US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy

[TheKitttenGuard]

45 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Well, they're getting shit for releasing unverified intelligence that no one else wanted to release. But yes, they were honest that it was unverified, could be wrong and should not be taken as truth.

I understand the Principal of publishing only what you can confirm.

An issue is that so much of a news industry arise on providing the "truth" and dealt with this type of information that now has power.

In the past 2 weeks you have the President-Elect claim having his own info.  His Supporters  (and Intel Critics) demand what is very close to this kind of information.

If sites like Buzzfeed is going to give a full disclosure on their information for the readers to have a skepticism I think should more supported than admonish for a violation of some protocol.

  If they work hard to demostrate a separation from this type of information and is "Hard" News this can have value in showing where the information comes from that another will state as truth when they get it from a place like Info Wars.

[Werthead]

Quote

Let's put it this way: next time Trump uses the phrase 'I hear' or 'people say' on his Twitter feed, I expect to see Republicans demanding that he name his source.

As was said in the previous thread, there seems to be a growing acceptance of open and blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Republican Party as a viable means of communication and moving forwards. So I doubt we will ever see this.

Not that others can't also be hypocritical, but there's usually some angle they will work in to justify that. But the Republicans don't have any problem with it, because their supporters are not calling them on it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

This is exactly what is expected of someone who puts themselves forward for public office. Maybe not to sell it off, but at least to let go of it. This is what public service is, and always has been, about: making sacrifices. If Trump could not bear to give up his life's work he should not have sought the nomination. He knew, from day one, that if he won it would create numerous, serious conflicts of interest. His behaviour so far has made it clear that he considers those problems less important than looking after his business interests.

He's done pretty much nothing. He could clearly do much more. He could, for example, appoint an independent person or board to run his businesses instead of his children. But then he wouldn't be in control.

As much as I hate to say it, I think that ship has probably sailed. Between the Clinton's taking money from foreign powers (probably while still in office) in the 90's and essentially accepting a delayed payout of sorts from Wall Street after leaving office, and Cheney's Haliburton/Blackwater Iraqi bullshit, I'm not sure we can expect this sort of divestment at this point. I agree that he certainly should, but he most certainly won't and I'm not sure there's much we can do about it.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

What the fuck is the matter with dems in the senate? While getting 12 republicans on board with an amendment to allow the import of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, 13 democrats voted it down. 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020

do these spineless weasels hate their jobs  so much?

 

 It seems to me there are really two arms of each party that may as well just label themselves Corporatists. They are that before they are Republican or Democrat.  

[OldGimletEye]

This probably isn’t very appropriate subject matter, or at least it isn’t as appropriate, as say talking about people pissing on other people.

But, I just read about this morning this neat and easy to use data resource about wealth inequality, so I thought I’d share it.

Not that it would be relevant to US Politics or anything. But, it was interesting enough, I thought I’d share it.

http://wid.world/

[Swordfish]

11 hours ago, mormont said:

Why not?

This is exactly what is expected of someone who puts themselves forward for public office. Maybe not to sell it off, but at least to let go of it. This is what public service is, and always has been, about: making sacrifices. If Trump could not bear to give up his life's work he should not have sought the nomination. He knew, from day one, that if he won it would create numerous, serious conflicts of interest. His behaviour so far has made it clear that he considers those problems less important than looking after his business interests.

He's done pretty much nothing. He could clearly do much more. He could, for example, appoint an independent person or board to run his businesses instead of his children. But then he wouldn't be in control.

How would appointing an independent board to run the company he still owned eliminate any conflict of interest?

 

[Mexal]

16 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

How would running an independent board to run the company he still owned eliminate any conflict of interest?

It wouldn't. As long as he still owns the companies, the conflict of interest will always be there. 

And then there is this. Yet another report that is likely to be put out that something was wrong with the election but with which nothing will come of it because Trump is president.

 

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

How would running an independent board to run the company he still owned eliminate any conflict of interest?

I never claimed it would. It still wouldn't be nearly enough, but my comment is a response to the claim that the pretence of Trump's sons running the business is the most Trump could have done short of selling up.

[Ice Queen]

Justice Dept. watchdog launches investigation into DoJ and FBI handling of Clinton emails

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/doj-watchdog-launches-probe-into-handling-of-clinton-email-investigation/index.html

And this on Christopher Steele:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author?CMP=twt_gu

[Commodore]

why it's critical to kill ACA in the crib

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/01/how-obamacare-burns-the-ships/

Quote

 

This, then, is the reality: Democrats have been so upset at GOP calls to delay the Obamacare’s exchanges and its individual mandate because they realize its best chance for survival is to entrench it, and the best way to do that is to destroy the only viable alternative. History amply illustrates that a government program doesn’t need to be wise or popular to survive, it just needs to change the facts on the ground so it becomes hard to undo. This is public choice theory 101: if a program has a small minority of dependent constituents who become vocal supporters, it becomes difficult and politically painful for a majority to remove. And if a program becomes the status quo, part of the landscape, then whole systems will grow up and adapt around it – bureaucrats hired to administer the system (think of Obamacare’s “navigators”) will become settled in their jobs, businesses and state local governments will adapt their practices and payrolls, insurance companies will rework their actuarial schedules around the new pools of policyholders. And then Democrats can campaign forevermore not on a radical retooling of the system, but on preserving it from the frightening unknown.

There’s another example of this in a different arena of policy: this is how our farm policy endures, year after year. Scorned by urban liberals and despised by free-market conservatives, almost nobody can muster a straight-faced defense of the system of cartel pricing and corporate welfare that drives up food costs for the poor and distorts markets in favor of unhealthy eating choices – but it doesn’t matter. Even farmers who aren’t that enamored of the system fear being released from the federal cocoon into the hurly-burly of the free market. So it lives on, a Depression-era experiment imprisoned in Dust Bowl economics in an iPhone economy. Democrats get this dynamic, and depend on it. The dead hand of the past is their strongest ally. The ships in ashes, we have no way back.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

why it's critical to kill ACA in the crib

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/01/how-obamacare-burns-the-ships/

 

It would be nice to kill your libertarian nonsense in the crib.

But, I can't talk about this anymore, evidently. So I have nothing further to say. Though I would like too.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

why it's critical to kill ACA in the crib

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/01/how-obamacare-burns-the-ships/

 

The ACA been around for 7 years and the subsidies are a toddler.

There will either need to be a massive bribing of insurance or the market will collapse with millions out and this was always a case.

Perhaps in the years of repealing the Republicans actually put some plan together they will be a better position.

The Sacrifice of thousand of lives and suffering of millions is quite a sad Principal.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It would be nice to kill your libertarian nonsense in the crib.

But, I can't talk about this anymore, evidently. So I have nothing further to say. Though I would like too.

Libertarian is quite a stretch though. I haven't seen that boarder holding an ideologically consistent position, as of yet.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

Libertarian is quite a stretch though. I haven't seen that boarder holding an ideologically consistent position, as of yet.

I think, it's a bit like one of them thar Ayn Rand Christians.

[Reny of Storms End]

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It would be nice to kill your libertarian nonsense in the crib.

But, I can't talk about this anymore, evidently. So I have nothing further to say. Though I would like too.

I don't think one suggestion from a boarder that maybe discussion of the ACA would be more appropriate in its own thread is somehow a direct order to no longer discuss the subject or else. Did I miss something direct from a mod? Is there a reason you are playing the victim over one post? I mean the poster who made the suggestion even apologized afterwards. 

 

ETA: All of this just to really say post what you want. Unless a mod has directly asked you to no longer post about the ACA, go ahead and do it. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I think, it's a bit like one of them thar Ayn Rand Christians.

Which is in itself not (ideo)logically consistent. Because for all I know, she wasn't that keen on the faith stuff. You have to give her at least some points for consistency.

So that's why I am kinda curious how Paul Ryan would answer the following question.

"Assuming your house is on fire and you can either save Atlas Shrugged or the Bible, what would you do?"

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Reny of Storms End said:

Is there a reason you are playing the victim over one post? I mean the poster who made the suggestion even apologized afterwards. 

Because it is a serious policy issue that has been at the heart of US politics for the last six years. In fact, it has been probably a serious policy matter, with political ramifications, since Harry Truman first suggested a national healthcare service.

I was seriously annoyed at the suggestion that it's not appropriate subject matter on a US Politics thread.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Notone said:

Libertarian is quite a stretch though. I haven't seen that boarder holding an ideologically consistent position, as of yet.

Yeah, he's one of those "I'm not a Conservative, I'm a Libertarian" yet he always seems to defend conservative views and attack liberal ones. Messageboard Libertarian, I call it.

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Notone said:

Which is in itself not (ideo)logically consistent. Because for all I know, she wasn't that keen on the faith stuff. You have to give her at least some points for consistency.

So that's why I am kinda curious how Paul Ryan would answer the following question.

"Assuming your house is on fire and you can either save Atlas Shrugged or the Bible, what would you do?"

I'm not sure you could even trust his answer:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/14/republicans_confuse_atlas_shrugged_for_the_bible_partner/

[Reny of Storms End]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because it is a serious policy issue that has been at the heart of US politics for the last six years. In fact, it has been probably a serious policy matter, with political ramifications, since Harry Truman first suggested a national healthcare service.

I was seriously annoyed at the suggestion that it's not appropriate subject matter on a US Politics thread.

I get that you were annoyed, and I agree it's a serious policy issue. I'm just saying one poster suggesting starting a new thread on the ACA isn't the final word on what you can and can't post. Talk about it if you want. Until a mod says otherwise you do you.