U.S. Politics: Confirming The Trumpocalypse

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The same way as in most countries: the buyer in a monopsony (even an approximate one) gets to set prices. Of course, this would mean that profits and salaries in the medical and pharmaceutical fields would fall. The US is by far the most expensive place to get health care, even when compared to wealthy countries such as Switzerland.

Color me skeptical, but I just don't think it would play out that way here, for that same reasons that healthcare is already so expensive. 

I also don't think the american public is going to stand for the type of rationing that Single Payer would require to remain feasible, and I don't see any politicians spending political capital on denying people questionably valuable medical treatments.

 

 

[TrueMetis]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Color me skeptical, but I just don't think it would play out that way here, for that same reasons that healthcare is already so expensive. 

I also don't think the american public is going to stand for the type of rationing that Single Payer would require to remain feasible, and I don't see any politicians spending political capital on denying people questionably valuable medical treatments.

The US public already accepts a ton of rationing though.

[Mudguard]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I'm really surprised folks aren't flipping out here about the #GoldenShowers trending for Trump. His response has been, well, pretty angry but not particularly shocking one way or another. 

The good news is that it should be easy to corroborate various things in it like hotel stays and the like. 

The best lies are the ones mixed with some truth.  Just because you prove that Trump stayed at a particular hotel, doesn't mean that any of the other allegations are true or likely to be true.  With respect to all the claims of sexual perversion, I'll need video evidence or some other convincing evidence before I believe any of this.  Doubt we'll get any.

None of this is worse than the allegations that he was a child rapist.  They put up a good sideshow for a while on that one too, but ultimately, there was no evidence.

Right now, a lot of this could fall under the fake new category, unless the claims can be verified.  Without verification, it just seems like unsubstantiated smear campaign.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mudguard said:

The best lies are the ones mixed with some truth.  Just because you prove that Trump stayed at a particular hotel, doesn't mean that any of the other allegations are true or likely to be true.  With respect to all the claims of sexual perversion, I'll need video evidence or some other convincing evidence before I believe any of this.  Doubt we'll get any.

That's possible, but unlike the other claims this comes from a source that had good intel before and was considered legitimate. At the very least it should be easy to at least disprove claims. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

Well I think we have what will the inaugural song and theme.

 

[Mexal]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm really surprised folks aren't flipping out here about the #GoldenShowers trending for Trump. His response has been, well, pretty angry but not particularly shocking one way or another. 

The good news is that it should be easy to corroborate various things in it like hotel stays and the like. 

It's not a surprise to me. This is the guy who was accused of raping an underage girl and taking part in Jeffery Epstein's parties. This is the guy who has said on tape that he likes to grab women by the pussy, walk in on Miss America contestants and been accused of sexual assault by like 14 women. The fact he likes women pissing on each other matters little to me.

The fact that he could be massively compromised and committed treason is what I actually care about and I hope the Golden Showers doesn't overshadow the treason claims.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Good luck getting any of the ACA fanatics to admit this simple, obvious fact.

Okay, lets say I have a market for corn. And lets say, the corn production market is a purely competitive market. None of the producers are making any sort of economic profit. The supply curve goes up. And the there is demand curve goes down. And they intersect at p.

And then say, you give a subsidy to people for corn. I'm not going to be too surprised if the demand curve shifts and then you have a higher price along with a higher quantity of corn consumed.

But, let's say, the supply curve isn't purely competitive, and you  impose price controls, without causing a drop in the quantity supplied. And maybe you control demand by only giving some people a subsidy while imposing a tax on others. Is it the case the price will go up? Maybe not.

And if better access to healthcare can make people more productive, producing more out put then it's possible the total supply of goods could increase, lowering the total healthcare spending to total output.

Healthcare policy is hardly simple.

I'm going to read that paper very carefully.

In the meantime, I would be real careful if I were you about who you call "ACA fanatics".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The same way as in most countries: the buyer in a monopsony (even an approximate one) gets to set prices. Of course, this would mean that profits and salaries in the medical and pharmaceutical fields would fall. The US is by far the most expensive place to get health care, even when compared to wealthy countries such as Switzerland.

Exactly 

[Mudguard]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's possible, but unlike the other claims this comes from a source that had good intel before and was considered legitimate. At the very least it should be easy to at least disprove claims. 

I don't see how you can disprove any of the really interesting claims in the report.   How are you going to disprove the allegation that Trump likes golden showers?

Also, the claim that the source had good intel before and was considered legitimate is unverifiable unless we get his identity.  Are we supposed to just accept these claims too?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mudguard said:

I don't see how you can disprove any of the really interesting claims in the report.   How are you going to disprove the allegation that Trump likes golden showers?

Also, the claim that the source had good intel before and was considered legitimate is unverifiable unless we get his identity.  Are we supposed to just accept these claims too?

You don't need to disprove the golden shower claim; you can simply disprove that he was even there on the days alleged. That's pretty easy. If that falls, obviously anything more salacious will fall. 

I don't think you're going to get the identity of a former MI6 agent particularly easily, but it doesn't really matter - what matters is that intelligence agencies are taking this intel quite seriously and are investigating it. They believe it to be at least worth looking into, unlike the Epstein rape stuff. Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter nearly as much as them believing it. 

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I don't see how you can disprove any of the really interesting claims in the report.   How are you going to disprove the allegation that Trump likes golden showers?

Also, the claim that the source had good intel before and was considered legitimate is unverifiable unless we get his identity.  Are we supposed to just accept these claims too?

And if you had his name, what would that prove to you? You don't know him. You don't know what type of intelligence he has provided before. Posting a former MI6's name out there does nothing to confirm his credibility. If the intel community is taking it seriously, that's what matters. They'll try to independently verify then we'll go from there. You, as a citizen with no security clearance or knowledge of anything intelligence related doesn't need to independently validate his intel. That's the job of the CIA and FBI.

[LongRider]

22 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The fact that he could be massively compromised and committed treason is what I actually care about and I hope the Golden Showers doesn't overshadow the treason claims.

Exactly, the GS's are just gossip, fun in their own way but not important.  How much is Trump compromised, if indeed he is, is what matters.

[Altherion]

26 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Color me skeptical, but I just don't think it would play out that way here, for that same reasons that healthcare is already so expensive. 

I also don't think the american public is going to stand for the type of rationing that Single Payer would require to remain feasible, and I don't see any politicians spending political capital on denying people questionably valuable medical treatments.

It would certainly require a massive realignment so I don't think it is likely, but, by any possible metric, the countries with single payer get roughly the same health care as the US or sometimes even better (on average). It's not that we're paying a whole lot more for a superior system and the alternative is a downgrade. We're paying a whole lot more for effectively the same thing because this allows certain groups to reap massive profits.

Incidentally, the same is true of many other industries. I've lived in France and in the US and if you compare, say, broadband internet or cellular service or college education, the quality is very similar, but on average, Americans pay way, way more because France and/or the EU have managed to cow the relevant industries into squeezing the population less than their American ones do.

[Mudguard]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You don't need to disprove the golden shower claim; you can simply disprove that he was even there on the days alleged. That's pretty easy. If that falls, obviously anything more salacious will fall. 

I don't think you're going to get the identity of a former MI6 agent particularly easily, but it doesn't really matter - what matters is that intelligence agencies are taking this intel quite seriously and are investigating it. They believe it to be at least worth looking into, unlike the Epstein rape stuff. Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter nearly as much as them believing it. 

Let's say Trump was at the hotel.  Then what?  There are a ton of allegations in the report, but essentially no supporting evidence.  That makes me suspicious.  The author got all this information through conversations with his unnamed contacts?  Right.  

My understanding is that this report was commissioned during the election campaign by Trump's opponents.  Who commissioned the report?  How much was this retired agent paid?  Seems like it would be pretty easy to make up some unverifiable claims to collect a paycheck.  

This report has been circulating for months now, but there has been essentially no verification in that time of any of the more explosive claims.  Democrats have had this information for months.  If any of this could be verified, wouldn't they have done it already.

Also, as far as I can tell, no government agency is still looking into it.

Quote

Neither of the officials said that the FBI was actively investigating the information, which has not been verified by U.S. agencies.

 

[Jaxom 1974]

Though to be fair, I'm actually expecting he'll find a reason not to hold the press conference now...

[SpaceChampion]

https://twitter.com/BrianMaxMann/status/818967659006062592

 

[Mudguard]

14 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And if you had his name, what would that prove to you? You don't know him. You don't know what type of intelligence he has provided before. Posting a former MI6's name out there does nothing to confirm his credibility. If the intel community is taking it seriously, that's what matters. They'll try to independently verify then we'll go from there. You, as a citizen with no security clearance or knowledge of anything intelligence related doesn't need to independently validate his intel. That's the job of the CIA and FBI.

Well, none of the intelligence agencies have stated that there is any merit to any of the claims in the report.  Also, it doesn't appear that any of the agencies are still looking into this.  As I stated in my response to Kalbear, this report has been out for months, but the claims still haven't been verified yet.  There's probably a good reason for that.  I'm not holding my breath that any of the more explosive claims are ever verified.

[LongRider]

#goldenshowers on twitter, comedy gold.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Let's say Trump was at the hotel.  Then what?  There are a ton of allegations in the report, but essentially no supporting evidence.  That makes me suspicious.  The author got all this information through conversations with his unnamed contacts?  Right.  

The contacts are not unnamed, they're simply not listed as names in the report. The report is not supposed to have supporting evidence; it is a summary that can be used to tell others without compomising information sources. It is not a news article. 

3 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

My understanding is that this report was commissioned during the election campaign by Trump's opponents.  Who commissioned the report?  How much was this retired agent paid?  Seems like it would be pretty easy to make up some unverifiable claims to collect a paycheck.  

This report has been circulating for months now, but there has been essentially no verification in that time of any of the more explosive claims.  Democrats have had this information for months.  If any of this could be verified, wouldn't they have done it already.

Also, as far as I can tell, no government agency is still looking into it.

 

The FBI is still looking into parts of it - the Manafort investigation is still ongoing, or else Comey wouldn't claim that he doesn't want to comment on it. Some of the other things, like Page taking a share of a business, should also be easy to prove or disprove. And if things are disproven, it should easily fall apart. That doesn't make it true, but it should be easy enough to disprove. Again, while the claims might be hard to verify, the basic facts listed in the document should not be. 

All of the other questions are reasonable things to ask that should make it easy to determine whether or not it is legitimate or obviously made up, but ultimately unless you see a tape I suspect you won't ever believe it. 

Democrats haven't had access to this report in any hardcopy way that could be distributed. If they had, I guarantee you it...would have leaked.

[Mexal]

9 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Well, none of the intelligence agencies have stated that there is any merit to any of the claims in the report.  Also, it doesn't appear that any of the agencies are still looking into this.  As I stated in my response to Kalbear, this report has been out for months, but the claims still haven't been verified yet.  There's probably a good reason for that.  I'm not holding my breath that any of the more explosive claims are ever verified.

If the intelligence agencies weren't worried about the intel, they wouldn't have told the President and PEOTUS about it recently. It's clearly still being investigated given the timing of the briefing. I don't know if it's true but I wouldn't dismiss it.