Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?

Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.

I was always under the impression that Grant was more "out of his league" and "incompetent" more than deliberately corrupt. Jackson was straight up malevolent.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when the right wing media was making a big noise about Mueller's investigation being stopped because the judge in the Manafort case wasn't sure Mueller had the scope to lead such a prosecution? That produced lots of triumphant noise from the right wing, and Trump even spoke about it in a campaign rally. Never mind it was a discussion purely about process and whether it should be Mueller or standard prosecutors who bring these charges, the right wing and Trump cheered for one judge's uncertainty as a great victory.

Thing is, Manafort is up on charges in both Washington DC and seperate charges in Virginia. The earlier statement was from the judge hearing the charges in Virginia. But in the matter in Washington DC the judge has reviewed the scope given to Mueller, and found these charges fall squarely within Mueller's authority and the prosecution can continue. Weirdly, the right wing media has gone completely silent on this. Wonder why.

 whembly wrote:
Okay... let's gameplan this out.

whembly, follow your own point. Actually commit to focusing on one of your own arguments. You claimed "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations". I pointed out that's completely bonkers. In response, you just ignored that entirely, and lurched off to arguing about the specifics of the shootings in Israel.

You didn't defend your claim that "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations", and so you don't try to defend that silly nonsense. Instead you hamfistedly change the subject.

This is the problem, whembly. You hide from any analysis of your argument, because you have no interest in exploring any of the things you claim to believe. You just want to dump talking points, and when those talking points are challenged you just dump some different talking points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This. If East Germany had gunned down 60 people lobbing rocks and explosives at the Berlin wall you certainly wouldn't ever see it described as restraint.

If Iran did this there'd be a US carrier group already on its way, and whembly would demanding people explain to him why we're defending a regime that would massacre civilians like that.

But Israel does it, and suddenly the defence that they could have killed so many more so good job Israel becomes a thing people actually pretend to believe.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Drain that swamp!
https://www.google.com/amp/dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/texas-congressman-lobbying/amp/
See, this is why politicians ultimately don't give a damn about us, because even if they use hush money to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, don't pay the money back, and resign in disgrace when it becomes public, they can still get a job as a lobbyist for $160K a year.

When it was revealed Farenthold had settled the sexual harassment suit with government money, the guy promised to repay that with his own money. He never did. As the House Speaker and as a Republican party leader, Paul Ryan actually has it within his power to severely curtail Farenthold's access to elected representatives, and make it impossible for Farenthold to function as a lobbyist.

And of course Ryan didn't do this. No-one thought it even remotely plausible that Ryan might do that. Because we are at a point where we see Republican leaders offered a chance to do something decent, and we don't even think it is possible they might consider it.

 whembly wrote:
Swampy.

Your party. Your scumbags. Your vote that keeps putting them in power to keep doing this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Seems likely it’s all been another game for North Korea. Doubt they went into these talks with any good faith in seeing them through. I take it they won’t be dismantling squat now. It’s good propaganda to show a hand of friendship to enemies and then double down on victimhood so you can look like the reasonable ones being oppressed.

NK has already had a huge win - they got a US president to agree to meet on neutral terms. Kim was raised to be equal to the US president. Now they're searching for a second status boost - either the US jumps to the NK request and cancels the war games, or NK cancels the talks with the US president. Either way it's a huge win for NK, either Kim has the US president dancing to their tune, or Kim proves he is in control and is choosing when he will meet with the US president.

This is exactly why the standing order from the State dept was the US president will not meet with NK without preconditions. Which Trump ignored, and which so many other people completely forgot when they decided to cheer on Trump for agreeing to meet with NK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Is it really worse, or just more obvious?

It is both. Because it is so bad it is more obvious, and it is so bad in large part because they don't care that its so obvious. I mean why would any of Trump's appointees even bother to hide their corruption at this point? They work for a guy who broke his promise to divest from his businesses, all Trump did was put up a meaningless shell, and Trump has faced no sanction for this, and no criticism from anyone on his own side.

Meanwhile we have a Qatari government official stating he was approached by Michael Cohen, who told them money paid to him would be filtered to the president and result in favourable support, and absolutely no-one anywhere is surprised this happened.

 sebster wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Drain that swamp!
https://www.google.com/amp/dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/texas-congressman-lobbying/amp/
See, this is why politicians ultimately don't give a damn about us, because even if they use hush money to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, don't pay the money back, and resign in disgrace when it becomes public, they can still get a job as a lobbyist for $160K a year.

When it was revealed Farenthold had settled the sexual harassment suit with government money, the guy promised to repay that with his own money. He never did. As the House Speaker and as a Republican party leader, Paul Ryan actually has it within his power to severely curtail Farenthold's access to elected representatives, and make it impossible for Farenthold to function as a lobbyist.

And of course Ryan didn't do this. No-one thought it even remotely plausible that Ryan might do that. Because we are at a point where we see Republican leaders offered a chance to do something decent, and we don't even think it is possible they might consider it.

 whembly wrote:
Swampy.

Your party. Your scumbags. Your vote that keeps putting them in power to keep doing this.

Your posts seem to be getting much more partisan lately. Corruption in DC and exlawmakers becoming lobbyists exploiting loopholes is a bipartisan issue.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/the-lobbying-reform-that-enriched-congress-224849

It’s not as if the Democrats were well on their way to enacting a carefully laid plan of honest forthright good governance when suddenly a van full of Republicans and a talking dog shows up and ruined everything. The system won’t get better until people can look past the us vs them con of the two party duopoly.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Swampy.

Your party. Your scumbags. Your vote that keeps putting them in power to keep doing this.

Better than Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... let's gameplan this out.

whembly, follow your own point. Actually commit to focusing on one of your own arguments. You claimed "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations". I pointed out that's completely bonkers. In response, you just ignored that entirely, and lurched off to arguing about the specifics of the shootings in Israel.

You didn't defend your claim that "the rest of the world wants Isreal to destroy itself in such negotiations", and so you don't try to defend that silly nonsense. Instead you hamfistedly change the subject.

This is the problem, whembly. You hide from any analysis of your argument, because you have no interest in exploring any of the things you claim to believe. You just want to dump talking points, and when those talking points are challenged you just dump some different talking points.

This is funny coming from you as you can't wait to pound the democrat/lefty talking points...

So, I'm assuming you're okay with those Palestinian breaching that wall... eh?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Your posts seem to be getting much more partisan lately.

There's nothing 'lately' about it. I've said many times the Democrats are a regular, run of the mill, mediocre political party, while the Republicans of the last roughly 20 years have been a disaster of historic scale.

Corruption in DC and exlawmakers becoming lobbyists exploiting loopholes is a bipartisan issue.

There's plenty of Democratic corruption, and no shortage of dysfunction in the laws and regs trying to prevent that corruption. But there's also no point overlooking that this Republican presidency is the most blatantly corrupt administration in living memory, and before this the next most blatantly corrupt period was when Jack Abrahamoff worked with Republicans, which happened to be the last time Republicans controlled the presidency and congress.

Let me put it this way - any political party is going to attract people who are just there to claim a chunk of the money flow, and don't care if they break ethical standards and hurt people to get their share. But most political parties also attract a lot of people who happen to believe on some level in the actual causes of the party. The Republicans has very few of the latter. How many people in establishment circles do you think genuinely believe in trickle down economics, and would be there fighting for tax cuts for the rich if there was no money in it for them? As result the balance of grifters to believers in the Republican party is way off, and the result is the level of corruption is much higher.

The system won’t get better until people can look past the us vs them con of the two party duopoly.

It's important to highlight corruption wherever it is. I'm on record as saying Democratic Senator Bob Menendez should be in prison, and it's a major problem with the current laws that the guy got away with it.

But it's also important not to put up false 'both sides' stories when the problem isn't equal. Sometimes the solutions to problems are partisan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This is funny coming from you as you can't wait to pound the democrat/lefty talking points...

So, I'm assuming you're okay with those Palestinian breaching that wall... eh?

Oh look, whembly is still avoiding any kind of answer, after I challenged him on his ridiculous claim that the rest of the world wants Israel to destroy itself.

So given he hasn't made any attempt to clarify or retract that ridiculous claim, I think we can accept that's what he believes. So he believes that right now France has a secret motive to make Israel to destroy itself. He thinks any Norwegian statement on protecting the human rights of Palestinians is actually cover for their secret desire to make Israel destroy itself. When New Zealand votes in favour of a UN resolution condemning excessive force by the IDF, it isn't because NZ has a longstanding commitment to international standards, it's because New Zealand is secretly plotting to destroy Israel.

This is what whembly believes. It makes no sense and whembly doesn't care.

You've also grilled Bernie Sanders on his economic BS.

At any rate I have an analogy I use to describe the two parties as they currently are from a functional perspective (not addressing corruption here):

Democrats would replace every stop sign on the road with a traffic light. Expensive, overdone, and wildly inefficient but it would function at the end of the day.

Republicans would replace every traffic light with a stop sign.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You've also grilled Bernie Sanders on his economic BS.

At any rate I have an analogy I use to describe the two parties as they currently are from a functional perspective (not addressing corruption here):

Democrats would replace every stop sign on the road with a traffic light. Expensive, overdone, and wildly inefficient but it would function at the end of the day.

Republicans would replace every traffic light with a stop sign.

Funny story. All the traffic lights in my town the other day went into "Stop" mode where they just flash red. They were doing some work on the whole system townwide for a few hours.

That was the best traffic had been in this town for years. I didn't have to deal with lights that only turned green for 10 seconds and than sat red for 2 minutes every time a car came to the intersection on a side street.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44133308


fingers crossed this is just a bit of sabre rattling and the talks do go ahead.

Well. NK had never nothing really to gain from talks anyway. Even without Trump US hasn't been exactly trusty partner to talk with and with Trump any word is about as trustworthy as I can throw ahead M1A2 Abrams.

Removing nukes was never an option. Getting those up and working isn't just matter of principle for NK. It's mattter of pure SURVIVAL. They get nukes up to stage that makes US unwilling to invade or NK gets invaded and removed from play. Simple as that.

There's a theory going around that Trump favouring Chinese tech company ZTE is because of Chinese money going to a Trump development in Indonesia. The problem is the theory doesn't work, because Trump's stake in the Indonesian development is bugger all, it's just a licensing deal that will net Trump around $3m. Trump isn't gifting favours for the sake of $3m licensing that Trump was going to get paid anyway.

There's a much simpler reason Trump decided to go in to bat for ZTE. It's a condition put on Trump by China, in their on-going trade negotiations. It's not proven, but it's claimed the Chinese gave Trump 10 requirements, and ZTE was #5 on that list. Trump is doing what China demands because Trump has put himself in a place of incredible weakness in those negotiations. Not only is he relying on idiots like Mnuchin to argue the US side, Trump brazenly started the war, which means he is responsible for any negative impacts to Americans from any retaliation. Which is why China's response focused on soy beans and other products that will massively impacted communities in key electorates. Trump can't let China continue with those retaliations, so China is free to exert stuff like ZTE instead.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You've also grilled Bernie Sanders on his economic BS.

Thanks, that's a pretty good example. I try and point out crap wherever it is, and if at one point in time one side has a lot more crap than another, there's no point pretending that isn't true for sake of a false balance.

And I like the analogy, and intend to steal it

tneva82 wrote:
Well. NK had never nothing really to gain from talks anyway. Even without Trump US hasn't been exactly trusty partner to talk with and with Trump any word is about as trustworthy as I can throw ahead M1A2 Abrams.

There was plenty for NK to gain. They're short of many crucial resources, particularly energy. Getting a deal where NK got a nice supply of coal and oil in exchange for giving up their nuke program is what past deals have been built around, and it's what this deal was shaping up to be, until something shifted on the US side and Pompeo started retracting all the stuff about trading economic support for no more nukes.

Remember, NK doesn't need the nukes. Without them they've still got the ability to kills millions of South Koreans in a few hours with conventional artillery. The idea of US invasion is something they sell to their population, it isn't something the leadership actually thinks is likely. In fact the NK leadership is probably acutely aware that US invasion is made more likely by NK developing nukes.

The first thing to remember is the whole NK regime is basically an extortion racket. With that in mind, then it becomes clear this latest cooling by NK isn't a genuine walkaway, it's just working for a stronger bargaining position, to get as much as possible out of the US. From here Trump can kowtow or he can hold firm and maybe lose the deal.

It's NK testing how politically important the deal is to Trump, basically.

North Korea threatens to cancel Trump summit

No doubt Trump will spin his way out of this too.

Or maybe spin himself back in.

Well, that was pretty predictable. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.

Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.

In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.

My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This is funny coming from you as you can't wait to pound the democrat/lefty talking points...

So, I'm assuming you're okay with those Palestinian breaching that wall... eh?

Oh look, whembly is still avoiding any kind of answer, after I challenged him on his ridiculous claim that the rest of the world wants Israel to destroy itself.

So given he hasn't made any attempt to clarify or retract that ridiculous claim, I think we can accept that's what he believes. So he believes that right now France has a secret motive to make Israel to destroy itself. He thinks any Norwegian statement on protecting the human rights of Palestinians is actually cover for their secret desire to make Israel destroy itself. When New Zealand votes in favour of a UN resolution condemning excessive force by the IDF, it isn't because NZ has a longstanding commitment to international standards, it's because New Zealand is secretly plotting to destroy Israel.

This is what whembly believes. It makes no sense and whembly doesn't care.

Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.

Seb: when much of the world provides cover or explicit support for Hamas... where their own charter calls for the destruction of Israel... yeah, the rest of the fething world wants Israel to destroy itself.

A group, with known terrorists using such group, trying to breach a security wall to do what seb? Explain to me what would happen if *this* group breaches that wall? What happens next?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
There's a theory going around that Trump favouring Chinese tech company ZTE is because of Chinese money going to a Trump development in Indonesia. The problem is the theory doesn't work, because Trump's stake in the Indonesian development is bugger all, it's just a licensing deal that will net Trump around $3m. Trump isn't gifting favours for the sake of $3m licensing that Trump was going to get paid anyway.

There's a much simpler reason Trump decided to go in to bat for ZTE. It's a condition put on Trump by China, in their on-going trade negotiations. It's not proven, but it's claimed the Chinese gave Trump 10 requirements, and ZTE was #5 on that list. Trump is doing what China demands because Trump has put himself in a place of incredible weakness in those negotiations. Not only is he relying on idiots like Mnuchin to argue the US side, Trump brazenly started the war, which means he is responsible for any negative impacts to Americans from any retaliation. Which is why China's response focused on soy beans and other products that will massively impacted communities in key electorates. Trump can't let China continue with those retaliations, so China is free to exert stuff like ZTE instead.

Could be some "good cop, bad cop" routine between Trump/Ross vs Chinese negotiators.

 whembly wrote:
Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.

No. It's the time honored practice of taking what people say and applying it to the world, which I can see is kind of an annoyance to the time honored practice of saying whatever suits the given purpose of the day with absolutely no care in the world for whether or not it makes any actual sense.

There is a difference between the world "providing cover or explicit support for Hamas" and the world thinking Israel has become the very thing it claims it wants to protect itself against. No one is blind to what Hamas is and what it purports. That's one big reason why most of the world would love to deal with someone other than Hamas, a goal that is constantly hampered by Israel who seems to like having Hamas in charge given all the effort they put into undermining competitors and actually providing cover and explicit support for Hamas themselves. All things that have been pointed out that you still haven't really responded to.

I'll even add another;

Hamas no longer calls for the destruction of Israel in it's charter. They got rid of that line in a 2017 rewrite. Of course they still want to do exactly that (or least they think it, which is really just the big wigs paying lip service to keep being the richest guys not living in Gaza), which just goes to show that what's written in the charter is kind of meaningless.

There's a reason barely anyone bothers to engage you anymore Whem, and Seb hit it right on the head. Holding a discussion, any discussion, with you is pointless. You'll just change the subject, backtrack to some previous talking point at random, or switch to absurdities. Sorry but he's completely right. When it comes to politics your style of discourse is make ridiculous claim and avoid having to explain it, which you're still doing.

Which I say because this is really an issue of why US politics threads in the past have always been dragged into the mud hole. It defeats the entire purpose of a discussion board if there are posters not actually engaging in discussion and instead playing written dodge ball. A lot of posters who share this behavior are no longer here, and it would be nice for the last hold out to learn what he's doing wrong.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.

Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.

In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.

My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.

Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.

£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60

My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)

My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).

Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!

...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).

Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.

However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).

In the past it has taken me over a page to get whembly to respond to a single point of one of his argument without letting him deflect and calvinball his way out of actually responding to that one point. By the next page it was as if that whole exchange never happened. That’s the tiresome aspect of it, because if you push him to actually expand on any of his talking point it’s just more talking points.

It’s honestly the main reason whembly is on my ignore list. Clicking to expand his posts reminds me to really consider if it’s worth responding.

I like opposing viewpoints, I like talking about differences, and I like hearing about why people think this way. But I hate smart people repeating stuff they were told to believe without being able (or unwilling) to explain why they believe these things.

 whembly wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.

Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.

In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.

My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.

Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.

£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60

My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)

My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).

Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!

...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).

Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.

However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).

But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.

If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).

Here are the rates for my old plan:



The total cost for my family plan was over $20,000 a year.

Add to that a couple thousand out of pocket last year.

Edit: giant picture

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look everyone, seb taking the time honored technique to put words on other people's mouth.

No. It's the time honored practice of taking what people say and applying it to the world, which I can see is kind of an annoyance to the time honored practice of saying whatever suits the given purpose of the day with absolutely no care in the world for whether or not it makes any actual sense.

I disagree. It's his usual tactic to take atstatement and apply it in the worst manner possible... rather than to actually engage the subject in a specific manner. Instead of assuming the worst, maybe just simply ask.

There is a difference between the world "providing cover or explicit support for Hamas" and the world thinking Israel has become the very thing it claims it wants to protect itself against.

I don't think so.

No one is blind to what Hamas is and what it purports. That's one big reason why most of the world would love to deal with someone other than Hamas, a goal that is constantly hampered by Israel who seems to like having Hamas in charge given all the effort they put into undermining competitors and actually providing cover and explicit support for Hamas themselves. All things that have been pointed out that you still haven't really responded to.

Really?

No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread....

A nation has the right to protect the integrity of its border... and it's indisputible that in this event, that security fence *is* Israel's border. You may condemn Israel for putting that fence there or that they're illegally took their lands (I disagree, but that's not germane to this discussion), but it is their border... and that right is supplemented by a fething right of self-defense in the face of a hostile group. Hamas, elected to rule Gaza, rejects Israel’s right to exist and remains in a state of perpetual, declared war with Israel.

I'll even add another;

Hamas no longer calls for the destruction of Israel in it's charter. They got rid of that line in a 2017 rewrite. Of course they still want to do exactly that (or least they think it, which is really just the big wigs paying lip service to keep being the richest guys not living in Gaza), which just goes to show that what's written in the charter is kind of meaningless.

It's not meaningless... it was another bit of information in determining their rationale. To this day, they're still preaching for Israel's destruction.

There's a reason barely anyone bothers to engage you anymore Whem, and Seb hit it right on the head. Holding a discussion, any discussion, with you is pointless. You'll just change the subject, backtrack to some previous talking point at random, or switch to absurdities. Sorry but he's completely right. When it comes to politics your style of discourse is make ridiculous claim and avoid having to explain it, which you're still doing.

Which I say because this is really an issue of why US politics threads in the past have always been dragged into the mud hole. It defeats the entire purpose of a discussion board if there are posters not actually engaging in discussion and instead playing written dodge ball. A lot of posters who share this behavior are no longer here, and it would be nice for the last hold out to learn what he's doing wrong.

I'll submit to arguing in bad faith at times...

But, often times, like when discussions of the merits/demerits of heated topics, such as Voter ID laws or the Electoral College or Hillary's handling of classified information, I'd post numerous examples, sources and facts.

But, they're discounted because reasons. Or, it's my fault because "it's whem guuuuuys".

It boils down to folks arguing their opinions as facts... rather than simply disagreeing because you simply hold a different opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
In the past it has taken me over a page to get whembly to respond to a single point of one of his argument without letting him deflect and calvinball his way out of actually responding to that one point. By the next page it was as if that whole exchange never happened. That’s the tiresome aspect of it, because if you push him to actually expand on any of his talking point it’s just more talking points.

It’s honestly the main reason whembly is on my ignore list. Clicking to expand his posts reminds me to really consider if it’s worth responding.

I like opposing viewpoints, I like talking about differences, and I like hearing about why people think this way. But I hate smart people repeating stuff they were told to believe without being able (or unwilling) to explain why they believe these things.

I will make an effort to respond rather that calvinballing...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.

Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.

In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.

My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.

Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.

£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60

My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)

My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).

Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!

...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).

Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.

However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).

But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.

If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).

My employer's contribution is nearly 2.5x is much as my contribution if I remember right (which is taxable as well).

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?

Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.

I was always under the impression that Grant was more "out of his league" and "incompetent" more than deliberately corrupt. Jackson was straight up malevolent.[/quote

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

We have had worse..Johnson, Jackson, Harding, Buchanan...these guys are close..but without social media and the 24 hours news cycle, how much about it would we really know?

Grant is actually the best comparison, but even he took six months to reach the level of scandal Trump pulled off in his first hundred days.

I was always under the impression that Grant was more "out of his league" and "incompetent" more than deliberately corrupt. Jackson was straight up malevolent.

To be frank it's specious to forgive Trump by comparing him with Grant or Harding and saying they were just as bad.

For one, the USA is vastly more important in the world today than 100 or 150 years ago.
For two, the office of President has expanded and gained more powers and responsibilities.
For three, the laws and morals about corruption have been strengthened and expanded.

Most importantly, Trump didn't run against Grant or Harding.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: wrote:


whembly wrote:


Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.

Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.

In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.

My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.


Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.

£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60

My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)

My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).

Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!

...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).

Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.

However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).

But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.

If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).
My employer's contribution is nearly 2.5x is much as my contribution if I remember right (which is taxable as well).

Granted it's a family plan, but man, that is eye watering to me!

 whembly wrote:


No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....

Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.

In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.

Did the US manage to wipe out that caravan of people coming for our border? Since nobody has ever been more restraint than the country shooting a crowd throwing stones that couldn’t even reach anyone.

I watched an Israeli drone drop tear gas cannisters into (a) a group of journalists with TV cameras and (b) a tent sheltering women and children.

Using snipers to shoot teenagers and old men armed with rocks and molotovs seems a little... heavy-handed.

And then that is without even considering *why* the Palestinians are so desperate. They live in the biggest open-air prison in the world. Electricity, food, healthcare, sanitation are scarce.

How anyone can see this as justified is beyond insane to me.
Edit: over 2000 people injured and ~60 killed. It's an absolute disgrace, and the fact that Trumpet is all over it just makes me want to puke.

On more domestic news...

Trump Jr.: I don't know if Trump had role in statement about Trump Tower meeting

so either he's as dumb as he looks or he's trying to avoid incrimination by appearing to be so.


http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/387927-trump-jr-not-sure-if-trump-had-role-in-drafting-statement-about

Full transcript of Judiciary committee with Jr.


https://www.scribd.com/document/379403050/Trump-Jr-Transcript#from_embed

Based on previous actions and who his dad is I would not bet against him being as dumb as he looks. Wouldn't it be something if Trump's son would be charged? Or is he as expendable as Jared?

 d-usa wrote:
Did the US manage to wipe out that caravan of people coming for our border? Since nobody has ever been more restraint than the country shooting a crowd throwing stones that couldn’t even reach anyone.

We're not manning our border fence with military equipment... are we?

The caravan didn't riot/protest... they simply showed up.

Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:


No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....

Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.

In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.

Thank you.

Do we know for a fact that they indiscriminately shot the crowd? Or is it really a he said, he said situation...

Why do you think it's in Israel's interest to prolong a conflict like this? Seems to me that it's in the Hama leadership's interest to prolong this...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
On more domestic news...

Trump Jr.: I don't know if Trump had role in statement about Trump Tower meeting

so either he's as dumb as he looks or he's trying to avoid incrimination by appearing to be so.


http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/387927-trump-jr-not-sure-if-trump-had-role-in-drafting-statement-about

Full transcript of Judiciary committee with Jr.


https://www.scribd.com/document/379403050/Trump-Jr-Transcript#from_embed

I think it was REALLY dumb for meeting with Veselnitskaya on the chance of any incrimination information on Clinton.

Especially since this was really about anti-Majenski Act.

After reading some of the document (kinda chore)... seems to downplay the idea of overall collusions.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:


No one really addressed what Israel should do when their security walls are about to be breached. The first problem, is that many believe this crowd was peaceful, or even a "run of the mill" riots that you see in Europe. Which is false, as peaceful crowds or even riots don't plant bombs or purposely start fires to burn the jews.

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns? I've asked this numberous times in this thread.....

Fine then. How about they start with not shooting to kill into a crowd that hasn't even reached the border yet? If they'd actually been a threat then sure, lethal force could potentially be justified, but this was just Israel looking for an excuse to shoot some Arabs and Hamas calluously counting on the IDF to do exactly what they did.

In the long run, Israel holds all the cards. When the party in a conflict that has all the power has an interest in prolonging it there won't ever be peace.

Thank you.

Do we know for a fact that they indiscriminately shot the crowd? Or is it really a he said, he said situation...

Why do you think it's in Israel's interest to prolong a conflict like this? Seems to me that it's in the Hama leadership's interest to prolong this...

We have footage of people with gunshot wounds in the back and dead journalists in press vests to show the indiscriminate nature.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HW1ZZ

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/04/israel-arms-embargo-needed-as-military-unlawfully-kills-and-maims-gaza-protesters/

Israel prolongs it because if it does it never has to give anything up. Actual progress in the conflict represents a loss for Israel, as it holds all the cards.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: wrote:


whembly wrote:


Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just popping back to the tale of the NHS, and how much it costs me.

Funnily enough, my latest P60 (end of year tax statement) was made available to me today.

In the last tax year, I was paid £35,211.82. And on that, I paid a grand total income tax and NI of £8,140.27 combined.

My medical care doesn't cost me anything more after that, unless I need a prescription - and even then that's hardly bank breaking. And if you've got a chronic condition, such as Mumsie's epilepsy (so severe, if she doesn't take her pills, she will fit) those costs are waived as well.


Hmmm... I'm a regular working class Joe.

£8,140.27 works out to be $10,958.60

My own contribution to my insurance plan is $6,958.64 with my employer picking up the rest. (family of 4 plan)

My plan pays for many things where I'd only have to pay the co-pay ($25 for PCP, $50 for specialty visit and $100 for ED/major surgery event).

Here's my anecdote story... my son broke his leg playing keeper in soccer last summer. I only had to pay $50 for the initial visit... which consists of numerous x-ray, blood test, treatment and cast. Had the cast for 10 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks). Then, in the winter playing basketball, while rebounding with his newly repaired leg swung hard shin-to-shin to another player and broke his leg IN THE SAME SPOT!

...another visit to the same orpthopedic. Since it was the same break, no additional co-pay required. He had further x-rays and was put in a cast again for 8 weeks (replaced every 2 weeks).

Total out-of-pocket? The $50 from the initial visit.

However, we didn't even talking about my Medicaid/Medicare taxes (which I don't qualify for, unless I'm poor w/o insurance or turn 65).

But my taxes are the total - not just for de-spazzing me when I do a whoopsie.

If you don't mind me asking, how much of the tab does your employer pick up? Because I've got private healthcare through work (which is taxable, as it's a benefit in kind), and that's like, £60ish a month, or £720ish a year).
My employer's contribution is nearly 2.5x is much as my contribution if I remember right (which is taxable as well).

Granted it's a family plan, but man, that is eye watering to me!

Yeah, that's savage!

Just to reiterate as it may have been missed. The amount Doc quoted above is total income tax - not just medical cover.

And if we are playing medical cost one-upmanship, I had an MRI scan earlier on this year. Just precautionary, was diagnosed with mild hearing impairment and they wanted to rule out a brain tumour pressing on an auditory nerve. Total cost? About £1.50 in hospital parking charges...

I forgot that Trump told the NG to stand down and stay away from our border.