Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 07:18pm PT
|
Hahaha... I love the above graphic. The ACA was not "available for review" for 35 weeks. Only a few, select individuals got to see it until it went up for vote. Even PELOSI admitted to not having a frigging clue "what was in it."
And everything else compares against "anticipated" and so on. Not "actual." Just "anticipated."
Hmmm... much like the "presumably" that's floated when talking about the "illegal dirt" that Jr. supposedly "was going to" get but ACTUALLY never did.
Bwhahahaha... you guys are a HOOT!
Sadly, I'm getting busy heading into a major demo tomorrow, so I'll have to leave you to your echo chamber. I really should just leave you peacefully to it. I sense how calming it is for you when you're able to just gather again into the group cupping formation.
;-)
Carry on!
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 07:34pm PT
|
I'm no fan of the Clintons, but I wonder exactly what laws she broke? The Republicans have spent over 200,000,000 taxpayer dollars investigating the Clinton's. Where's the beef?
Donald claims it was accepting $1 million from Qatar for the Clinton foundation, which is way different than Ivanka getting $100 million from Saudi Arabia and the UAE for being Ivanka.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 08:06pm PT
|
"Collusion" implies intent (unlike the laws Hillary broke). You have not demonstrated fraudulent or illegal intent. A campaign salivating at the thought of getting dirt on an opponent is HOW IT'S DONE, not illegal and not necessarily with any illegal intent. PROVE intent, or quit opining "collusion."
Intent in a conspiracy, is an action taken in furtherance of that action.
They held a meeting with foreign nationals.
There is the intent.
" a better way to view this matter may be through the lens of campaign finance. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any [federal] election.” The statute also says no American shall “knowingly solicit, accept, or receive” any “contribution or donation” from a foreign national in connection with an election."
More to the point Tuesday is whether Trump Jr. could be vulnerable under this federal election provision. “Those regulations define contributions to include ‘anything of value,’ and I would expect dirt on one’s opponent during a presidential election to qualify easily,” Chiraag Bains, a Harvard Law School fellow and former federal prosecutor, told me. “After all, campaigns often pay handsomely for such information. There could also be related exposure, such as conspiracy or obstruction, depending on what additional facts come out.”
Rick Hasen, a University of California, Irvine, law professor who specializes in election law, wrote that the Goldstone email exchange was “pretty close to the smoking gun people were looking for.” The president’s son “appears to have knowledge of the foreign source and is asking to see it,” he added, noting that “such information can be considered a ‘thing of value’ for purposes of the campaign finance law.”
Other legal minds contacted by The Washington Post and HuffPost had a similar assessment. “The conversation will now turn to whether President Trump was personally involved or not,” Jens David Ohlin, associate dean of Cornell Law School, told the Post. “But the question of the campaign’s involvement appears settled now. The answer is yes.”
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 08:21pm PT
|
^^^^
+ 1000000
thanks for posting that bit by chomsky.
succinctly lays out the cynical dance that is being danced by establishment republicans, establishment democrats and the if not diagnosable, then at least border line narcisstic, president.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 08:38pm PT
|
“pretty close to the smoking gun people were looking for.”
Lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Put up, or shut up.
"Pretty close" is beyond lame!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 08:49pm PT
|
We must stand by him regardless of the evidence even when it seems overwhelming He represents my values as well as yours.
Nah, my unwavering commitment is to the evidence, not to this or that person or perspective.
You see, in this case, there is a pretty glaring absence of evidence.
Oh, there's LOTS of interpretations and conjecture and "coulda, woulda, shoulda." But the ACTUAL evidence thus-far is entirely inconclusive. Not that that fact keeps conclusions (always partisan) from being drawn.
This one is you guys' Benghazi.
I am seriously enjoying y'all churning and frothing, as you are "so close," "pretty close," to having "something." But you just....
won't....
quite....
get....
there.
You know, like Benghazi.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 08:51pm PT
|
Hillary...Hillary...Hillary...Hillary..echo..echo..echo..echo
Hillary lost, remember? Why do all the Trump apologists keep bringing her up?
It is all Trump now bishes. Own it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 08:58pm PT
|
Why do all the Trump apologists keep bringing her up?
Simple. Hang on tight now and see if this connects.
A lessor quality of evidence than what "coulda/shoulda" gotten Hillary in prison emerges about not even TRUMP, but his (obliquely now) campaign, and you guys are so desperate for ANYTHING that you invent "substance" out of worse inferences and lessor-quality evidence.
Be consistent now. The DNC's "Russian connection," heck, HILLARY'S "Russian connection" are more "solid" than the Trump campaigns', given what you've presently got as "evidence."
But you'll only "test" the "evidence" in one-sided fashion.
You know, like Benghazi.
So, yeah, Hillary is dead and buried, but the legacy of "evidence" evaluation lives on.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 09:15pm PT
|
You see, in this case, there is a pretty glaring absence of evidence.
The WOT all comes down to this beauty. Wow.
By the way, there's an abundance of evidence already, just in the public domain. Imagine what Mueller has. No guarantee it'll lead to impeachment, not with the GOP nutziods running the show.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 09:56pm PT
|
Put up, or shut up.
"Pretty close" is beyond lame!
The evidence is NOT FOR YOU, who gives a sh#t what you think?
It will be what evidence is collected and presented to a prosecutor, then adjudicated.
Lying is this administrations stock in trade. Lying to a federal law enforcement agent is a FELONY. Ask Scooter, ask Martha.
These guys are getting boxed in. Their lies are catching up to them.
Remember when they said that there were NO MEETINGS with the Russians?
Those that put that on their clearance papers, just got outed. Next, they will be answering questions under oath, with criminal outcomes for lies.
Watergate resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were Nixon’s top administration officials. Almost all were for lies.
Stay tuned.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 10:01pm PT
|
No guarantee it'll lead to impeachment, not with the GOP nutziods running the show.
Ah, the same level of "excuse" as for why Hillary isn't in prison.
I'll stay tuned, laughing all the way thus far.
When you guys have something genuinely substantial, I'll happily take it seriously. Trump's a whack-job, and if he goes down for something of substance, so much the better.
I dodged the Hillary bullet, and dodging the Trump one sooner than later is fine by me. That would be a pretty perfect two-fer: Neither leading candidate "makes it." Perfect!
But for now, you're grasping at straws, and it is entertaining watching the partisan desperation.
Benghazi!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 10:12pm PT
|
"Oh, you mean EXACTLY like the Dems that produced Obumblecare? You mean, like so opaque that it had to be shrouded in LIES that were known to be lies at the time they were uttered, like Obamacare? You mean, "We have to pass this so that we can find out what's in it?" You mean, like THAT sort of "in secret"
Actually if you knew anything thing about the ACA you wouldn't make a dumb ass statement like above.
http://time.com/4827115/health-care-bill-senate-republicans-obamacare-criticism/
"In the Senate alone, Obamacare had 80 days of transparency – 36 days of hearings, 18 days of bill markup, 26 days and 270 hours of Senate floor debate"
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-06-12/mitch-mcconnell-and-senate-republicans-insult-democracy-with-trumpcare-push
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 12:56am PT
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/health-reform-transparency-opaque-to-critics/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101701810.html
Notice what the press was saying back in 2009? Quotes from that time could literally be lifted and inserted into this time without modification, and you'd have EXACTLY the same complaints. Except that THOSE complaints were against the process taken by Dems trying to achieve Obumblecare.
But Obumblecare didn't actually PASS until almost a year later.
The huge problem you guys have is that you are trying to compare a process that DID ultimately reach completion (so you can look back on the entire process) against something (who knows what it will ultimately become?) that has not yet reached a completion. There is nothing yet to compare against, but you insist on claiming that "it" (whatever "it" turns out to be) "will be" less transparent.
Another huge problem you have is that if it turns out that the Repub bill really amounts to just a repeal of Obumblecare, then you have NO grounds to complain about "transparency." Such a bill would really just "reset the clock," which is not even remotely comparable to the sort of sweeping and pervasive CHANGES introduced by Obumblecare.
As just one example of the scope of that change, Obumblecare was arguably the largest tax increase on the middle class since 1942. And this from a president who repeatedly promised NO new taxes on the middle class! What "largest" really means is a moving target, but there can be no denying that Obamacare was a vast sea-change in wealth redistribution and affected 1/6 of the US economy! So, just resetting the clock and eliminating that massive tax is nothing like trying to justify it in the first place!
How "transparent" does a bill need to be if it really just amounts to a repeal? That's nothing more than: "Here's Obumblecare. Almost everybody now hates it. So, now, here's NOT Obumblecare." Not much to see there, and such a thing doesn't NEED a comparable "process" nor justification. What they might do to REPLACE it is another matter entirely. But just a repeal doesn't need a whole pile of "transparency."
IF whatever "it" is gets passed into law right away now, then I'll agree that "it" was less transparent (even if it didn't NEED to be so "transparent") than the TOTAL (almost year-long) process that ultimately produced Obumblecare. But we are very early into the process thus far, and it's impossible to know how the process will ultimately develop or what will ultimately emerge (if anything) to be passed into actual law.
The early stages of several iterations of what ultimately became the "ACA" were MORE lacking in transparency to what we presently see now. As just one example of many, there were multiple closed-door meetings with high-ranking insurance representatives, and to this day we can only guess at what those discussions entailed. Our best evidence can ONLY be the baleful results of the ACA that handed us to the insurance companies on a silver platter. So, it's quite apparent that they got what they were promised, but we'll never know, will we? BECAUSE there was no transparency in how those deals got hashed out.
So, it's WAY to early to complain about a lack of transparency, particularly when compared to "the process" of the ACA as a known quantity. There have already been iterations of the Repub efforts, and there will likely be more. "The process" of "that bill" (actually iterations already) remains entirely unknown, as we cannot know the future.
Just remember that Obumblecare was ultimately passed over the objections of EVERY Republican AND 34 Democrats that voted against it. At that time Dems had spent about a year and squandered a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, ultimately requiring them to resort to shenanigans to get the mess to pass. So, what "transparency" you might tout could just as well be interpreted as incompetency, since the earliest efforts were ENTIRELY closed-door and run by JUST THREE Dem senators!
"The process" was in MANY and substantive respects not transparent, and Pelosi's "We have to pass this to find out what's in it" line will live in infamy!
This isn't over yet. About the only thing we can be confident about is that your side is presently sucking hind tit. It's your turn to be all back-a-da-bus. But your day in the sun will undoubtedly come again, so that you'll again get your chance to wield POWER and FORCE about half of this nation to do things they hate. That's what it's all about, you know. FORCING people to do things they hate. That's what "freedom" really means.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 01:30am PT
|
Regarding "lies," that's about the furthest thing from "dumb-azz statement" possible. The litany of lies is so carefully and thoroughly documented at this point that only a complete ignoramus or idiot could be unaware of the piles of LIES that produced Obumblecare.
How about Politifact's awarding of 2013's "lie of the year" to: "If you like your plan, you can keep it"?
Obama and his cronies repeated that lie for over a year, and EVERY time they said it, they KNEW that they were lying. This wasn't a "mistake" or, "Whoops! We sure didn't expect it to turn out that way." This was a bold-faced, in-your-face LIE that they knew was a lie every time they spewed it at the American people.
How about: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor"?
Another LIE that was know to be a lie all the time they kept repeating it.
How about: "We’re going to lower your premiums by up to $2500 per family per year"?
They KNEW that this was going to be a TAX on the middle class and that they ONLY way to "cover" the proposed 20-million new people HAD to be to SCREW the entire middle class in order to "distribute" the pain of the PAYING that had to be done. This was simple economics, and MANY people saw the writing on the wall even in the face of the lies.
How about: "No family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase"?
Again, a LIE from the inception, and known to be a lie every time it was repeated. Like the above point, it's basic economics: You GIVE people insurance that can't pay typical price for it, and SOMEBODY has got to pay! Well, the wealthy aren't paying for it, so WHO is??? But of course: The Middle Class, as always.
How about: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, now or in the future"?
Again, a LIE, and known to be a lie every time it was repeated. Obumblecare increased projected debt by about $6 trillion over ten years. And it was PROJECTED IN ADVANCE by the CBO that this would necessarily be the result! Even as Obama was repeating this LIE, he knew it was a lie.
How about: "I will sign a universal healthcare bill into law that covers every American"?
Another LIE, and known to be a lie every time it was repeated. Again, the CBO had PROJECTED IN ADVANCE that Obumblecare would not actually "insure" the millions of new "poor" people touted by the plan. And we have SEEN exactly what the CBO projected before the passage of Obumblecare: Most of the "newly insured" are not actually INSURED! They were "covered" by a massive, unsustainable increase in Medicaid, which is NOT insurance.
And of the relative few that got an INSURANCE plan, they are almost entirely on high-deductible plans that amount to catastrophic insurance, not usable by them for day-to-day healthcare needs. For a poor family, having a plan with a $6,000 annual deductible per-person is USELESS! They STILL end up in the ER at a general hospital to get urgent-care treatment because they STILL can't afford to go to a GP doctor!
TODAY Obumblecare doesn't cover CLOSE to "every American," and it was known at the time (because of eerily accurate CBO projections) that Obumblecare wasn't going to come CLOSE!
So, why, in the face of these and many more LIES, did Obumblecare enjoy widespread enthusiasm? Well, the answer really is simple, and ironically one of the Obumblecare architects himself orchestrated the "sales pitch" on the basis of this very simple principle:
"... the stupidity of the American voter."
[Click to View YouTube Video]
And you've just gotta love his line that essentially says: "Yeah we could tell the truth, but I'd rather have this law than not, and the truth means not."
So, there you have it. Obumblecare was lies beginning to end, DESIGNED to be lies, and entirely dependent upon the majority of American voters being STUPID enough to believe that you really can get something for nothing.
So, the BEST thing now is: Make it go away, reset the clock, and then think about the issues without being STUPID about them.
|
|
Vlad Pricker
Mountain climber
The cliffs of insanitty
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 05:04am PT
|
MB1, I thought you were too busy to post anymore in this echo chamber, but on this page alone your posts must have taken time.
Sadly, I'm getting busy heading into a major demo tomorrow,
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 05:31am PT
|
No guarantee it'll lead to impeachment, not with the GOP nutziods running the show.
They'd love to have Pence in charge, so don't bet on that.
MB1, seems like the standard of what you consider damning evidence in the case of Hillary Clinton is different than the standard you apply to Donald Trump.
Just part of the partisan game. Something never change.
The carping and bickering of political factions in the nation's capital reminds me of two pelicans quarreling over a dead fish.
-- William Tecumseh Sherman
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 07:30am PT
|
At this point, I would prefer Pence too, without hesitation.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 08:19am PT
|
^^ Considering Soros was 9 years old when the war broke out, and that he was a Hungarian Jew, that seems sort of implausible.
Dirtbag, I prefer Trump to Pence. Trump is such an incompetent boob that he's actually derailing the GOP agenda. Pence would get it back on track and put the rape of America in fast mode.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2017 - 08:32am PT
|
And yous guys think Repubs are clueless?
U.S. Representative David Cicilline, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, has urged the subcommittee to hold a hearing on Amazon.com Inc's plan to buy Whole Foods Market Inc.
"Amazon’s proposed purchase of Whole Foods could impact neighborhood grocery stores and hardworking consumers across America," Cicilline said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to fully scrutinize this merger before it goes ahead."
U.S. lawmaker calls for hearing on Amazon's Whole Foods deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wholefoods-m-a-amazon-com-idUSKBN19Z1LI
Whole Paycheck's market share is like 1%! That consitutes anti-trust concern?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!