this sort of policy to begin with... And I think literally everyone on this forum knows exactly what sort of creationism is being talked about. We know that it is the protestant majority pushing for their YE views to be taught as science.
That's exactly it. There's a lot of people saying Clinton needed a different, more progessive set of policies. They're missing that there was almost no policy debate through the entire campaign. Right now there are Trump voters giving interviews saying they didn't realise they might lose their ACA healthcare if Trump repeals ACA like he said it would. In that environment the idea that Sanders would triumph where Clinton didn't because he was promising the reach a $15 minimum wage sooner is laughable.
You make an excellent point here... but I don't think Sanders would've triumphed because of policy... I think he would have triumphed for focusing on the right people during the campaign. I've seen him holding events around the country even after the primaries/election, and he's continued focusing on the 99% of the population. I think Sanders would've campaigned in the Michigans, Wisconsins, and other heavily blue collar areas that Clinton neglected because she had already "won" them historically.
Rosebuddy wrote: "Just" the war stuff is pretty major by itself but there's positions on universal healthcare and on Wall Street as well. Clinton saying there will never, ever be good healthcare and taking large sums to hold speeches to her donors where she tells them you got to have a private and a public position on things doesn't do good for her credibility.
See, and here you are buying in to a Republican smear on Clinton, continuing to be oblivious to what would have happened to Sanders.
Clinton was discussing the film Lincoln and how it showed how politics is done. You know the won that portrays Lincoln as a hero who achieved great things in the complex world of politics. Yeah, that's how cynical Clinton's view is here - she recognises that getting something worthwhile done in politics requires making deals, as well as keeping to a clear vision. But of course her comment got leaked, presented all cut up and full of editorializing to make it sound terrible, and the conservative noise machine made it out like it scandalous or meaningful in any way. The twist was that it wasn't just the normal Republican base chowing in to that nonsense, there was also a collection of still bitter Sanders' supporters now ready to believe every bit of nonsense about Clinton.
This is what changes depending on who's in the Whitehouse, by the way. In 2000 guys like Rosebuddy were everywhere. They were so keen to prove how enlightened they were by hammering Gore. A couple of terms of Bush and those guys learnt, they learnt hard - politics isn't about getting your perfect unicorn candidate, it's about getting a good enough candidate, especially when the other guy is a total disaster. I think some new people are going to learn that hard won lesson once again.
Rosebuddy wrote: Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did.
There is a thing stuck to my shoe that is more valuable than May polls comparing Trump to Sanders. You keep forgetting, every fething time we have this conversation, that Sanders was always losing that campaign, and never got one second of attention from the conservative rage machine.
I mean look at the ludicrous bs they got people to believe were Clinton scandals. You think they wouldn't have done twice the job with an actual socialist?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?
And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.
That's exactly it. There's a lot of people saying Clinton needed a different, more progessive set of policies. They're missing that there was almost no policy debate through the entire campaign. Right now there are Trump voters giving interviews saying they didn't realise they might lose their ACA healthcare if Trump repeals ACA like he said it would. In that environment the idea that Sanders would triumph where Clinton didn't because he was promising the reach a $15 minimum wage sooner is laughable.
Trump voters worried about losing their ACA?
What can you do? It's why I love and hate the human race in equal measure.
Here in the UK, we have people like that as well.
Conservative government cuts flood defence funding, people's homes get flooded, those same people elect those that cut flood defence funding...
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
It's not free.
It's free at the point of use. Everyone pays in, and everyone can take out as and when it becomes necessary. Here's the four things that nearly killed me, all sorted by the NHS.... mum had pre-eclampsia. So I was induced. Shortly after birth, a birth defect was discovered. In short, my stomach had no plug hole. Fast forward 14 years, and my arm goes through a window. Blood everywhere. Stitched up, booked in for physio. I still lack some feeling in my left hand, but at least I'm not dead. Two years later! Appendix ruptures during an exam - mmmm. Peritonitis. All very much life threatening issues - none of them self or lifestyle inflicted. If it hadn't been for the NHS, I'd either be dead already, or Mum and Dad would have a ridiculous mountain of debt.
How can you expect one to better one's self when one has a debilitating, but easily treated condition, but one that prevents the obtaining of a job, or being able to afford the necessary medical care to rectify? Do you want a healthy, well cared for workforce with little excuse to slack off due to ill health?
II genuinely don't mean to sound rude, but people need a better understanding of how an underwriter comes to a premium. The biggest thing! It's not just your lifestyle. If you're a fitness fanatic, and seriously take care of yourself, that matters naught if you have relatives who have bum tickets from a lifetime of say, over-eating. That's taken into account. Your zip-code is taken into account. The ever rising cost of pills, treatments and that is taken into account - because its their profit and not your well being that comes first.
I work in insurance these days (well, kind of. Can't say what my job is because we're asked no to do so, but I do have an Inquisitorial Mandate. Which is cool!), and I see lots of issues where an Insurer has dodged a claim they had no right dodging. In most cases, I'll help ensure things are put right. But in very sad cases, the policyholder passes away before things are sorted out. Sometimes from the very condition they were claiming for.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
Not having a go at you, but your statement and statements like that, highlight the two great tragedies about the USA IMO
1. The rich, the elites, who have rigged the game and pulled up the drawbridge behind them, have convinced vast swathes of society that if you work hard, then you too can have what we have...
In Britain, we have millions of people in jobs, and they're barely above the poverty line, and I imagine the same is true in the USA.
Hard work does not always ensure success. My elderly father is the hardest working person I have ever know, and what does he have to show for 50+ years of hard work and working his finger to the bone, quite literally, as he's lost two fingers in industrial accidents? Riches? A Castle? His own Trump Towers?
Hell no. He has two false hips, two less fingers, and a set of dodgy knees for his old age...
2. The people who are effected most, the people who have the most to gain, listen to and believe frauds and fakes who have convinced them its in their own interest to have gak poor health services, roads, schools, etc etc
and they vote for these people every 4 years
I'm not calling for full blown socialism to flood the USA and there is nothing wrong with aiming high, but 99.9% of people don't make it that far and never will.
But it's not beyond the richest country on Earth, that is full of smart people, capable people, to give people decent jobs, decent healthcare, and ultimately, a good standard of living for them and their children...
And yes, I know Britain is just as bad...
Do you wanna know the irony about the state of US healthcare?
It's damn near the social model of the UK or even Canada.
This is one of, if not the most, heavily regulated industry in the US. The difference is where & when healthcare transactions are paid for...
'Tis why I'm an advocate of two things:
a) we don't need to gut everything to go to NHS/Canadian Medicare model... just nationalize the INSURANCE side of the industry, state Medicaid funding and change the requisite tax laws to fund it to be modeled as the Canadian single-payor system.
b) more importantly, especially before 'a)' above is done, mandate transparency at EVERY STAGE of each delivered healthcare transactions. Because, right now, it's nothing more than a massive shell game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.
Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?
He didn't have an official role... he was simply a member of the transition team. I suspects he had enough of the transition team. Even Gen. Mattis is getting frustrated, as he wanted some qualified people at the DoD, but who were #NeverTrumpers... and the transition team are being petulant asses about it.
Your healthcare points I agree with, but unlikely to see the light of day, because they'll never see the light of day under Trump.
As for your point on General Mattis, he'll probably walk at some time as well.
The presidential election masked a lot of infighting because the GOP had an enemy to focus on, but now, flush with victory, and dominance, the infighting will return.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.
Frazzled wrote: Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.
Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?
Maybe it's similar to how you can know an election is rigged before anyone has even voted?
I don't believe for a minute the US election was rigged. That belief gives too much credit and importance to the CIA, which is in it's own words, is woefully incompetent.
Somewhere, deep inside Langley, is somebody who believes that the South can still win the Vietnam war...
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
What historical program are you talking about? When has the US ever provided a free resource unchecked to all who turned up, and just hoped that people who could afford to pay went and did so? There's always been income limits, needs testing etc.
You're talking like you're coming from some position of hard won experience, but it has nothing to do with anything that's happened in your country.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?
I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?
Meh. I'm living in the middle of nowhere, i.e Scottish Highlands. I've got enough unpainted miniatures to last 40 years, never mind 4. I've got a small income, a roof over my head, and plenty of boxed sets to see me through. Food supplies are good.
I'm under the radar, keeping a low profile, unknown to Trump, Putin, North Vietnam, North Korea, Castro, the Ayatollah...
I think the fact that policy was secondary to people's gut feelings is exactly why Sanders would have a chance.
Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.
whembly wrote: Do you wanna know the irony about the state of US healthcare?
It's damn near the social model of the UK or even Canada.
This is one of, if not the most, heavily regulated industry in the US.
Regulation doesn't mean socialism. The stock market is probably the second most regulated market, and no-one is calling that socialism
But yeah, healthcare is regulated - it is simply the nature of it and will always be such, because it involves incredible complexity, people in need and piles of government money. What is important then is to accept that reality and work with it.
'Tis why I'm an advocate of two things:
a) we don't need to gut everything to go to NHS/Canadian Medicare model... just nationalize the INSURANCE side of the industry, state Medicaid funding and change the requisite tax laws to fund it to be modeled as the Canadian single-payor system.
b) more importantly, especially before 'a)' above is done, mandate transparency at EVERY STAGE of each delivered healthcare transactions. Because, right now, it's nothing more than a massive shell game.
Excellent point about transparency in billing. I think a big step there in mandating single price procedures would go a long way - if a hospital can make a deal with an insurer to charge $1,000 for a procedure, then it shouldn't cost the uncovered guy $10,000.
On the first point, well there's another reality in US healthcare - special interests. ACA was almost dead before launch, suffered furious attacks from the insurers, and all it wanted to do was cap insurance profits and get insurers to accept people with pre-existing conditions, while giving a structure that would still be profitable. In that environment do you think its viable to just take over insurance entirely? Never gonna happen. What is possible though is an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid to guarantee coverage for everyone. Everyone gets a good level of basic coverage. If it costs say $5,000 per person to cover each person on that government deal, then government would then offer a up a direct $4,500 subsidy to any insurer who takes someone on their own plan and off the government plan (either individual or employee provided).
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
So now the wall will be built, the US will pay for it and then Mexico will reimburse them.
Yeah, good luck with that Trump, you couldn't even get a couple of scots to pay for a mound of earth at one of your golf clubs, let alone an entire nation!
So now the wall will be built, the US will pay for it and then Mexico will reimburse them.
Yeah, good luck with that Trump, you couldn't even get a couple of scots to pay for a mound of earth at one of your golf clubs, let alone an entire nation!
He could ask Congress to slap a remittance tax to Mexico.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You make an excellent point here... but I don't think Sanders would've triumphed because of policy... I think he would have triumphed for focusing on the right people during the campaign. I've seen him holding events around the country even after the primaries/election, and he's continued focusing on the 99% of the population. I think Sanders would've campaigned in the Michigans, Wisconsins, and other heavily blue collar areas that Clinton neglected because she had already "won" them historically.
It's fair to assume Sanders would have played a smarter EC game. He certainly couldn't have played a worse won. However, given it's unclear whether any of that stuff actually does anything. Afterall Trump's EC strategy was at least as terrible as Clinton's, he looked like he spent the first month or so learning what the EC was, and he's gonna be president in a few weeks.
I guess though we can look at a rough level of popularity by looking at primary results between Clinton and Sanders in the swing states. A lot gets made about Sanders in Michigan, but what people mostly remember is how much he amazingly beat the polls by, his actual margin of victory over Clinton was 1.5 points. It's hard to conclude that's evidence of significantly greater popularity that would translate in a national election. However Sanders did do much better than Clinton in Wisconsin where he won by 13, and Minnesota where he won by 23. But then if we look at the other swing states... Pennsylvania, Clinton beat Sanders by 12, North Carolina Clinton won by 14, Florida Clinton won by 31. So even flipping Michigan and Wisconsin (Minnesota was already blue) it still doesn't flip the election.
I mean, I'm not saying I know Sanders would have also lost. I don't know. I'm just saying there is little show he was a more electable candidate, in either a general sense or on an EC level.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Anyone else suspicious about the GOP trying to ditch the ethics committee thing, only for Saint Trump to tell them off?
If it was arranged, Trump's telling off would have had more theatre and grandstanding to it. Instead Trump's lecture seemed more about priority, "you should focus on my tax cut", not morals.
I suspect flim-flammery to support his 'drain the swamp' having undermined it with his cabinet of billionaires and suspect characters?
As I was saying before the election, Trump fundamentally doesn't understand the idea that you are actually supposed to mean the words you say. The line played well so Trump said it. In a sense Trump wasn't even lying, because it's so obviously untrue, it's more like when guys brag about ridiculous sexual exploits or internet posters brag about their time in special forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheArmorOfContempt wrote: I think the fact that policy was secondary to people's gut feelings is exactly why Sanders would have a chance.
It's possible. His grumpy uncle character played nicer than Clinton's smug auntie.
Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.
It wasn't just policy that didn't matter, but competence. Trump answered a question on cyber security by talking about how good his son is on computers. He made up random answers on the fly, spoke in near total gibberish, and only seemed coherent when he could fall back on his reliable attacks on Clinton. The guy clearly has no concept of what the US president does, or what the US' place is in the world and why.
And what we've learned in 2016 is that kind of incompetence isn't seen as a problem by a very large number of voters.
BigWaaagh wrote: Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.
Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.
sebster wrote:
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
What historical program are you talking about? When has the US ever provided a free resource unchecked to all who turned up, and just hoped that people who could afford to pay went and did so? There's always been income limits, needs testing etc.
You're talking like you're coming from some position of hard won experience, but it has nothing to do with anything that's happened in your country.
The quickest example I can come up with having seen personally was during the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. I was deployed down there to establish security at several places, including a few of the Red Cross stations that were writing the checks for people in need and the food issue stations. One person at the food station asked for a pallet of MREs as he was a pastor and had set up a safe zone at his church. We wound up getting another unloading station set up in a small town, and had to drive by this guy's house for about 2 weeks straight. His truck, still loaded with the pallet, sat in the driveway every day with the adequate cases missing to feed 4 or 5 people.
Also at the check stations people were "getting their stories straight" right in front of us soldiers on duty, insuring that everyone has the criteria that gets them maximum payout. An example was a single father of four would get maximum payout. So as a miracle of miracles, EVERY male coming through the line was a single father of four.
When you get a chance, try an experiment: go to a public place or your place of employment and set out a bowl of candy with an honor box for payment. Leave a sign for what constitutes a share, and what is the correct price per piece of candy. I'm sure the amounts will jive.
whembly wrote: The ethic committee does have massive issues... even the Congressional Black Caucus & Freedom Caucus tried to kill it in 2010.
Not quite. The CBC wanted to curtail powers, especially on making investigations public. It never moved to remove independence from the organisation.
Besides... the whole 'independent' board thing is a misnomer in the sense that there's no accountability for the entity itself.
I think you've gotten yourself quite confused about how independence works. You seem to be implying that the organisation would have to be accountable to congress to be independent, when that's the exact way in which it would no longer be independent. Instead to be independant the organisation would need to be accountable to a board outside of and not connected to congress.
Which the committee is. It is actually overseen by a board of former politicians, public servants and an army general. That's how independent boards work.
Regardless... at the same time, this is a definite PR disaster for the incoming Republican Congress... they left their brain on the pillow that day.
This wasn't just a PR disaster. This was an effort to bring an organisation designed to investigate congressmen under the control of congress. The reason it looked bad is because it was bad.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.
Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.
My CIA thing is not getting weird.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
In any other walk of life, job, business, they would have been run out of town, sacked, liquidated, made bankrupt, dissolved, jailed, exiled to Mars, what ever the hell you want to call it.
In any other walk of life, failure on such a gargantuan scale is rewarded with nothing but defeat and despair.
And yet, these people are rewarded for their failure to the tune of billions of dollars every year...
I don't get it.
America, I have failed at a lot of things in life - throw some dollars my way
Just Tony wrote: Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.
Republicans have an actual stated policy of debt, They call it starve the beast, they think you push through tax cuts, make lots of noise about the deficit and force Democrats to accept spending cuts. That's the logic behind the Reagan tax cut, the Bush tax cut and the planned Trump tax cut.
Meanwhile any spending increase, Democrat or Republican, is required to be budget neutral unless in extraordinary circumstances.
Government spending as a % of GDP is the same as it was in 1980, when debt was at its lowest point since before the Great Depression. What's caused the massive spike in the debt over that time is the US takes in about 2% less of GDP as tax revenue than it used to.
The quickest example
It may be a quick example. but it isn't an example of a program that gives stuff away for free, while asking people to pay for it if they can.
When you get a chance, try an experiment: go to a public place or your place of employment and set out a bowl of candy with an honor box for payment. Leave a sign for what constitutes a share, and what is the correct price per piece of candy. I'm sure the amounts will jive.
To repeat my point - your government has never put in place a system relying on anything like the nonsense you post above. Your argument here is like going on to a car forum and saying paper mache doesn't make very good tyres. The problem isn't that that the argument is mistaken, the problem is that no-one anywhere is entertaining such a crazy thing.
BigWaaagh wrote: Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.
Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.
Yes, the notorious Republican Bill Clinton balanced the book, and then that darned Democrat George W Bush cut taxes and started two wars.
Further, a nation is not a household. Pretending that it is will only make things worse.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.
And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.
And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.
Fair enough. For the time being, I've moved on from US politics/history.
With Dunkirk hitting the cinemas in July, I'm reading up on the Battle for France, but that's for another thread.
BigWaaagh wrote: Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.
Yet the Dems do, as they overspend and overborrow, and once realizing they can't fund their programs, try to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more. You can't borrow your way out of debt. I'm telling you, we need a single mother of four in there to write a budget. gak will fall in line fast.
both sides overspend and borrow, its not unique to either party, one side just likes to play it that way. They just want it spent on different things is all. They GOP doesnt seem to mind spending nearly a billion dollars a unit on "stealth" unseaworthy coastal cutters that arent able to bring much more firepower to bear than a single Apache helicopter, and they didnt seem to have an issue forcing the army to spend 9 digits on tanks it didnt want because the factory was in a certain representatives district...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.
Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.
My CIA thing is not getting weird.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
In any other walk of life, job, business, they would have been run out of town, sacked, liquidated, made bankrupt, dissolved, jailed, exiled to Mars, what ever the hell you want to call it.
In any other walk of life, failure on such a gargantuan scale is rewarded with nothing but defeat and despair.
And yet, these people are rewarded for their failure to the tune of billions of dollars every year...
I don't get it.
America, I have failed at a lot of things in life - throw some dollars my way
keep in mind that the really bad things the CIA has done usually ends up publicized... and guess who bears the brunt of that? Yep... the President.
Where as any "good' or "successful" CIA activities are usually unherald (or classified for decades).
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.
And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.
Fair enough. For the time being, I've moved on from US politics/history.
With Dunkirk hitting the cinemas in July, I'm reading up on the Battle for France, but that's for another thread.
I just finished Snook's works on Islandwana and Rorke's Drift, and am reading a slightly fictionalized version from Ian Knight and some other guy. If you stand behind knee high double stacked biscuit boxes and hold off a force 26x times your size, you are officially Uber Bad Ass of the century.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
Meh, the US didn't get to its position of global dominance with nothing but a constant stream of bad intel. It's more that like any intel agency, the CIA wins some and it loses some. But there's an old saying in Washington, you either have great policy or bad intel (ie when things go well the politicians take the credit, when they go bad you blame the intel guys. See Iraq as the classic example, where the Bush admin decided they wanted to invade, decided WMDs was the best cause, and then went to the CIA to build the case for WMDs. Then when that all turned to crap the Bush admin blamed the CIA for the whole thing.
And please don't make me defend the CIA anymore. Those guys have done some brutal, nasty stuff. And some stupid, even comically stupid stuff. I feel I'm ending up sound like I'm pro-CIA when I'm not. I'm just trying to point out they're no different to any other intel service in their general efficacy over time.
Fair enough. For the time being, I've moved on from US politics/history.
With Dunkirk hitting the cinemas in July, I'm reading up on the Battle for France, but that's for another thread.
I just finished Snook's works on Islandwana and Rorke's Drift, and am reading a slightly fictionalized version from Ian Knight and some other guy. If you stand behind knee high double stacked biscuit boxes and hold off a force 26x times your size, you are officially Uber Bad Ass of the century.
Alternatively, don't bring a spear to a gun fight.
Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.
Could we stop with the insults?
Moving along...
In regards to the ethics committee. I always thought that it was weird that our government could have an office that could decide, on its own without oversight, what is and is not "ethical." The problem is that whoever the governing power is could quite easily "adjust" what is ethical, and proceed to persecute whomever they see fit.
For example, during the last 8 years... I was never a fan of Obamacare, never wanted it to pass. I had seen other government healthcare programs and never liked the way they were run, also heavily disliked the almost guaranteed price/tax increases that would inevitably come with it.
For that, people flat out called me racist to my face. Racist, because I did not like a proposed government policy. So by not liking a bill, words on paper, that involved tax increases, I was a racist. Apparently it was not "ethical" to be against a proposed change to how healthcare worked.
Thus, that is why I am fine with calls for the ethics committee to be disbanded. I'd rather leave investigations to the many law enforcement agencies currently available. Law enforcement at least operates based on set guidelines, and everything they do is consistently under strict scrutiny. Some lawmaker does something bad, let the FBI take them down. That's what they're there for.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
That's the beauty of state funded healthcare, it's paid for from central taxation. So as long as they're earning, they ARE buying it on their dime. It's not free.
Plus, who ever decides to get injured or become seriously ill in order to get some "free healthcare, hurr hurr!" ??
.@VP Biden: "It is over."#ElectoralCollege pic.twitter.com/36AdKAS72Z
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 6, 2017
Congress has certified the EV for President-elect Drumpf.
From the whole story, he seems more annoyed at House Democrats for making challenges without meeting the requirements of actually making them. The "it's over" was a reply to these challenges that he kept on shooting down.
.@VP Biden: "It is over."#ElectoralCollege pic.twitter.com/36AdKAS72Z
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 6, 2017
Congress has certified the EV for President-elect Drumpf.
From the whole story, he seems more annoyed at House Democrats for making challenges without meeting the requirements of actually making them. The "it's over" was a reply to these challenges that he kept on shooting down.
Aye... there needs to be a Senator to be there to voice objections. Not sure what that 'objection' means with respect to slowing down/stopping the EV certification... (a filibuster like?).
I think the requirements are "written down, signed by house member, signed by senator" before it was considered. I think the first house democrat made his complaint, Biden reminded him of the requirements to file the complaint and asked him if he has a senators signature, and then struck down the complaint because it didn't meet. When the second guy spoke to make a complaint he didn't even let him finish before asking him if he had a signature of a senator. It felt like the "it's over" was more of a "shut up and sit down" to the house democrats than a dejected acknowledgement of defeat IMO.
I was trying to remember what actually happens if you have a challenge that meets the requirements, but I'm not sure. I was thinking that we had a challenge in 2008, but I'm probably mistaken. I think it goes to a committee and is sorted out right then and there though, no long delay. Although the certification is far enough away from the swearing in that it wouldn't disturb things too much I think.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.
Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.
My CIA thing is not getting weird.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
In any other walk of life, job, business, they would have been run out of town, sacked, liquidated, made bankrupt, dissolved, jailed, exiled to Mars, what ever the hell you want to call it.
In any other walk of life, failure on such a gargantuan scale is rewarded with nothing but defeat and despair.
And yet, these people are rewarded for their failure to the tune of billions of dollars every year...
I don't get it.
America, I have failed at a lot of things in life - throw some dollars my way
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.
Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.
My CIA thing is not getting weird.
Having recently read some books about them, I'm still shocked at the level of incompetence within the agency that has existed since day 1
Every president has hated them, they themselves admit that they're not as good as they could be, and so on...
In any other walk of life, job, business, they would have been run out of town, sacked, liquidated, made bankrupt, dissolved, jailed, exiled to Mars, what ever the hell you want to call it.
In any other walk of life, failure on such a gargantuan scale is rewarded with nothing but defeat and despair.
And yet, these people are rewarded for their failure to the tune of billions of dollars every year...
I don't get it.
America, I have failed at a lot of things in life - throw some dollars my way
So reports are coming in that, after going on about Benghazi for four years, the Republicans in congress are slashing embassy security funding. Because it was always about the security of our diplomatic staff.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
It's not free.
It's free at the point of use. Everyone pays in, and everyone can take out as and when it becomes necessary. Here's the four things that nearly killed me, all sorted by the NHS.... mum had pre-eclampsia. So I was induced. Shortly after birth, a birth defect was discovered. In short, my stomach had no plug hole. Fast forward 14 years, and my arm goes through a window. Blood everywhere. Stitched up, booked in for physio. I still lack some feeling in my left hand, but at least I'm not dead. Two years later! Appendix ruptures during an exam - mmmm. Peritonitis. All very much life threatening issues - none of them self or lifestyle inflicted. If it hadn't been for the NHS, I'd either be dead already, or Mum and Dad would have a ridiculous mountain of debt.
How can you expect one to better one's self when one has a debilitating, but easily treated condition, but one that prevents the obtaining of a job, or being able to afford the necessary medical care to rectify? Do you want a healthy, well cared for workforce with little excuse to slack off due to ill health?
II genuinely don't mean to sound rude, but people need a better understanding of how an underwriter comes to a premium. The biggest thing! It's not just your lifestyle. If you're a fitness fanatic, and seriously take care of yourself, that matters naught if you have relatives who have bum tickets from a lifetime of say, over-eating. That's taken into account. Your zip-code is taken into account. The ever rising cost of pills, treatments and that is taken into account - because its their profit and not your well being that comes first.
I work in insurance these days (well, kind of. Can't say what my job is because we're asked no to do so, but I do have an Inquisitorial Mandate. Which is cool!), and I see lots of issues where an Insurer has dodged a claim they had no right dodging. In most cases, I'll help ensure things are put right. But in very sad cases, the policyholder passes away before things are sorted out. Sometimes from the very condition they were claiming for.
To expand on this;
A guild leader I know in Elder Scrolls Online recently had to pay $5000 for surgery for his wife. She had a blood clot in her brain that was causing frequent seizures but was otherwise non-life threatening. That is unless the blood clot burst (which is called an Aneurysm which when they pop commonly cause strokes which are incredibly life threatening and even if they don't kill you tend to make your quality of life absolute crap). In the US however an Aneurysm waiting to happen is not generally qualified as life threatening (which is absolutely bonkers) so health insurance generally won't pay for it and fixing it before it becomes life threatening is commonly classified as elective surgery. To add a real kicker to this stupidity fixing an Aneurysm before it happens is massively cheaper than dealing with what comes after (but doesn't profit hospitals as much). The guys wife is pregnant, so there's just more cream on the pie.
He pays for the surgery out of pocket and with a payday loan. His wife has to stop working. He got laid off one month later from his job when a service station closed down. He was unable to pay rent. He's 22 years old, with a wife who is still on bed rest and pregnant, and he's being evicted today because fixing death waiting to happen is qualified in this country as "elective" surgery.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
It's not free.
It's free at the point of use. Everyone pays in, and everyone can take out as and when it becomes necessary. Here's the four things that nearly killed me, all sorted by the NHS.... mum had pre-eclampsia. So I was induced. Shortly after birth, a birth defect was discovered. In short, my stomach had no plug hole. Fast forward 14 years, and my arm goes through a window. Blood everywhere. Stitched up, booked in for physio. I still lack some feeling in my left hand, but at least I'm not dead. Two years later! Appendix ruptures during an exam - mmmm. Peritonitis. All very much life threatening issues - none of them self or lifestyle inflicted. If it hadn't been for the NHS, I'd either be dead already, or Mum and Dad would have a ridiculous mountain of debt.
How can you expect one to better one's self when one has a debilitating, but easily treated condition, but one that prevents the obtaining of a job, or being able to afford the necessary medical care to rectify? Do you want a healthy, well cared for workforce with little excuse to slack off due to ill health?
II genuinely don't mean to sound rude, but people need a better understanding of how an underwriter comes to a premium. The biggest thing! It's not just your lifestyle. If you're a fitness fanatic, and seriously take care of yourself, that matters naught if you have relatives who have bum tickets from a lifetime of say, over-eating. That's taken into account. Your zip-code is taken into account. The ever rising cost of pills, treatments and that is taken into account - because its their profit and not your well being that comes first.
I work in insurance these days (well, kind of. Can't say what my job is because we're asked no to do so, but I do have an Inquisitorial Mandate. Which is cool!), and I see lots of issues where an Insurer has dodged a claim they had no right dodging. In most cases, I'll help ensure things are put right. But in very sad cases, the policyholder passes away before things are sorted out. Sometimes from the very condition they were claiming for.
To expand on this;
A guild leader I know in Elder Scrolls Online recently had to pay $5000 for surgery for his wife. She had a blood clot in her brain that was causing frequent seizures but was otherwise non-life threatening. That is unless the blood clot burst (which is called an Aneurysm which when they pop commonly cause strokes which are incredibly life threatening and even if they don't kill you tend to make your quality of life absolute crap). In the US however an Aneurysm waiting to happen is not generally qualified as life threatening (which is absolutely bonkers) so health insurance generally won't pay for it and fixing it before it becomes life threatening is commonly classified as elective surgery. To add a real kicker to this stupidity fixing an Aneurysm before it happens is massively cheaper than dealing with what comes after (but doesn't profit hospitals as much). The guys wife is pregnant, so there's just more cream on the pie.
He pays for the surgery out of pocket and with a payday loan. His wife has to stop working. He got laid off one month later from his job when a service station closed down. He was unable to pay rent. He's 22 years old, with a wife who is still on bed rest and pregnant, and he's being evicted today because fixing death waiting to happen is qualified in this country as "elective" surgery.
Healthcare in this country is fething broken.
Okay... that's mindboggling bonkers.
I just checked... in Missouri, that's not an "elective" surgery. We even have specialty blood management clinics in the major cities just to treat all that.
So, that's gotta be a state/regional/specific plan thing.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
So what you're saying is that rich people are all selfish s because they don't buy their own personal fire department and just leech off of the free service provided by the government? Or does this concern over entitled people only apply to things that you personally don't think should be funded by taxes?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...
You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.
Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.
The issue with a lack of modern hospitals located in sparsely populated rural areas is more about basic economics that's the same in every country than all of the inherent flaws in the healthcare system. People in rural counties in VA and any other state are underserved because nobody is going to build a hospital or dentists office or other healthcare provider in a sparsely populated rural area where most people have a low income, usually in the form of a fixed income from the govt. Nobody is going to spend the tens of millions of dollars to construct and staff a modern hospital in the middle of nowhere and operate it at a loss to provide services to a small rural population, that doesn't happen anywhere. There's huge swathes of Canada that are sparsely populated rural areas where people are far removed from modern hospitals and healthcare and Canada is a first world country with money an a national socialized healthcare system. Do I Not Like That is comparing apples and oranges as the various pros and cons of socialized vs private healthcare systems won't change the fact that rural populations are underserved.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
Continuing on about this intel report...
There's a lot of noise from the IC/NatSec crowd that this declassified report is underwhelming, as it's just a list of bullet point assertions without any of the supporting evidence.
I guess the thing they want is the actual classified report made public that supports those assertions. Goes back to my previous stance a few pages ago... if you're going to burn intel sources/methods, doing so that indisputably proves a foreign actor (ie, Russia) did indeed attempt to incur election chaos... that's the time to do it.
Otherwise, it's still a he said/she said proposition and many people has a heaping amount of skepticism of anything the intel agencies says/does (i.e., the whole WMD thing prior to Iraq war?) or people will be conviently and adamantly biased.
Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman seemed ok out in rural areas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: There's a lot of noise from the IC/NatSec crowd that this declassified report is underwhelming
The people who don't want to believe that a foreign power intervened in an election won't believe any evidence given. I also have my doubts that somehow you are the one with his finger on the pulse of the Intelligence Community.
Ahtman wrote: Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman seemed ok out in rural areas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: There's a lot of noise from the IC/NatSec crowd that this declassified report is underwhelming
The people who don't want to believe that a foreign power intervened in an election won't believe any evidence given. I also have my doubts that somehow you are the one with his finger on the pulse of the Intelligence Community.
I don't think the public will ever see indisputable evidence of Russsian involvement in the hacking and spread of disinformation during the 2016 election. However, it's pretty easy to connect the dots and believe that Putin, who complained loudly and vociferously of US involvement in Ukraine politics while Hillary Clinton was SecState (confirmed by Wikileaks) would use assets at his disposable to try to influence our election to the detriment of Hillary Clinton. Even if Putin/Russia wasn't involved Putin will want to take the credit for it anyway.
Ahtman wrote: Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman seemed ok out in rural areas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: There's a lot of noise from the IC/NatSec crowd that this declassified report is underwhelming
The people who don't want to believe that a foreign power intervened in an election won't believe any evidence given. I also have my doubts that somehow you are the one with his finger on the pulse of the Intelligence Community.
Google is your friend... former IC/Natsec folks are all over this.
John Schlinder is my fav... he equally despises both Trump and Clinton... who comes off as an extreme IC honk.
There's a huge debate among themselves whether or not it's worth burning the assets/sources to validate this report's assertions.
I don't think the public will ever see indisputable evidence of Russsian involvement in the hacking and spread of disinformation during the 2016 election.
Well, they will at some point when enough time has passed for the dossier to get declassified and some historian puts in a freedom of information request. I imagine many people thought that we'd never see indisputable evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated/heavily distorted in order to cover up bad intel yet here we all are, knowing that it was
I don't think the public will ever see indisputable evidence of Russsian involvement in the hacking and spread of disinformation during the 2016 election.
Well, they will at some point when enough time has passed for the dossier to get declassified and some historian puts in a freedom of information request.
Sure... maybe when my grandkids are old enough to retire...
Google is your friend... former IC/Natsec folks are all over this.
John Schlinder is my fav... he equally despises both Trump and Clinton... who comes off as an extreme IC honk.
There's a huge debate among themselves whether or not it's worth burning the assets/sources to validate this report's assertions.
Guess you already stopped reading the actual report and rather focus on what people said on the Internet.
I almost had a hope. Almost.
It won't matter much for the result, anyway.
I really wonder how the R team will manage President Trump's twitter "lil storms". Hopefully, they will manage to make him understand that's not a good idea to keep using it while being at the White House.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So reports are coming in that, after going on about Benghazi for four years, the Republicans in congress are slashing embassy security funding. Because it was always about the security of our diplomatic staff.
My shocked face... Anybody who thought that enormous waste of time/waste of money witch hunt had any merit is the same kind of person that still thinks Russia wasn't meddling with our electoral process. There is just a degree of willful self-delusion that defies logic.
Meanwhile on that latter issue front: "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election," the report said. "We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."
The report assessed with "high confidence" that the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency, had used those intermediaries to release "US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said he did not receive emails stolen from the DNC and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta from "a state party." Assange did not rule out the possibility that he got the material from a third party.
The report was produced by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. But what do they know...our exaggerator-in-chief prefers Assange's take on the matter.
d-usa wrote: The point was to attack Hillary, so they probably consider it resources well spend.
Are you kidding?! This result was the best ROI they'll ever see! They got a politically naïve dupe elected that will provide a quicker avenue to sanction relief than they'd ever see via HRC as POTUS.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
So what you're saying is that rich people are all selfish s because they don't buy their own personal fire department and just leech off of the free service provided by the government? Or does this concern over entitled people only apply to things that you personally don't think should be funded by taxes?
No, my issue is people not being motivated to better themselves. I could easily milk the system right now with the number of children I have, especially with one of them being special needs. Instead, I pay for insurance through the military and worked to get a better paying job than what I had ($24.28/hr as opposed to the $13/hr) to make sure I take care of my family's needs. In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system. I still pay taxes on that, and I know that there are families that DO need that kind of assistance, but I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are people breaking that system.
And here's a couple questions for you: 1. Have you or anyone you know ever been on unemployment? 2. If so, how long did you or they wait to look for work? For most people with a drive to better themselves or at least be self sufficient, the answer would be "I started looking on day 1." However, there are many people who've been on that system for over a year without anything to show. Honestly, Family Express gas stations pay $10/hr in my area and are always hiring, and there is income adjusted housing. They aren't the only jobs being unfilled. You tell ME the system isn't broken. And you tell me that it wouldn't rile you to be supporting people like that.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
And what about these opponents?
Spoiler:
Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.
Google is your friend... former IC/Natsec folks are all over this.
John Schlinder is my fav... he equally despises both Trump and Clinton... who comes off as an extreme IC honk.
There's a huge debate among themselves whether or not it's worth burning the assets/sources to validate this report's assertions.
Guess you already stopped reading the actual report and rather focus on what people said on the Internet.
I almost had a hope. Almost.
It won't matter much for the result, anyway.
I really wonder how the R team will manage President Trump's twitter "lil storms". Hopefully, they will manage to make him understand that's not a good idea to keep using it while being at the White House.
d-usa wrote: The point was to attack Hillary, so they probably consider it resources well spend.
Are you kidding?! This result was the best ROI they'll ever see! They got a politically naïve dupe elected that will provide a quicker avenue to sanction relief than they'd ever see via HRC as POTUS.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
And what about these opponents?
Spoiler:
Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.
Erm... yes I can.
Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.
Trump hacking and leaking the emails had an impact on the votes. And the "email letter" had an impact on the votes as well.
Was the impact of either/or enough to swing the election to Trump? Who knows, maybe?
But if it did I would still lay the blame fully on Clinton for running a campaign that left the election so close that these things were able to swing it. If you leave the outcome in the hands of outsiders, then you can't bitch if it bites you in the ass.
Ustrello wrote: Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes
Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.
If you actually think an identifiable voting group moved so strongly to Trump across the nation because of the DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda...prove it.
Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...
EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.
Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.
And that's a cop out. The wall wasn't obliterated. It simply didn't turn out. Which is important but not for the reasons you and others keep insisting it is.
If you actually think an identifiable voting group moved so strongly to Trump across the nation because of the DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda...prove it.
If you think an identifiable voting group moves so strongly to Trump for reasons other... prove it?
It's probably fallacious to declare "Hillary would have won if not for "DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda." However it's fallacious as well to just assume these things had no effect and Trump won because of an ambiguous and poorly defined surge in a particular voting group. The numbers can work with that theory but they do not prove it. It's just the narrative that is politically convenient for conservatives and Republicans so its what they're running with (real numbers on this matter will be made available in late 2017 when more in depth election stats are released).
The 2016 election was very close and extremely close in key states. The numbers were so close that if you move some things around you could easily change the outcome. Thinking that the information campaign couldn't possibly have an effect is foolish.
Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...
Any given platinum rock band can fill a stadium to capacity. It's not really an indication that they'd win an election.
Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.
And that's a cop out. The wall wasn't obliterated. It simply didn't turn out. Which is important but not for the reasons you and others keep insisting it is.
There was a sizable shift that translated into Trump winning... and the states where Congress was on ballot, the GOP kicked ass'ed too.
If you actually think an identifiable voting group moved so strongly to Trump across the nation because of the DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda...prove it.
If you think an identifiable voting group moves so strongly to Trump for reasons other... prove it?
It's probably fallacious to declare "Hillary would have won if not for "DNC hack/Podesta emails/Wikileak/RT propaganda." However it's fallacious as well to just assume these things had no effect and Trump won because of an ambiguous and poorly defined surge in a particular voting group. The numbers can work with that theory but they do not prove it. It's just the narrative that is politically convenient for conservatives and Republicans so its what they're running with (real numbers on this matter will be made available in late 2017 when more in depth election stats are released).
The 2016 election was very close and extremely close in key states. The numbers were so close that if you move some things around you could easily change the outcome. Thinking that the information campaign couldn't possibly have an effect is foolish.
We won't really know for sure, but there are indicators that highlights that the GOP came out to vote.
Like I said earlier, I think the email scandal and the late Comey letter to Congress critters had more impact in depressing some usual democrat voters.
Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...
Any given platinum rock band can fill a stadium to capacity. It's not really an indication that they'd win an election.
Too bad Hillary Clinton couldn't fill a stadium...
That's what I was comparing too... which I thought it was obvious.
Now... Sanders? gak... I'd be he'd take Trump's money as to who can pack a stadium.
Ustrello wrote: Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes
EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.
I've said as much previously. The emails released by wikileaks provided nothing new, no "smoking gun", and ultimately failed to give us anything we didn't already know. The announcement by Comey that he was investigating Hillary more damning as it appeared to vindicate views held by conservatives but I doubt even that changed enough minds to swing the election. Honestly, I think the way the Democrats handled Bernie Sanders had more to do with curbing enthusiasm for Hillary than just about any other single factor.
Ustrello wrote: Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes
EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.
I've said as much previously. The emails released by wikileaks provided nothing new, no "smoking gun", and ultimately nothing we didn't already know. The announcement by Comey that he was investigating Hillary more damning as it appeared to vindicate views held by conservatives but I doubt even that changed enough minds to swing the election. Honestly, I think the way the Democrats handled Bernie Sanders had more to do with curbing enthusiasm for Hillary than just about any other single factor.
It may have caused some people to stay home rather than vote for Hillary, but I don't think it caused Trump to gain votes.
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
Just Tony wrote:It may be a quick example. but it isn't an example of a program that gives stuff away for free, while asking people to pay for it if they can.
When you get a chance, try an experiment: go to a public place or your place of employment and set out a bowl of candy with an honor box for payment. Leave a sign for what constitutes a share, and what is the correct price per piece of candy. I'm sure the amounts will jive.
But he will say that telecom companies have robbed him blind, and another bagel-delivery man found that law firms aren't worth the trouble. He also says he believes that employees further up the corporate ladder cheat more than those down below. He reached this conclusion in part after delivering for years to one company spread out over three floors -- an executive floor on top and two lower floors with sales, service and administrative employees. Maybe, he says, the executives stole bagels out of a sense of entitlement.
If I remember correctly from another study poor people usually tend to pay better with honour systems than people who are more removed from the regular employees (manager entitlement, like the bagel guy assumed).
Just Tony wrote:No, my issue is people not being motivated to better themselves. I could easily milk the system right now with the number of children I have, especially with one of them being special needs. Instead, I pay for insurance through the military and worked to get a better paying job than what I had ($24.28/hr as opposed to the $13/hr) to make sure I take care of my family's needs. In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system. I still pay taxes on that, and I know that there are families that DO need that kind of assistance, but I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are people breaking that system.
And here's a couple questions for you: 1. Have you or anyone you know ever been on unemployment? 2. If so, how long did you or they wait to look for work? For most people with a drive to better themselves or at least be self sufficient, the answer would be "I started looking on day 1." However, there are many people who've been on that system for over a year without anything to show. Honestly, Family Express gas stations pay $10/hr in my area and are always hiring, and there is income adjusted housing. They aren't the only jobs being unfilled. You tell ME the system isn't broken. And you tell me that it wouldn't rile you to be supporting people like that.
There are people who abuse the system but they are in the minority. Most the people who get help from social services need it. And overall the system is much better and cost effective than the alternative (moochers included). Even the abusers spend the money on goods and services and "contribute" to the economy. The money doesn't just disappear and some of it gets back to the government as taxes. What doesn't end up as taxes ends up in the pockets of somebody else who can spend it.
Overall poor people, if given money, will mostly spend it on essential stuff and usually don't waste it. They know what they need. It's similar with homeless people who when given free housing end up costing the government less than before. The economic uncertainty, problems, and stress of not having money (or support) leads to much bigger costs than just helping people. And yes it's hard and there is a psychological component because people often see it as an "us versus them" thing despite the overall performance and benefits that social services provide all of us (even if we are only paying taxes and not directly getting money into out accounts).
Handing mentally ill substance abusers the keys to a new place may sound like an example of wasteful government spending. But it turned out to be the opposite: over time, Housing First has saved the government money. Homeless people are not cheap to take care of. The cost of shelters, emergency-room visits, ambulances, police, and so on quickly piles up.
Housing First isn’t just cost-effective. It’s more effective, period. The old model assumed that before you could put people into permanent homes you had to deal with their underlying issues—get them to stop drinking, take their medication, and so on. Otherwise, it was thought, they’d end up back on the streets. But it’s ridiculously hard to get people to make such changes while they’re living in a shelter or on the street. “If you move people into permanent supportive housing first, and then give them help, it seems to work better,”
The recognition that it makes sense to give money away today in order to save money later isn’t confined to homeless policy. It has animated successful social initiatives around the world. For more than a decade, Mexico has been paying parents to keep their children in school, and studies suggest that the program is remarkably cost-effective, once you take into account the economic benefits of creating a more educated and healthy population. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia is a similar program. The traditional justification for such initiatives has been a humanitarian or egalitarian one. But a cost-benefit analysis suggests that, in many cases, such programs are also economically rational.
Yes the system is broken but it a different way. A few moocher or cheats don't break it but people who depend on it usually don't have a gradual re-entry into being a normal taxpayer with low paying jobs. They usually lose benefits once they meet some threshold and the security of the known is psychologically safe and easier to rationalise (our minds play tricks on us, we are not as rational as we like to think). There might be a gas station near you that is hiring at $10/h but for somebody on benefits that means they could get a bit more money (as they would lose their benefits) but be uncertain about their future and if they were to lose their job they would have to go through all the governmental bureaucracy (again) to get the old benefits (and if they actually managed to save up some money that counts against them), and even then they can be pushed around by the people who are supposedly there to help them and cause more stress.
The certainty of the existing status quo feels safer (and our brains like it). The solution to this problem is not eliminating these services but making them simpler, easier, and less of a yes/no thing. In the long run overpaying for poor people won't bankrupt a country but it gives them the stability to get their life back into shape and become a taxpayer again. Exacerbating their anxiety about their situation by cutting money everywhere doesn't help them get a job.
On the other hand, if the gas station is always looking for someone then maybe they need to raise their offer to get more/better applicants (supply and demand and all that).
I do have a big issue with the "people not being motivated to better themselves" bit. That's demonstrably not true because a lot of rich people live of money that is generated by a wealth management or asset trust and they make more money all the time. They don't move a finger when the money is in a trust but somehow that's not seen as lowering their "motivation to better themselves" or become entrepreneurial. If you are rich then suddenly getting money for doing nothing is a virtue. If that were really true then we should tax the hell out of anybody who manages to accumulate any significant sum of money. We wouldn't want them to become lazy, would we?
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.
Google is your friend... former IC/Natsec folks are all over this.
John Schlinder is my fav... he equally despises both Trump and Clinton... who comes off as an extreme IC honk.
There's a huge debate among themselves whether or not it's worth burning the assets/sources to validate this report's assertions.
Guess you already stopped reading the actual report and rather focus on what people said on the Internet.
I almost had a hope. Almost.
It won't matter much for the result, anyway.
I really wonder how the R team will manage President Trump's twitter "lil storms". Hopefully, they will manage to make him understand that's not a good idea to keep using it while being at the White House.
d-usa wrote: The point was to attack Hillary, so they probably consider it resources well spend.
Are you kidding?! This result was the best ROI they'll ever see! They got a politically naïve dupe elected that will provide a quicker avenue to sanction relief than they'd ever see via HRC as POTUS.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
And what about these opponents?
Spoiler:
Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.
Erm... yes I can.
Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.
You won't have to wait long.
Just so I understand your snark, and intent of the pronoun word salad, does "So you can show me that they change votes?" refer to showing whether Trump will vote to remove the sanctions or does it refer to whether they, the Russians, altered citizens' votes on the election?
I've got my response prepared, I just want to make sure it addressing your comment correctly.
Ahtman wrote: Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
It's a concern, certainly, but even if Russia did hack the DNC as alleged, they didn't fabricate anything nor did they hack actual votes either of which would be far more troubling. Still, given your stance what do you think about Homeland Security moving in to "protect" our elections?
Associated Press wrote:Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that's "vital to our national interests," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he's designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure, a move that provides more federal help for state and local governments to keep their election systems safe from tampering.
There is more to it, obviously, and I suggest you read the whole article. The article states the security concerns and expected benefits of this designation as well as bringing up some possible issues such as withholding some election information from the public and maybe making protected records more accessible. There are no specifics in the article about what information would be secret or what protected records could be compromised by this designation. There is also the question of whether this action is constitutional or not.
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!
This is the entire point! Influenced voters, didn't influence voters...RUSSIA fethed WITH OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! This is unacceptable. The same individuals trying to defuse this as "Ehm!", or argue it away as nonimpactful are letting their political party bias blind them from what should be an apolitically aligned matter. I'd be just as pissed if they fethed with Trump or the RNC! Stay the hell out of our elections and internal matters.
Anybody trying to diffuse the seriousness of this matter or creating absurd standards for what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to something as serious as foreign entities attempting to manipulate an American election, is just undermining the credibility of any argument or criticism they have made, will make or have thrown at the opposition with regards to political integrity, influence peddling or the like. The double standard is patently unacceptable.
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!
This is the entire point! Influenced voters, didn't influence voters...RUSSIA fethed WITH OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! This is unacceptable. The same individuals trying to defuse this as "Ehm!", or argue it away as nonimpactful are letting their political party bias blind them from what should be an apolitically aligned matter. I'd be just as pissed if they fethed with Trump or the RNC! Stay the hell out of our elections and internal matters.
Anybody trying to diffuse the seriousness of this matter or creating absurd standards for what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to something as serious as foreign entities attempting to manipulate an American election, is just undermining the credibility of any argument or criticism they have made, will make or have thrown at the opposition with regards to political integrity, influence peddling or the like. The double standard is patently unacceptable.
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.
It's completely nefarious.
Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
And what about these opponents?
Spoiler:
Got an explanation for that?
Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.
Erm... yes I can.
Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.
Nope, try again. They were all up against Clinton. It was only a question of which of them would be the last one standing against her. But you absolutely cannot blame Clinton or the Democrats for Trump being the Republican nominee. That falls on the Republicans alone, own up to it for once.
Still reading... no real specifics other than the ICs believe that Russia preferred Trump and believed Clinton would win... thus, worked via propaganda tactics to undermine a future Clinton Presidency.
If Drumpf takes this to heart, that he didn't win "cleaningly" on his own "merits" based on the ICs' assessment, he may stop humping Putie-poo's legs.
Or, start WW3.
He already takes these allegations to heart, IMO, that's why he is so opposed to them and fights them at every point. Not because of any love he might have for Putin, but because his ego can't handle the possibility that his win wasn't 100% his own.
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
And what about these opponents?
Spoiler:
Got an explanation for that? Because you can't pin that one on the Democrats.
Erm... yes I can.
Know why? Those other candidates weren't on the ballot against Clinton.
Nope, try again. They were all up against Clinton. It was only a question of which of them would be the last one standing against her. But you absolutely cannot blame Clinton or the Democrats for Trump being the Republican nominee. That falls on the Republicans alone, own up to it for once.
Eh? I think you misuderstood my original point.
I said:
Well...to be fair... it wasn't 100% on his own.
His opponent was HRC.
Highlighting the fact that Trump won in large part that HRC was his opponent.
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.
It's completely nefarious.
Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.
I was going to say that "two wrongs don't make a right" but that works as well.
Just Tony wrote: Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.
The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.
So what you're saying is that rich people are all selfish s because they don't buy their own personal fire department and just leech off of the free service provided by the government? Or does this concern over entitled people only apply to things that you personally don't think should be funded by taxes?
Generally 'rich' folks pay property taxes and ad valorem taxes on their vehicles, often quite a bit. Seeing as property taxes are often used to cover fire and police I would submit they are paying into the system.
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!
This is the entire point! Influenced voters, didn't influence voters...RUSSIA fethed WITH OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! This is unacceptable. The same individuals trying to defuse this as "Ehm!", or argue it away as nonimpactful are letting their political party bias blind them from what should be an apolitically aligned matter. I'd be just as pissed if they fethed with Trump or the RNC! Stay the hell out of our elections and internal matters.
Anybody trying to diffuse the seriousness of this matter or creating absurd standards for what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to something as serious as foreign entities attempting to manipulate an American election, is just undermining the credibility of any argument or criticism they have made, will make or have thrown at the opposition with regards to political integrity, influence peddling or the like. The double standard is patently unacceptable.
w00t!
What actions do you suggest to retaliate?
Punitive actions aren't the issue here either. There are levels of sanctions that haven't been touched upon yet and other means to put the squeeze on Comrade Putin, but once again, THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
If Russia gets away with just a "Let's move on." after the damning report just issued, as our exaggerator-in-chief wishes, then they'll...or some other emboldened wannabe...will just keep playing at this game. Here again, South America or Europe, you name it. You're trying to pull everyone's attention away from the actual issue here with the whole bullgak "Show me proof..." nonsense. The report today showed the proof is in the pudding that concerns about Russian interference in our election were not unfounded and were actually directed from the highest of sources in the Kremlin. You'd almost think Putin had some KGB experience under his belt, oO, as you like to say.
Sorry, Whembs, but you've absolutely undermined yourself by trying to lessen this matter for obvious personal political alignment. Your position in trying to diffuse what happened is akin to finding out about your spouse cheating and saying afterwards, "Well, does she love me any less?"
I suppose us voters will just have to overcome foreign attempts at influence by looking at policy positions and past actions of those we are vot-HAHAHA!!! Sorry, couldn't say that with a straight face.
Ahtman wrote: Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.
Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.
One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.
It's completely nefarious.
Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.
Actually, it just means we need to expect this in the future and work on stopping it. It's called counter-espionage and it's been around since WWII. I'm more concerned hearing that the Russians got into polling precincts and State agencies than I am about Democrat emails. Emails are a personal security issue and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to have their dirty laundry aired for everyone to see. The States' voting infrastructure is a different beast because (at least in theory) as we move to electronic voting, the possibility of hacking the actual election returns becomes a very real possibility.
EDIT: Oh, it isn't just the Russians doing it. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese, Arabs, and non-government groups like Anonymous are also doing it. Hell, even our friends like England, Germany, and Korea are probably doing it. We need to be more pro-active with our computer security.
Proof that policy was irrelevant was pretty much the debates themselves. It makes me feel like a dick to say it but anyone who watched the debates and thought Trump would be a good President is straight up an idiot.
Could we stop with the insults?
Moving along...
In regards to the ethics committee. I always thought that it was weird that our government could have an office that could decide, on its own without oversight, what is and is not "ethical." The problem is that whoever the governing power is could quite easily "adjust" what is ethical, and proceed to persecute whomever they see fit.
For example, during the last 8 years... I was never a fan of Obamacare, never wanted it to pass. I had seen other government healthcare programs and never liked the way they were run, also heavily disliked the almost guaranteed price/tax increases that would inevitably come with it.
For that, people flat out called me racist to my face. Racist, because I did not like a proposed government policy. So by not liking a bill, words on paper, that involved tax increases, I was a racist. Apparently it was not "ethical" to be against a proposed change to how healthcare worked.
Thus, that is why I am fine with calls for the ethics committee to be disbanded. I'd rather leave investigations to the many law enforcement agencies currently available. Law enforcement at least operates based on set guidelines, and everything they do is consistently under strict scrutiny. Some lawmaker does something bad, let the FBI take them down. That's what they're there for.
People hurt my feelings with mean words so I voted for a person that clearly had zero clue about the details on any issue relevant to my country's future. Followed immediately by a total lack of understanding over the difference between ethics and law...
And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.
But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.
..err outside of the hardcore brexiteer crowd most people in the k saw Obama's answer as being little more than A. the truth B him answering a question accurately.
I'm not disputing the idea that the USA has and does try -- through various means -- to influence elections in other countries but I don't think that's quite the way people are meaning here.
From August to November 2012, RT ran
numerous reports on alleged US election
fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities,
contending that US election results cannot
be trusted and do not reflect the popular
will.
In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of
democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty
candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates.
The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third
of the population and is a "sham."
RT aired a documentary about the Occupy
Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and
4 November. RT framed the movement as a
fight against "the ruling class" and described
the current US political system as corrupt and
dominated by corporations.
...well... errmm ...
That said : when Trump doubted Russian culpability on Dec 31, he said "I know things other people don't know," vowed to disclose this information ...... we're still waiting yeah ?
guys making an appearance in America in the next 4 years?
to me, a coup would be something totally different than that.
Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.
