Senate The US Politics discussion

The vast right wing conspiracy wasn't far off though. They targeted Bill, Obama and Hillary. They literally made mountains out of molehills. (While the affair remains egregious, the fact the impeachment was about lying about it and that it didn't affect his decisions as president make it a greater issue than it should have been)

Contrast that to what W did and what Trump has done and it is hard not to argue a conspiracy of some sort. And while most of the
Media is not out to get anyone, can we really argue that "fair and balanced" Fox and others didn't delight in the Monica Lewinsky scandal? And that they kept it, Benghazi and the email server in the spotlight while downplaying Access Hollywood for example.

So what Hillary said was true..from a certain point of view- which literally describes most of what she has said (e.g.: dead broke, baskets of deplorables, etc)

 

Maybe for J-Rod it would, but for many of Trump's supporters/cultists, Putin is an ally and a defender of white Christianity (the only kind of Christianity). And to them, anything it took to prevent Hillary and undo Obama's Presidency is acceptable.

 

So the CBO for Trumpcare is out today.

-22 million will lose insurance by 2026
-15 million will lose insurance starting next year, and 4 million will lose their employer based plans.
-Premiums do go down, but plans don't coverage as much and more people will pay more out of the pocket for medical bills.

All this for permanent tax cuts.

 

Yeah, I've seen several of Trump's supporters who said they would not care if Trump colluded with Russia to sway the election because all Putin did was expose the corruption of the DNC which they deserved. They've also said they don't care if Trump obstructed justice by pressuring Comey to drop the Flynn investigation because Flynn did nothing wrong, so why would you waste taxpayer dollars on investigating him?

 

I'm not really familiar with all the facts, but from the limited reading I have done, it seems that some of those 22 million will be losing insurance because the penalty for not having insurance will go away and thus people will be opting out (so to speak) from having health insurance at all (can't afford it or don't want it). But, doesn't this mean that premiums will go up for those that remain with insurance companies (depending on the company I guess) and could that not have a snow-ball effect as the higher costs kick more people off? My understanding is that people can still receive treatment in the ER, but who pays for that?

 

It will go up for older people, or those with preexisting conditions since companies can't spread the cost anymore if younger, healthier people are leaving the market or opting for cheaper plans that don't cover anything. As for the ER, tax payers will end up footing the bill if those who don't have insurance can't pay.

 

No one pays for it. The government offers limited reimbursement but the reality is that hospitals still lose money. Over time, this means they will have to offer less services to stay afloat or may close down altogether. You should also realize that Emergency care is not and cannot be designed to offer adequate healthcare to anyone. It's for triaging what is and isn't truly an emergency, and fixing the first category before someone dies. Literally every other problem needs a different solution: long term, routine care of the sort that no one receives in this country without health insurance.

You can't fix diabetes in a few hours or even a few days. Offering to let those people come to the ER is meaningless.

 

So three idiotic SC congressmen are trying to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from all cases involving the POTUS. It's just amazing how brazen they're becoming these days. They know they're untouchable now.

SC Congressmen Tell Supreme Court Justice to Walk Away from Trump Case

 

Collins is a no on the bill as it stands. She is unreliable, but she wants to run for governor next year and Maine might have their own Medicaid expansion initiative on the ballot next year. So that makes three no's so far (Heller, Paul, and Collins), but as we saw with the house, things can change rapidly.

 

More and more I just get angry at the selfishness of people. Literally all of this is unnecessary suffering that could have been avoided in November. And I don't even mean President.

 

Already put in the circular file, I'm sure. They have no leverage of any kind.

 

J-Rod: You have said any news source that uses anonymous sources is illegitimate. Please review this video and article of Fox News using allegations from anonymous sources about Loretta Lynch to suggest criminal activity. Are you prepared to renounce Fox and all its affiliates as illegitimate?

More broadly, can you identify a news source that you believe doesn't use any anonymous sources? It's a near universal practice. The White House itself literally does briefings "on background" where they ask reporters to keep the name of the person giving them information anonymous.

 

The "anonymous source" argument is nonsense and anyone halfway aware of history understands this. Watergate was reported on heavily through anonymous sources, only one of which was Mark Felt. Countless stories over the past many decades have been broken and further reported on using anonymous sources.

 

If, as it seems in the current incarnation, I'd like to see this healthcare "plan" characterized as it seems: reduce and/or eliminate coverage so we can give tax breaks to the super-rich. Maybe - MAYBE - if any savings went to the debt, that might be something some folks might get behind, but let's be real - this is not reform, but a give away. If it truly reformed health care, well - it doesn't appear to do that.

It's just a transfer scheme mis-characterized as "reform."

 

So the White House is claiming to have evidence that Assad is about to use chemical weapons again.

Yet according to Buzzfeed, CENTCOM have no clue what's prompted this statement.

It's almost like letting a narcissistic egotist have the keys to the world's largest military industrial complex is dangerous or something...

 

So is there a defined quality on "pre-existing relationship with a person or entity" on the revamped Muslim ban or is it going to be yet another complete mess when it happens again?

 

From what I gathered; family, college, or work.

 

For anyone not convinced by Buzzfeed's report, there's now this, via Vivian Salama of Associated Press...

This is really quite unnerving. While information on Assad's forces preparing for a gas attack would probably be top secret, you'd expect some degree of coordination between the White House and the military before releasing an unveiled threat to the public. I'm not one for conspiracy theories typically, but this all feels like an attempt at repeating Trump's boost in approval ratings after his tomahawk strike.

If Trump ends up poking the hornets nest again I just hope the American media establishment doesn't fawn over how majestic and presidential he is this time.

 

The Trump team could be either lying or playing up something, but Assad could be actually planning a gas attack for all we know. I don't know if either is more probable than the other. The world is insane.

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Anyone in favor of tax cuts.

 

Jabba-wocky
I wouldn't denounce Fox news as a whole. But I wouldn't (and haven't) run with the story at face value. That Lynch is under fresh scrutiny has been out for a week. Have you seen me bring it up?

Not yet, Not until there is something more solid to go on that an unnamed source.

And historically, anonymous sources have been invaluable. I understand that. But since the election of DJT, "anonymous sources" have been used to spread lies and avoid recourse. They've been used to report on normal proceedings as if they are sinister; "Anonymous sources" reporting Jared asked for back door communications with Russia!" Except all administrations have these channels. With Russia and other major powers.

It's normal business. Reported as if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

 

Why wouldn't you denounce Fox News as a whole but you are willing to denounce the New York Times and Washington Post as a whole?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40409888
Pew-Pew-Pew...

Why does Nigeria have such respect for him?