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.
skyth wrote: Funny how the Koch foundation gave Emory university at least $18,000 and they come up with this...
I also love how they feel the need to increase the figures by putting it over a 10 year period and multiplying the dollar value by 10. Really dishonest if you ask me.
Only comparing premium increases for people and neglecting the part of the premium paid for by the employers.
Nope. Doesn't look like something to be taken seriously.
Do the Koch brothers also fund ThinkProgress because they also cite Thorpe's study.
An analysis of the Sanders campaign’s single-payer health plan by Emory health policy professor Kenneth Thorpe, for example, finds that the “average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year,” a staggering number when you consider that the federal government spent only $3.9 trillion on everything it spent money on in 2016. After accounting for the taxes necessary to fund such a program, Thorpe estimates that “over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today.”
Thorpe’s estimates are more modest than others. The Urban Institute determined that the Sanders campaign’s plan would increase federal expenditures by $32 trillion over the course of a decade, or $3.2 trillion per year — just slightly less than the $3.3 trillion in total revenues the United States brought in in 2016.
It still doesn't address the elephant in the room about most of the cost of private insurance being unseen by people that have it as it's paid by their employer. Maybe the employers, getting a huge break on costs would tickle some of that savings down to the employees in the form of wage increases to cover the discrepancies...
Why would employers 'trickle down' any of their increased profits to their employees when they can increase shareholder value instead? Or invest it back into the business to generate even more profit and value for the shareholders? "Trickle-down economics" is one of the biggest myths of the 20th century. Lower taxes, or any cut in costs for a company does not translate to higher wages for low-level employees. The 'extra' money just gets stuck in the top and never comes down.
I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well in text communication
No. You cannot excuse one party getting opposition research from foreign sources, while at the same time accuse the other party for illegally breaking the law to get... opposition research from foreign sources.
Except heres the other issue. Hillary had nothing to do with that private insurers were. Saying that she was directly apart of it WITH NO evidence mind you is a big claim.
We have documented proof that HRC campaign and the DNC funded the Fusion GPS opposition research... and you're arguing that HRC isn't a part of that? o.O
While we have ACTUAL indictments on trump officials who are VIOLATING the Magnisty Act and also have been arrested. That is no making excuses that is living in reality.
Wait... Trump officials violated Magnisty Act has been arrested? Who?
Trump used a foreign HOSTILE power not a friendly power.
So...beyond the laughable Jr meeting where the promised opposition research turned out to be a pre-text for the Russians to discuss the Magnisty Act, what else did Trump use the Russians for?
But even then it would be finger waving and at best he is negligent at worse he colluded with a foreign entity that undermined our democracy by hacking the DNC, and then hacking electoral college results.
"hacking electoral college results"???
Please elaborate.
Trump is fethed all to hell at this point, he is a candidate that no one should support or believe in for being corrupt and working with an actual hostile power.
He may well be fethed and as long as the DNC doesn't put a joker up as his opponent, he'll be 1 termed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 19:07:53
Also - forgive me for being blunt but if European health care was so good. There wouldn't be so many people from other countries around the world coming here for surgeries.
Maybe some of it is a myth - what do you think about your health are system.
Wha? People from all Europe comes to Spain, specially german, french and english elder people to get quality surgeries for the cheap compared with their own countries. And as AllmightWalrus said, the people that comes for surgery to the USA is people that can't find that kind of surgery on their country. And are normally very, very expensive surgeries, only for the rich. Or people that take a very big debt to try to save their lives with experimental surgeries, etc...
Disciple of Fate wrote: But if US healthcare is so great why do Americans leaving the US to get healthcare outnumber people coming into the US by 2 to 1? The reasons that the US has some excellent healthcare at the very top of the system are pretty varied, but sadly unless you're quite wealthy you will never see the type of healthcare that foreigners fly in for.
That's news to me. Americans going to other countries to get healthcare...Sounds like BS. Have anything to back that up? What kind of procedures are we talking about here? Ones that are illegal here in the states or something?
So you say that many people flyes to the states to get surgery with 0 support to that claim and then you call BS the response of other poster and ask for sources.
I assume that it is common knowledge that people come to the US to get surgeries. Mainly based on the fact that I see it happen everyday. I am not denying it happens just that it is news to me.
My private health plan, which is pretty run of the mill includes a choice of US hospitals and doctors, all fully paid for.
If me or my family is in the situation that requires a very specific treatment or set of skills my maybe 200 euro a month private plan (not really sure, it's paid for by my employer) will cover it.
OTOH a surgeon friend of mine gets dozens of Americans coming over to get hip replacements for a fraction of what it costs in the US. And he's even re-routing people to other colleagues because he has a foreigner waiting list (mostly Americans, though).
.. worst thing is, one isn't even that shocked anymore.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Xenomancers wrote: I have heard horror stories about people dying in other countries waiting to get life saving procedures. Hospitals being extremely understaffed. Ect. I have heard specifically bad stories about healthcare in England. Waiting lists for surgeries are upwards of 6 months plus. Is that true? or False?
I am asking here - is there a model that the US should follow here? Because from what I see - I see a lot of the same problems no matter where you look - it's just that in the US we pay more for healthcare to cover the fact that it's not a complete cluster fck + the fact that insurance blows everything way out of proportion.
Just another reminder, Whem and Xeno (and a couple others I can't remember off hand) are not here to argue in good faith, don't engage them. I mean, in the last page or two, Xeno was whining about people using "anecdotal" evidence, then proceeds to cite anecdotal evidence as the basis for his claims that other country's healthcare is terrible.
Dude - I really have to express myself here. Just leave. I am sick of people like you that try control discussions with school yard bully type tactics. YOU are the problem. We are having a civilized discussion here. It is not helped by your condescending drivel.
Also let me explain something to you.
There is nothing wrong with an ancedote. Between people talking in good faith saying "I heard this story - is it true?" and "This guy in india got a life saving surgery - therefore lots of Americans do this".
Ofc you would know that if you were arguing in good faith but you are not. More or less I was telling a story I heard and asking a question to see if the story had merit. Not making a declaration of fact.
Except you're using the same type of anecdotal evidence (which is then backed up by actual evidence) to dismiss some claims while then using different anecdotal evidence to support your claims. On top of that, you're the one bringing the type of discussion that's wrong.
You avoid responding to counter arguments by moving goalposts across state lines, reposting disproven/flat out false claims or using incredibly biased sources that cherry pick evidence that only supports their claim, or bringing up other nonsense talking points or tactics and then disappearing once you're backed into a corner when they're all refuted, then you just wait a couple pages to repost the same gak and pretend it wasn't debunked.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Fusion GPS opposition research... and you're arguing that HRC isn't a part of that?
A US company giving HRC points and strategies to help win an election!?!? Oh my goodness!
Hostile power = / = Private Citizen
Your conflating and constantly ignoring that. So no Sorry Whembly I was going to take you seriously but not anymore your points are not salient nor backed up by any preception of reality.
Its illegal for a country to do it , especially one we have sanctioned.
So no I will not continue this fruitless conversation with you or the wall guy.
The US could insure 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket health care expenses while saving $2 trillion in the process, according to a new report about Medicare for All released by the libertarian Mercatus Center.
In the report, Charles Blahous attempts to roughly score Bernie Sanders’ most recent Medicare for All bill and reaches the somewhat surprising (for Mercatus) conclusion that, if the bill were enacted, the new costs it creates would be more than offset by the new savings it generates through administrative efficiencies and reductions in unit prices.
The report’s methods are pretty straightforward. Blahous starts with current projections about how much the country will spend on health care between 2022 and 2031. From there, he adds the costs associated with higher utilization of medical services and then subtracts the savings from lower administrative costs, lower reimbursements for medical services, and lower drug prices. After this bit of arithmetic, Blahous finds that health expenditures would be lower for every year during the first decade of implementation. The net change across the whole 10-year period is a savings of $2.054 trillion.
When talking about Medicare for All, it is important to distinguish between two concepts: national health expenditures and federal health expenditures. National health expenditures refers to all health spending from any source whether made by private employers, state Medicaid programs, or the federal government. It is national health expenditures that, according to the report, will decline by $2.054 trillion.
Federal health expenditures refers to health spending from the federal government in particular. Since the federal government takes on nearly all health spending under Medicare for All, federal health expenditures will necessarily go up a lot, $32.6 trillion over the 10-year period according to Blahous. But this is more of an accounting thing than anything else: rather than paying premiums, deductibles, and copays for health care, people will instead pay a tax that is, on average, a bit less than they currently pay into the healthcare system and, for those on lower incomes, a lot less.
At first glance, it is strange that the Mercatus center, which is libertarian in its orientation and heavily funded by the libertarian Koch family, would publish a report this positive about Medicare for All. The claim that “even the Koch organizations say it will save money while covering everyone” provides a useful bit of rhetoric for proponents of the policy.
But the real game here for Mercatus is to bury the money-saving finding in the report’s tables while headlining the incomprehensibly large $32.6 trillion number in order to trick dim reporters into splashing that number everywhere and freaking out. This is a strategy that already appears to be working, as the Associated Press headline reads: “Study: ‘Medicare for all’ projected to cost $32.6 trillion.”
Messaging strategy aside, there is room to quibble with Blahous’ positive findings. He assumes administrative costs will only drop from 13 percent to 6 percent for those currently privately insured. But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare’s administrative costs have consistently been below 2 percent. He assumes utilization of health services will increase by 11 percent, but aggregate health service utilization is ultimately dependent on the capacity to provide services, meaning utilization could hit a hard limit below the level he projects.
But even if you take the report’s headline figures at face value, the picture it paints is that of an enormous bargain. We get to insure every single person in the country, virtually eliminate cost-sharing, and save everyone from the hell of constantly changing health insurance all while saving money. You would have to be a fool to pass that offer up.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that the Department of Justice is creating a "religious liberty task force."
Sessions said the task force, co-chaired by Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio and the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, Beth Williams, will help the department fully implement the religious liberty guidance it issued last year.
The guidance was a byproduct of President Trump’s executive order directing agencies to respect and protect religious liberty and political speech.
Sessions said on Monday that the task force will “ensure all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations.”
The announcement came during the department’s religious liberty summit.
Sessions said the cultural climate in this country — and in the West more generally — has become less hospitable to people of faith in recent years, and as a result many Americans have felt their freedom to practice their faith has been under attack.
“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives. We’ve seen U.S. senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma—even though the Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for public office. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips,” he said, referring to the Colorado baker who took his case to the Supreme Court after he was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Sessions said the guidance he issued in October lays out 20 fundamental principles for the executive branch to follow, including the principles that free exercise means a right to act — or to abstain from action — and that government shouldn’t impugn people’s motives or beliefs.
“In short, we have not only the freedom to worship—but the right to exercise our faith. The Constitution’s protections don’t end at the parish parking lot nor can our freedoms be confined to our basements,” he said, according to his prepared remarks.
Sessions said the federal government under the Trump administration is not just reacting but is actively seeking to accommodate people of faith.
“Religious Americans are no longer an afterthought,” he said.
What?!?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/07/30 19:50:06
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Whenever Rudolph W. Giuliani makes a new round of television appearances saying false, curious or just bizarre things in defense of his client, President Trump, some people inevitably ask why he keeps getting invited back on these programs. But there’s a great value to Giuliani’s appearances. They tell us what the president is thinking about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the Russia scandal — and what he’s afraid of.
They also serve as a kind of briefing to Trump’s supporters: Here’s the new defense of Trump’s actions, so you’d better get ready to repeat this argument, however ridiculous it might be.
This morning, Giuliani appeared on Fox & Friends and CNN’s New Day, and said some very interesting things. Let’s begin with this portion of the CNN interview, in which he was trying to argue that Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman who is about to go on trial for a panoply of crimes, barely had anything to do with the campaign or Trump himself:
Four months, they’re not going to be colluding about Russians, which I’m not even [sure] if that’s a crime, colluding about Russians. You start analyzing the crime, the hacking is the crime, the hacking is the crime. Well, the president didn’t hack! He didn’t pay them for hacking!
There’s something else important Giuliani said on CNN, but before we get to that, here’s how he reiterated the point on Fox:
I’ve been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find “collusion” as a crime. Collusion is not a crime.
In a very strict sense, Giuliani is right that there isn’t a particular crime called “collusion.” But that’s kind of like saying that if you walked into an Apple Store, stuffed an iPhone in your pants and walked out, you’re innocent because the criminal code makes no specific reference to “stuffing an iPhone in your pants.”
Now it’s possible that Trump himself, or someone on the Trump campaign, could have “colluded” with Russia to commit an act that is not illegal and, therefore, they wouldn’t be guilty of any crime. For instance, they could have colluded to find the best taco truck in Manhattan. They could even have discussed some kind of policy initiative that they would cooperatively pursue if Trump became president. But the real problem with the “collusion is not a crime” argument is that if they cooperated to do almost anything that helped Trump in his election campaign, then it would have been illegal.
As Randall Eliason lays out here, there are multiple crimes under which any cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump campaign could potentially fall. If the campaign sought and/or received damaging information on its opponent from sources connected to the Russian government, it would almost certainly be in violation of this statute, which prohibits “a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution” from a foreign national for the purpose of a political campaign. A contribution could be money, but it could also be any other “thing of value,” and dirt on your opponent would seem to qualify. In addition to the crime of accepting the contribution, they could also be charged with conspiracy to violate election laws, or with aiding and abetting another person’s crime.
It’s important to remember that the Trump defense on Russia has gone through numerous iterations, ranging from outright lies to laughable assertions. First they said nobody on the campaign ever talked to any Russians. Then they said they may have talked to Russians but didn’t have any planned meetings. Then they said that they had a planned meeting with Russians but didn’t collude with Russians. And now they’re saying that even if they did collude with Russians, that’s okay because collusion isn’t a crime.
Giuliani said something else during his CNN interview that was somewhat convoluted and difficult to understand, but it points to what could be another serious part of this story. Host Alisyn Camerota asked him about the president knowing beforehand that his son, son-in-law and campaign chairman were about to meet with a group of Russians to get dirt on Clinton; Trump has denied he knew, while Michael Cohen says he did. Here’s part of Giuliani’s response:
GIULIANI: Lanny Davis [Cohen’s lawyer] has added that there was a meeting two days before the meeting took place, with Donald Jr., Jared, Manafort and two others, Gates and one more person.
CAMEROTA: And that’s a real meeting. You’re saying that—
GIULIANI: That’s a real meeting on another provable subject in which he did not participate.
[…]
GIULIANI: And this meeting that Cohen’s talking about took place before the meeting with the Russians. But the other thing that’s contradicted is Cohen also now says, ’cause he says too much, that two days before, he participated in a meeting with roughly the same group of people, but not the president, definitely not the president, in which they were talking about the strategy of the meeting with the Russians. The people in that meeting deny it, the people we’ve been able to interview. The people we’ve not been able to interview have never said that about that meeting.
This is somewhat hard to understand because Giuliani isn’t being particularly clear. But he seems to be saying there was some completely unrelated meeting two days before the meeting with the Russians, and Cohen is now claiming that was a meeting to strategize about the Russians. Cohen has not claimed this publicly; it sounds as though it occurred in some communication between his lawyers and the Trump legal team.
In and of itself, that meeting might not mean much. But let’s remember that two days before the meeting with the Russians, which would be June 7, 2016, is also when Trump told a crowd, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.” After the Russian meeting was a bust, his “major speech” laying out Clinton dirt never took place.
It’s possible on one hand that nothing happened at the June 7 meeting or, on the other hand, that the participants all agreed that Trump was being kept up to date about the whole thing. If Rick Gates (Paul Manafort’s deputy) was there, we could find out, because he’s now cooperating with the Mueller investigation.
This question does remind us that we’re talking about two separate things when we look at the Russia investigation. One is whether crimes were committed — crimes that could send people in Trump’s orbit to prison. We already know that there were crimes, because multiple former Trump aides have pleaded guilty (Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos). The question is how many more crimes there were.
The second and larger question is exactly what went on in the Trump campaign and ever since, whether it involves crimes or not. For instance, lying to the public is not a crime. If it turns out that Trump did know in advance about the Russia meeting and has been lying about it all along — a possibility whose odds I’d put at about 95 percent, but you may feel differently — he won’t go to jail for it, but it should certainly be taken into account when we’re considering whether Trump should be reelected and/or whether he should be impeached. It wouldn’t be the first time Trump denied knowing about something that he was later proven to have known about.
As hard as it can be to keep up with Trump’s ever-shifting defenses of what he, his family and his aides did with Russia in 2016, we have to keep that in mind: Crimes are a key part of this story, but they’re only a part.
Seen this argument alot today :/
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Xenomancers wrote: I have heard horror stories about people dying in other countries waiting to get life saving procedures. Hospitals being extremely understaffed. Ect. I have heard specifically bad stories about healthcare in England. Waiting lists for surgeries are upwards of 6 months plus. Is that true? or False?
I am asking here - is there a model that the US should follow here? Because from what I see - I see a lot of the same problems no matter where you look - it's just that in the US we pay more for healthcare to cover the fact that it's not a complete cluster fck + the fact that insurance blows everything way out of proportion.
Just another reminder, Whem and Xeno (and a couple others I can't remember off hand) are not here to argue in good faith, don't engage them. I mean, in the last page or two, Xeno was whining about people using "anecdotal" evidence, then proceeds to cite anecdotal evidence as the basis for his claims that other country's healthcare is terrible.
Dude - I really have to express myself here. Just leave. I am sick of people like you that try control discussions with school yard bully type tactics. YOU are the problem. We are having a civilized discussion here. It is not helped by your condescending drivel.
Also let me explain something to you.
There is nothing wrong with an ancedote. Between people talking in good faith saying "I heard this story - is it true?" and "This guy in india got a life saving surgery - therefore lots of Americans do this".
Ofc you would know that if you were arguing in good faith but you are not. More or less I was telling a story I heard and asking a question to see if the story had merit. Not making a declaration of fact.
Except you're using the same type of anecdotal evidence (which is then backed up by actual evidence) to dismiss some claims while then using different anecdotal evidence to support your claims. On top of that, you're the one bringing the type of discussion that's wrong.
You avoid responding to counter arguments by moving goalposts across state lines, reposting disproven/flat out false claims or using incredibly biased sources that cherry pick evidence that only supports their claim, or bringing up other nonsense talking points or tactics and then disappearing once you're backed into a corner when they're all refuted, then you just wait a couple pages to repost the same gak and pretend it wasn't debunked.
I'm not even going to dispute anything you are saying because the amount of effort required would be huge and I have to leave for the day. If you removed "me, whem, and some other posters you can't think about" You know what you'd have? An Echo chamber - a bunch of liberals and progressives bashing trump - pretending hes not doing a good job - scratching their heads in 2 years when the dems lose another election. Blaming it on racists and Xenophobes. Just chill out. I don't know where you get off thinking that it's acceptable to join in a conversation like you did. That isn't acceptable in honest debate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 19:56:58
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
skyth wrote: Funny how the Koch foundation gave Emory university at least $18,000 and they come up with this...
I also love how they feel the need to increase the figures by putting it over a 10 year period and multiplying the dollar value by 10. Really dishonest if you ask me.
Only comparing premium increases for people and neglecting the part of the premium paid for by the employers.
Nope. Doesn't look like something to be taken seriously.
Do the Koch brothers also fund ThinkProgress because they also cite Thorpe's study.
An analysis of the Sanders campaign’s single-payer health plan by Emory health policy professor Kenneth Thorpe, for example, finds that the “average annual cost of the plan would be approximately $2.5 trillion per year,” a staggering number when you consider that the federal government spent only $3.9 trillion on everything it spent money on in 2016. After accounting for the taxes necessary to fund such a program, Thorpe estimates that “over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today.”
Thorpe’s estimates are more modest than others. The Urban Institute determined that the Sanders campaign’s plan would increase federal expenditures by $32 trillion over the course of a decade, or $3.2 trillion per year — just slightly less than the $3.3 trillion in total revenues the United States brought in in 2016.
It still doesn't address the elephant in the room about most of the cost of private insurance being unseen by people that have it as it's paid by their employer. Maybe the employers, getting a huge break on costs would tickle some of that savings down to the employees in the form of wage increases to cover the discrepancies...
Why would employers 'trickle down' any of their increased profits to their employees when they can increase shareholder value instead? Or invest it back into the business to generate even more profit and value for the shareholders? "Trickle-down economics" is one of the biggest myths of the 20th century. Lower taxes, or any cut in costs for a company does not translate to higher wages for low-level employees. The 'extra' money just gets stuck in the top and never comes down.
I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well in text communication
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sometimes it helps spread information on more obscure subjects even though its not meant to convince other users, that is my approach. I'm careful not to get the thread closed.
Followed by a dozen posts spent explaining why a Mexico border wall can't be built in 6 months. There are better things we can do with our time than go over really basic common-knowledge reasoning.
I have been made aware that saying someone who is engaging in trolling is a troll breaks rule #1 so I am not saying that. I am saying that if there were individuals taking action that fit the definition of trolling then we in this thread would be better off ignoring those individuals.
To further clarify, I am referring to trolling as posting with the intent of generating a response with an absence of interest in engaging the discussion, adding to it, or having any level of good faith.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 20:12:16
Xenomancers wrote: I have heard horror stories about people dying in other countries waiting to get life saving procedures. Hospitals being extremely understaffed. Ect. I have heard specifically bad stories about healthcare in England. Waiting lists for surgeries are upwards of 6 months plus. Is that true? or False?
I am asking here - is there a model that the US should follow here? Because from what I see - I see a lot of the same problems no matter where you look - it's just that in the US we pay more for healthcare to cover the fact that it's not a complete cluster fck + the fact that insurance blows everything way out of proportion.
Just another reminder, Whem and Xeno (and a couple others I can't remember off hand) are not here to argue in good faith, don't engage them. I mean, in the last page or two, Xeno was whining about people using "anecdotal" evidence, then proceeds to cite anecdotal evidence as the basis for his claims that other country's healthcare is terrible.
Dude - I really have to express myself here. Just leave. I am sick of people like you that try control discussions with school yard bully type tactics. YOU are the problem. We are having a civilized discussion here. It is not helped by your condescending drivel.
Also let me explain something to you.
There is nothing wrong with an ancedote. Between people talking in good faith saying "I heard this story - is it true?" and "This guy in india got a life saving surgery - therefore lots of Americans do this".
Ofc you would know that if you were arguing in good faith but you are not. More or less I was telling a story I heard and asking a question to see if the story had merit. Not making a declaration of fact.
Except you're using the same type of anecdotal evidence (which is then backed up by actual evidence) to dismiss some claims while then using different anecdotal evidence to support your claims. On top of that, you're the one bringing the type of discussion that's wrong.
You avoid responding to counter arguments by moving goalposts across state lines, reposting disproven/flat out false claims or using incredibly biased sources that cherry pick evidence that only supports their claim, or bringing up other nonsense talking points or tactics and then disappearing once you're backed into a corner when they're all refuted, then you just wait a couple pages to repost the same gak and pretend it wasn't debunked.
I'm not even going to dispute anything you are saying because the amount of effort required would be huge and I have to leave for the day. If you removed "me, whem, and some other posters you can't think about" You know what you'd have? An Echo chamber - a bunch of liberals and progressives bashing trump - pretending hes not doing a good job - scratching their heads in 2 years when the dems lose another election. Blaming it on racists and Xenophobes. Just chill out. I don't know where you get off thinking that it's acceptable to join in a conversation like you did. That isn't acceptable in honest debate.
No, we'd end up without dishonest discussion tactics, and be left with people who are actually have an interest in honest debate.
And you know why you can't dispute anything I said? Because it's true.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sometimes it helps spread information on more obscure subjects even though its not meant to convince other users, that is my approach. I'm careful not to get the thread closed.
Followed by a dozen posts spent explaining why a Mexico border wall can't be built in 6 months. There are better things we can do with our time than go over really basic common-knowledge reasoning.
I have been made aware that saying someone who is engaging in trolling is a troll breaks rule #1 so I am not saying that. I am saying that if there were individuals taking action that fit the definition of trolling then we in this thread would be better off ignoring those individuals.
To further clarify, I am referring to trolling as posting with the intent of generating a response with an absence of interest in engaging the discussion, adding to it, or having any level of good faith.
HMMMM
Darn that rule #1 even when they seem to be dishonest or disregarding points :/
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sometimes it helps spread information on more obscure subjects even though its not meant to convince other users, that is my approach. I'm careful not to get the thread closed.
Followed by a dozen posts spent explaining why a Mexico border wall can't be built in 6 months. There are better things we can do with our time than go over really basic common-knowledge reasoning.
I have been made aware that saying someone who is engaging in trolling is a troll breaks rule #1 so I am not saying that. I am saying that if there were individuals taking action that fit the definition of trolling then we in this thread would be better off ignoring those individuals.
To further clarify, I am referring to trolling as posting with the intent of generating a response with an absence of interest in engaging the discussion, adding to it, or having any level of good faith.
To be fair, I was discussing healthcare, the wall discussion is pretty much a lost cause.
I get what you meant though, so I took a step back in the interest of the thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 20:26:17
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
.. worst thing is, one isn't even that shocked anymore.
That certainly seems to be a hairy situation for that person.
Bad...Just bad...Almost reported that post
So what you're saying is you had my post in the crosshairs.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Fusion GPS opposition research... and you're arguing that HRC isn't a part of that?
A US company giving HRC points and strategies to help win an election!?!? Oh my goodness!
Who received opposition research from a foreigner who got his information from his Russian contacts. You keep hand waving this point.
Hostile power = / = Private Citizen
Not even relevant to what we're discussing here...
You have HRC/DNC using a lawfirm, Perkin Coies that hired Fusion GPS for opposition research. They then hired Christopher Steele to provide research SOURCED by his Russian contacts. This is *not* illegal.
Whereas you have Trump Jr. having a meeting by two Russians who wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, but claimed to have opposition research on HRC in order to gain an audience to Trump officials. This is *not* illegal either.
Or...a better question for you is this: What. Law. Was. Broken. Here?
Your conflating and constantly ignoring that. So no Sorry Whembly I was going to take you seriously but not anymore your points are not salient nor backed up by any preception of reality.
Not ignoring or conflating anything... I'm trying to understand what, exactly, laws were broken?
Its illegal for a country to do it , especially one we have sanctioned.
Whereas you have Trump Jr. having a meeting by two Russians who wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, but claimed to have opposition research on HRC in order to gain an audience to Trump officials. This is *not* illegal either.
Not even relevant to what we're discussing here...
Umm actually yes that has everything to do with it Steele is not a NATIONAL which is what the law prohbits for a candidate to work with... Unfortunately Trump and his idiots did infact work with nationals. (Manafort, JR, and several others infact).
So these closely associated definitions is WHAT gives the law credence. And these are election laws which we do have in our country and Magnisty Act strictly prohibits many activities from russia investing in the NRA or other organizations that are American.
So again your wrong. The argument is wrong, and you accuse me of not being truthful I've posted article after article, you've chosen to ignore them. The burden of proof is on me to prove, but so is it that you must disprove it. So far you haven't.
And Steele didn't receive it from Russian Nationals. Wrong again. I even posted an article debunking that in our previous discussion.
And How so? This is how :
which prohibits “a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution” from a foreign national for the purpose of a political campaign. A contribution could be money, but it could also be any other “thing of value,” and dirt on your opponent would seem to qualify. In addition to the crime of accepting the contribution, they could also be charged with conspiracy to violate election laws, or with aiding and abetting another person’s crime.
Read election law. that took me two minutes to find.
And that thing you stated AGAIN has not been proven, and is falsified. Hillary DID not HERSELF do it or work WITH A FOREIGN ENTITY or NATIONAL. She did not embed or cover it up. Again there isn't a Prosecuter or Special Consul Investigating her wrong doings. The only ones who want that are full of themselves.
I've posted sources, cited them even. Do not insist you are the better for it. Argument over.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/07/30 20:59:15
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Whereas you have Trump Jr. having a meeting by two Russians who wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, but claimed to have opposition research on HRC in order to gain an audience to Trump officials. This is *not* illegal either.
How so? This is how :
which prohibits “a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution” from a foreign national for the purpose of a political campaign. A contribution could be money, but it could also be any other “thing of value,” and dirt on your opponent would seem to qualify. In addition to the crime of accepting the contribution, they could also be charged with conspiracy to violate election laws, or with aiding and abetting another person’s crime.
Read election law that took me two minutes
And that thing you stated AGAIN has not been proven, and is falsified. Hillary DID not HERSELF do it or work WITH A FOREIGN ENTITY
So no Whembly your wrong. bark up another tree.
I've posted sources, cited them even. Do not insist you are the better for it. Argument over.
Okay Asherian... you want to posit that the argument's is over.
What "contribution" did the Trump campaign receive that is in violation of the FARA statute?
hat "contribution" did the Trump campaign receive that is in violation of the FARA statute?
DNC Hacks, The Violation of the Magnisty Act, the Trump Tower meeting, the Stormy Daniels Payment, the cambridge analytica scandal funded by russian oligarchs that were a major arm of the Trump Campaign, the repeated cover ups of these attempts or meetings, or would you like me to diveluge how trump's hotels have been selling in the russian market as well?
Cause there is alot to pick from so no. I will not cause you ignore everything i post even a cited source.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Whereas you have Trump Jr. having a meeting by two Russians who wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, but claimed to have opposition research on HRC in order to gain an audience to Trump officials. This is *not* illegal either.
Not even relevant to what we're discussing here...
Umm actually yes that has everything to do with it Steele is not a NATIONAL which is what the law prohbits for a candidate to work with... Unfortunately Trump and his idiots did infact work with nationals. (Manafort, JR, and several others infact).
Huh? Steele is a foreigner being paid by Fusion GPS for the opposition research sourced by his Russian contacts. This isn't in dispute.
So these closely associated definitions is WHAT gives the law credence. And these are election laws which we do have in our country and Magnisty Act strictly prohibits many activities from russia investing in the NRA or other organizations that are American.
I think you're conflating a lot of things here... the magnisty Act punishes certain Russians.
And Russia investing in NRA or other organization... WTAF?
So again your wrong. The argument is wrong, and you accuse me of not being truthful I've posted article after article, you've chosen to ignore them. The burden of proof is on me to prove, but so is it that you must disprove it. So far you haven't.
And Steele didn't receive it from Russian Nationals. Wrong again. I even posted an article debunking that in our previous discussion.
Steele, by his own account, was sufficiently alarmed by what he had been told by his Russian sources that in early July he sought out a contact in the FBI, located in Rome, to supply the memo and other information. “Near the start of July on his own initiative — without the permission of the U.S. company that hired him — he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI,” David Corn of Mother Jones reported in October 2016, before the election, without identifying Steele as his source.
hat "contribution" did the Trump campaign receive that is in violation of the FARA statute?
DNC Hacks, The Violation of the Magnisty Act, the Trump Tower meeting, the Stormy Daniels Payment, the cambridge analytica scandal funded by russian oligarchs that were a major arm of the Trump Campaign, the repeated cover ups of these attempts or meetings, or would you like me to diveluge how trump's hotels have been selling in the russian market as well?
Cause there is alot to pick from so no. I will not cause you ignore everything i post even a cited source.
Then please do cite your sources, because none of those you listed above shows any sort of criminal conspiracy between Trump peeps and Russian peeps in some shady quid pro quo activities.
So not only do the republicans want more guns and less background checks, but now the Trump administration is letting people make their own guns via 3-d printers
Several U.S. states on Monday said they would jointly sue the Trump administration for allowing the public to download blueprints for 3-D printable guns in a last-ditch effort to block the designs from becoming available on Wednesday.
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a news conference in Seattle that the states will ask a federal judge to issue a restraining order and an injunction to block the publication of the designs, which they say would allow criminals easy access to weapons.
Along with Washington state, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oregon, Maryland and the District of Columbia are working on finalizing the lawsuit and plan on filing it later on Monday, Ferguson said.
At issue is a June settlement between the U.S. government and Texas-based Defense Distributed company that will allow it to legally publish gun blueprints online. Defense Distributed, which had challenged an earlier government ban as a violation of its First and Second Amendment rights, says on its website that it plans to release the plans by Aug. 1.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump failed to explain why it settled the case and allowed the publication of the blueprints, Ferguson said.
The U.S. State Department had previously banned the blueprints as a national security risk and a violation of arms trafficking regulations. As recently as April, the government in court filings argued downloadable guns would allow extremist groups and criminals abroad unfettered access to arms.
The State Department and Justice Department, which represented the government in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the announcement of the lawsuit.
"Our Congress has carefully crafted laws to protect us and, in one moment, without any consultation with experts, the administration undoes it," Washington state's Ferguson said.
The government failed to study the impact of its decision and did not consult with other agencies before settling, making its actions "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of federal law, Ferguson said. He said the settlement violated states' rights to regulate firearms.
Gun control groups on Friday failed to convince a federal judge to intervene before the designs were expected to go online. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas found that the groups, including the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, lacked legal standing.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for gun manufacturers, says concerns over 3-D printable guns are overblown because criminals are unlikely to use the expensive technology to manufacture guns.
Ustrello wrote: So not only do the republicans want more guns and less background checks, but now the Trump administration is letting people make their own guns via 3-d printers
Several U.S. states on Monday said they would jointly sue the Trump administration for allowing the public to download blueprints for 3-D printable guns in a last-ditch effort to block the designs from becoming available on Wednesday.
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a news conference in Seattle that the states will ask a federal judge to issue a restraining order and an injunction to block the publication of the designs, which they say would allow criminals easy access to weapons.
Along with Washington state, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oregon, Maryland and the District of Columbia are working on finalizing the lawsuit and plan on filing it later on Monday, Ferguson said.
At issue is a June settlement between the U.S. government and Texas-based Defense Distributed company that will allow it to legally publish gun blueprints online. Defense Distributed, which had challenged an earlier government ban as a violation of its First and Second Amendment rights, says on its website that it plans to release the plans by Aug. 1.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump failed to explain why it settled the case and allowed the publication of the blueprints, Ferguson said.
The U.S. State Department had previously banned the blueprints as a national security risk and a violation of arms trafficking regulations. As recently as April, the government in court filings argued downloadable guns would allow extremist groups and criminals abroad unfettered access to arms.
The State Department and Justice Department, which represented the government in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the announcement of the lawsuit.
"Our Congress has carefully crafted laws to protect us and, in one moment, without any consultation with experts, the administration undoes it," Washington state's Ferguson said.
The government failed to study the impact of its decision and did not consult with other agencies before settling, making its actions "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of federal law, Ferguson said. He said the settlement violated states' rights to regulate firearms.
Gun control groups on Friday failed to convince a federal judge to intervene before the designs were expected to go online. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas found that the groups, including the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, lacked legal standing.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for gun manufacturers, says concerns over 3-D printable guns are overblown because criminals are unlikely to use the expensive technology to manufacture guns.
Neat... can't wait till I can 3d print a lower receiver for a AR platform.
Seems like the same sort of thing if you have access to a CNC equipment to mill your own lowers...
Donald Trump has offered to meet Iran's leaders with "no preconditions" and "any time they want".
Welp...thats a change, and a dramatic backing down on Trumps part.
Ustrello wrote: So not only do the republicans want more guns and less background checks, but now the Trump administration is letting people make their own guns via 3-d printers
In regards to this issue, home building firearms is legal in the US. You can build a firearm, unserialized and with no background check, for your own use. This has never been illegal.
With regard to the 3d printer case, the government tried to block the printer files under ITAR, much the same way they used to try to classify Encryption as military ordnance, and theoretically restrict it from *export* availability (even though they clearly were targeting domestic use). Well, that was going to fail a court challenge the same way Encryption did, so they dropped the case. Data itself of this kind does not fall under ITAR.
Meanwhile the files to make the Liberator plastic pistol have been available online from places like the Pirate Bay and dozens of other sites for 5 or 6 years.
All this did was allow Defense Distributed to make the files available itself again. It should be noted that the gun still requires metal parts to work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/30 21:32:03
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Donald Trump has offered to meet Iran's leaders with "no preconditions" and "any time they want".
Welp...thats a change, and a dramatic backing down on Trumps part.
Ustrello wrote: So not only do the republicans want more guns and less background checks, but now the Trump administration is letting people make their own guns via 3-d printers
In regards to this issue, home building firearms is legal in the US. You can build a firearm, unserialized and with no background check, for your own use. This has never been illegal.
With regard to the 3d printer case, the government tried to block the printer files under ITAR, much the same way they used to try to classify Encryption as military ordnance, and theoretically restrict it from *export* availability (even though they clearly were targeting domestic use). Well, that was going to fail a court challenge the same way Encryption did, so they dropped the case. Data itself of this kind does not fall under ITAR.
Meanwhile the files to make the Liberator plastic pistol have been available online from places like the Pirate Bay and dozens of other sites for 5 or 6 years.
All this did was allow Defense Distributed to make the files available itself again. It should be noted that the gun still requires metal parts to work.
And of course many types of Firearms you would NOT want to make the receiver out of plastic since the recoil would shatter it. Printing of other parts is also of limited use since anything that isn't a receiver(the part that is legally a Firearm) can be freely purchased over the internet.
The uproar over 3D printed guns is stupid. They still have metal parts and its always been legal to manufacture your own firearms. Plus it would actually be cheaper to make a gun the old fashioned way vs using a 3D printer since those printers are expensive.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also argue that a lot of people who call themselves conservative actually are reactionary. There is nothing conservative about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, for instance. It's been 45 years since 1973.
That's absurdly false.
No it isn't. I know you want it to be, because "reactionary" carries much harsher connotations than "conservative", but reality doesn't conform to your opinions. 45 years is more than half a lifetime. By any reasonable definition, you're not conserving anything by arguing for a change to something that's been the law for longer than a majority of your population has been alive.
Merriam-Webster defines "reactionary" as:
Definition of reactionary
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
where "reaction" is defined as
Definition of reaction
1 a : the act or process or an instance of reacting
b : resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy
whereas the Oxford Dictionaries defines it as
adjective
Opposing political or social progress or reform.
.
This certainly applies to opposition to Roe v. Wade. In other words, whembly once again doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Quelle surprise.
It is *you* who don't know what you're talking about.
The conservative movement in the US is largely pro-life and been remarkably consistent in opposition to Roe v. Wade (and Casey v. PP).
Pro life enough to doom woman to die over ideology. Yep yep. Pro life...nope. thaw is big bs lie
whembly wrote: GOP hasn't changed the filibuster rules on budgets. So, any budgets (in traditional sense) will still need 60 votes to pass clotures.
So is that why the US is still without a budget? The Dems in senate are filibustering?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
