To be fair, Obamacare has been around for 7 years. If Obamacare were to collapse under its own weight, you'd think it would have happened by now. Seven years is plenty of time for a program to collapse.
If it does collapse, I'd be skeptical that it was just a coincidence that it happened right after its biggest enemies took over all levers of government.
I don't know what's going to happen to Obamacare. But Trump is in power now. The GOP controls the House, Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.
Obamacare survives largely by the subsidies from the Government (Which ironically is illegal in itself).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finally released the 2015 Affordable Care Act (ACA) risk corridor data. The data show the rapid deterioration of the ACA exchanges from 2014 to 2015.
The ACA’s risk corridor program was intended to transfer funds from profitable insurers to unprofitable ones for the first three years of the exchanges (2014 to 2016). The program ran a $2.5 billion deficit for the 2014 plan year as far more insurers incurred losses than made profits. In 2015, the deficit increased to more than $5.8 billion—a 132% increase. These losses in the individual market occurred despite huge back-end subsidies received by insurers selling ACA plans. In both 2014 and 2015, insurers received payments for people covered in individual market ACA plans of nearly $8 billion through the ACA’s reinsurance program. These payments reimbursed insurers for a large cost of their most expensive enrollees. In 2014, net reinsurance payments equaled nearly 20% of insurers’ premium revenue. In 2015, since enrollment increased, reinsurance payments likely equaled about 13% of insurers’ premium revenue. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/11/21/a-taxpayer-bailout-of-obamacare-insurers-just-got-a-lot-more-expensive/#35de4be21e4f
In other words, Obamacare hasn't been self-sustaining since 2014 at least and the Government has been taking massive loans to pay off Insurer losses.
So more accurately it was collapsing in 3-4 years and required Government bailout, in fact it was bailed out right from the start and Obama hoped that it would become more financially feasible as time went on, this did not happen to be the case.
It is also the case therefore that Obama handed off a massive mess for the Trump administration to handle, kind of Like Bush handed over the Iraq mess for Obama to handle.
Yeah, just conveniently leave out the two main reasons it is still having problems #1 is the GOP controlled States that refused the Medicaid expansion and #2 is the poison pill Marco Rubio inserted into a Senate bill that cut off the subsidies to the insurance companies they were promised for taking on those with pre-existing conditions. It was sabotaged every step of the way.
But beyond that, the public now knows what Republicans plan for heathcare is. Kick 24+ million people off insurance, re-instate discrimination for pre-existing conditions (the list of which is so vast that almost ANYONE could be considered) and cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid to fund a tax cut for almost the same amount. You want to see what it's like when heathcare collapses, you are about to if anything like this passes the Senate. And every single medical organization in the country (not insurers) agrees it's total garbage. It's "Lord of the Flies" for American heathcare.
As I have stated before, we (the collective we, as in "all of us") do not like each other very much, especially when we self-quantify both ourselves and others into equivalence classes (equivalence classes are disjointed subsets of a main set--the intersection of any two equivalence classes is the empty set). These equivalence classes can occur even over trivial differences--in the last experiment, two groups of children were given different color t-shirts and this alone was sufficient to make the children mistrust those who were wearing a different color shirt.
Whenever I see people having heated disagreements over politics all I can think of are green Drazi and purple Drazi.
So wait Sally Yates warned Trump that Michael Flynn was compromised by Russia - then she was fired almost immediately afterwards.
But then 18 days later Flynn was fired for having those very contacts that the Trumpists had already been warned about twice? Something is rotten there. Either Trump is incredibly stupid and stubborn or incredibly corrupt.
This is ridiculous how little is getting done in the investigations and how little the Republicans care about foreign interference in our government as long as it benefits them.
As I have stated before, we (the collective we, as in "all of us") do not like each other very much, especially when we self-quantify both ourselves and others into equivalence classes (equivalence classes are disjointed subsets of a main set--the intersection of any two equivalence classes is the empty set). These equivalence classes can occur even over trivial differences--in the last experiment, two groups of children were given different color t-shirts and this alone was sufficient to make the children mistrust those who were wearing a different color shirt.
Whenever I see people having heated disagreements over politics all I can think of are green Drazi and purple Drazi.
This is partially correct, but partially not. People act like politics doesn't matter. It DOES matter. As the healthcare debate continues to play out, in many cases (maybe not yours, or mine, but to MANY people) these can rise to the level of life and death. It isn't just as trivial as rooting for a sports team. There are actual stakes here.
What is depressing to me is the state of sanition in regards to health issues in PR. It is no wonder Zika infected so many there. Many govt. officials do not take into acct. how the issues of public health in one country can have an effect on the rest of the world, esp. given todays fast transit. Even the CDC did not think Ebola would reach the US.
No, they may not have, but the Ebola crisis (so to speak) in the US was handled remarkably well. One guy died because it was simply too late, the hospital was slow to realize what had happened and a couple nurses got sick. They contained it. The thing with Ebola is, if you know about it immediately and can keep your patient hydrated getting world-class care, you can save them fairly easily, and this is what happened. The CDC did it's job in this case. It's a case study in why it's important to let professionals in government agencies who know what they are doing take care of things. Meanwhile, in New Jersey, you had Chris Christie grandstanding and quarantining a nurse for no actual medical reason, violating her rights simply to score political points. There are people who take things like this seriously (the CDC) and then there are politicians looking to create panic and grandstand on the whole thing (the GOP during that entire couple weeks, AFTER they had refused to provide funding to combat an outbreak).
The thing with Ebola is, if you know about it immediately and can keep your patient hydrated getting world-class care, you can save them fairly easily, and this is what happened. The CDC did it's job in this case. It's a case study in why it's important to let professionals in government agencies who know what they are doing take care of things. Meanwhile, in New Jersey, you had Chris Christie grandstanding and quarantining a nurse for no actual medical reason, violating her rights simply to score political points.
That's actually true for most of the major killers. Cholera for one causes absolutely massive dehydration. Influenza is one of the biggest infectious killers around just due to sheer numbers and isn't generally directly fatal. Pneumonia co-morbidity is the real killer with it.
The problem is that at the epidemic level there may not be enough uninfected people to keep everyone hydrated. Plus the problem of getting uncontaminated water.
Whenever I see people having heated disagreements over politics all I can think of are green Drazi and purple Drazi.
This is partially correct, but partially not. People act like politics doesn't matter. It DOES matter. As the healthcare debate continues to play out, in many cases (maybe not yours, or mine, but to MANY people) these can rise to the level of life and death. It isn't just as trivial as rooting for a sports team. There are actual stakes here.
Of course there are actual stakes. Under Trumpcare--if we can call the ACA "Obamacare" then we are allowed to call this bill "Trumpcare"--some people may, indeed, lose insurance or have their insurance restricted in ways it was not before; this is not dissimilar to how some people actually couldn't keep their doctor under the ACA because some providers opted out of insurance.
I was actually heading in the direction that we are fully at the point now where people talk *at* each other rather than *with* each other, often only because of an arbitrary letter which may happen to be listed after someone's name like "R", or "D", or even "L".
Consider another political topic which has actual stakes--immigration. Governor Abbott just signed SB4, which bans "sanctuary" cities in Texas and allows local police officers to check a person's immigration status if--and these a very big ifs--Federal authorities request it or the officer in question thinks it is necessary when they have stopped and/or detained someone. I have no doubt there are going to be cases where some cop has a chip on his shoulder and he is going to take it out on someone he has pulled over, resulting in that person being detained and possibly deported. In most cases, though, this is not going to happen. More on the new law may be found here.
The last time I was in Europe I was required to carry my passport with me at all times if out in public just in case a police officer stopped me and asked me to identify myself; this actually happened twice. Although this is essentially the same as "papers, please" I did not find it to be an inconvenience nor did I find it to be insulting or demeaning. I would much rather comply with the laws of the country which I am visiting (well, actually living there for a short while) and avoid undue scrutiny than to engage in non-compliance and risk the penalties. Given that this is not an unreasonable view to hold, why do so many people feel like it is unreasonable? That being said, our immigration system needs some serious overhaul and some streamlining but not a ridiculous wall that is never actually going to be built (I don't care what he says).
Disclosure: my grandfather owned a construction business in the late 1970s/early 1980s in Texas. The likelihood that he employed illegal/undocumented workers is pretty high but I was too young to be fully aware of that topic; however, that means that at some point in my life I most likely received tangential benefit from their labor.
Whenever I see people having heated disagreements over politics all I can think of are green Drazi and purple Drazi.
This is partially correct, but partially not. People act like politics doesn't matter. It DOES matter. As the healthcare debate continues to play out, in many cases (maybe not yours, or mine, but to MANY people) these can rise to the level of life and death. It isn't just as trivial as rooting for a sports team. There are actual stakes here.
Of course there are actual stakes. Under Trumpcare--if we can call the ACA "Obamacare" then we are allowed to call this bill "Trumpcare"--some people may, indeed, lose insurance or have their insurance restricted in ways it was not before; this is not dissimilar to how some people actually couldn't keep their doctor under the ACA because some providers opted out of insurance.
I was actually heading in the direction that we are fully at the point now where people talk *at* each other rather than *with* each other, often only because of an arbitrary letter which may happen to be listed after someone's name like "R", or "D", or even "L".
Consider another political topic which has actual stakes--immigration. Governor Abbott just signed SB4, which bans "sanctuary" cities in Texas and allows local police officers to check a person's immigration status if--and these a very big ifs--Federal authorities request it or the officer in question thinks it is necessary when they have stopped and/or detained someone. I have no doubt there are going to be cases where some cop has a chip on his shoulder and he is going to take it out on someone he has pulled over, resulting in that person being detained and possibly deported. In most cases, though, this is not going to happen. More on the new law may be found here.
The last time I was in Europe I was required to carry my passport with me at all times if out in public just in case a police officer stopped me and asked me to identify myself; this actually happened twice. Although this is essentially the same as "papers, please" I did not find it to be an inconvenience nor did I find it to be insulting or demeaning. I would much rather comply with the laws of the country which I am visiting (well, actually living there for a short while) and avoid undue scrutiny than to engage in non-compliance and risk the penalties. Given that this is not an unreasonable view to hold, why do so many people feel like it is unreasonable? That being said, our immigration system needs some serious overhaul and some streamlining but not a ridiculous wall that is never actually going to be built (I don't care what he says).
Disclosure: my grandfather owned a construction business in the late 1970s/early 1980s in Texas. The likelihood that he employed illegal/undocumented workers is pretty high but I was too young to be fully aware of that topic; however, that means that at some point in my life I most likely received tangential benefit from their labor.
The reason this is so unreasonable is because no white person in this country is ever going to be asked to provide proof of their citizenship by a cop. With this new law in place, we know what is going to happen. Anyone who has lived on this Earth more than 20 years knows full well that cops don't ACTUALLY need a legal reason to stop you for anything. If they don't have one, they can make one up, and it is your word against theirs in court. There is no one with more absolute authority than a cop in America when he has you pulled over, either during a traffic stop or otherwise. The reason it's an undue burden is because there is no way to limit this to illegal immigrants. Legal citizens of Hispanic descent (not people visiting on a passport) are going to be subject to produce proof that they belong in this country, something no white person anywhere in this country will ever have to do. It makes them second-class citizens. The argument about being asked for your passport doesn't really apply, because it is inevitable that people who are just as much citizens as you or I are going to have to carry PROOF of their very existence with them at all times, because of their skin color. And with the way policing works in America, this will happen OFTEN. So you either demand that EVERYONE produce citizenship papers, or no one. It cannot be selective. Of course, the former would never pass, because white Americans would never tolerate such an affront to their supremacy. And most simply don't care about the later, because they know it will never effect them, by default. I would actually be more than happy to see the "papers please" law be applied to absolutely everyone just to see how ape-shit conservatives would go when it happened to them and reveal their hypocrisy.
The reason this is so unreasonable is because no white person in this country is ever going to be asked to provide proof of their citizenship by a cop. With this new law in place, we know what is going to happen. Anyone who has lived on this Earth more than 20 years knows full well that cops don't ACTUALLY need a legal reason to stop you for anything. If they don't have one, they can make one up, and it is your word against theirs in court.
When I was in college, one of the campus cops (who are state troopers) said, and I don't remember the context such as why it was a talk where she was a speaker, that "We (the police) can find a reason to pull someone over within 3 blocks". Basically there's so many little rules of driving that someone's going to break SOMETHING.
The reason it's an undue burden is because there is no way to limit this to illegal immigrants. Legal citizens of Hispanic descent (not people visiting on a passport) are going to be subject to produce proof that they belong in this country, something no white person anywhere in this country will ever have to do. It makes them second-class citizens. The argument about being asked for your passport doesn't really apply, because it is inevitable that people who are just as much citizens as you or I are going to have to carry PROOF of their very existence with them at all times, because of their skin color. And with the way policing works in America, this will happen OFTEN. So you either demand that EVERYONE produce citizenship papers, or no one. It cannot be selective. Of course, the former would never pass, because white Americans would never tolerate such an affront to their supremacy. And most simply don't care about the later, because they know it will never effect them, by default. I would actually be more than happy to see the "papers please" law be applied to absolutely everyone just to see how ape-shit conservatives would go when it happened to them and reveal their hypocrisy.
In many European countries don't people get national ID cards? Its possibly less unreasonable to ask for ID if the government actually provided the ID.
There is no one with more absolute authority than a cop in America when he has you pulled over, either during a traffic stop or otherwise.
Exactly. I think many people forget that police can arrest any person at any time based solely upon "the person acted in a suspicious manner" or "suspect met the description of a wanted criminal" and there is nothing you can do about it except comply while they book you into jail then wait until you can call a bondsman to get bailed out.
The court challenges to SB4 have already been filed, at least by one county and city in South Texas. Now, when I say "Texas", what is the first thing that pops into your mind? Probably cowboy hats, boots, a longhorn, or something like that. What color is the person wearing the hat? You said "white", didn't you? Actually, Texas is now 40% Hispanic/Latino overall; south of I-10 going into the Rio Grande Valley that number rises to 70% - 80%. Incidentally, Houston is now more ethnically diverse than New York City--shocking, I know. Anyway, the local police and sheriff's deputies in those cities/counties--most of whom are also probably Hispanic--also face a penalty under the law: non-compliance with a Federal request is a Class A misdemeanor, which is only one step down from a felony. This will be a headache for them because they often have better things to do than to do ICE's job for it.
The challenges to SB4 are going to focus on two things: the State trying to worm its way into immigration enforcement (which isn't a State's responsibility) and how much authority the Legislature has to tell cities how their police departments are to be managed. It is highly unlikely that SB4 survives to become implemented on 1 September.
Some of the protesters outside the Capitol building in Austin held signs saying "Abbott is a racist". erm...have they met his wife? This is ironic for another reason--"Mexican" isn't a race. *shrug* If you are going to protest, at least protest intelligently.
The reason this is so unreasonable is because no white person in this country is ever going to be asked to provide proof of their citizenship by a cop. With this new law in place, we know what is going to happen. Anyone who has lived on this Earth more than 20 years knows full well that cops don't ACTUALLY need a legal reason to stop you for anything. If they don't have one, they can make one up, and it is your word against theirs in court.
When I was in college, one of the campus cops (who are state troopers) said, and I don't remember the context such as why it was a talk where she was a speaker, that "We (the police) can find a reason to pull someone over within 3 blocks". Basically there's so many little rules of driving that someone's going to break SOMETHING.
The reason it's an undue burden is because there is no way to limit this to illegal immigrants. Legal citizens of Hispanic descent (not people visiting on a passport) are going to be subject to produce proof that they belong in this country, something no white person anywhere in this country will ever have to do. It makes them second-class citizens. The argument about being asked for your passport doesn't really apply, because it is inevitable that people who are just as much citizens as you or I are going to have to carry PROOF of their very existence with them at all times, because of their skin color. And with the way policing works in America, this will happen OFTEN. So you either demand that EVERYONE produce citizenship papers, or no one. It cannot be selective. Of course, the former would never pass, because white Americans would never tolerate such an affront to their supremacy. And most simply don't care about the later, because they know it will never effect them, by default. I would actually be more than happy to see the "papers please" law be applied to absolutely everyone just to see how ape-shit conservatives would go when it happened to them and reveal their hypocrisy.
This. So much this.
When I was, I believe, 19, we went to visit a college buddy of my friend, in her hometown. It was a just a general bonfire type thing that happens in the midwest on weekends. An off-duty cop happened to be there. The discussion came up about what criteria they use to pull you over at any time after midnight (when it is definitely more likely drunk drivers will be out). The hypothetical speed limit was 55, with no other erratic driving or obvious violations being involved. First I said, "ok, let's say you are going 60 mph" and he said that of course you would get pulled over. Then I asked, "well, what if you were going 52 or 53 mph??" and he said he would also pull you over for that because they don't believe anyone would drive UNDER the speed limit and it was suspicious. Then I asked "well, let's say you're able to keep your car at EXACTLY 55 mph" and he said it didn't matter, they would pull you over for that too, since it doesn't seem like something someone would normally do. I never forgot that conversation, because it revealed the entire thing to basically be a sham. They have no criteria, it's based on their feelings, mood and gut. You don't have a right to drive after midnight under the speed limit without arousing suspicion, you don't even have the right to drive the EXACT mph of the speed limit. You are guilty of something if they say you are.
Of course, the former would never pass, because white Americans would never tolerate such an affront to their supremacy
Sorry, But i'm going to have to complain a little here.
As a non-white person, I've always been absolutely grateful for 'White people' in the West and barring a few bad apples that would exist in any ethnic group, I've found them by far the most tolerating and accommodating people in the world.
I also find this sort of statement essentially racist and wouldn't be tolerated if stated for any other ethnic group and i also don't think such rhetoric helps any issue at all.
The reason this is so unreasonable is because no white person in this country is ever going to be asked to provide proof of their citizenship by a cop. With this new law in place, we know what is going to happen. Anyone who has lived on this Earth more than 20 years knows full well that cops don't ACTUALLY need a legal reason to stop you for anything. If they don't have one, they can make one up, and it is your word against theirs in court.
When I was in college, one of the campus cops (who are state troopers) said, and I don't remember the context such as why it was a talk where she was a speaker, that "We (the police) can find a reason to pull someone over within 3 blocks". Basically there's so many little rules of driving that someone's going to break SOMETHING.
The reason it's an undue burden is because there is no way to limit this to illegal immigrants. Legal citizens of Hispanic descent (not people visiting on a passport) are going to be subject to produce proof that they belong in this country, something no white person anywhere in this country will ever have to do. It makes them second-class citizens. The argument about being asked for your passport doesn't really apply, because it is inevitable that people who are just as much citizens as you or I are going to have to carry PROOF of their very existence with them at all times, because of their skin color. And with the way policing works in America, this will happen OFTEN. So you either demand that EVERYONE produce citizenship papers, or no one. It cannot be selective. Of course, the former would never pass, because white Americans would never tolerate such an affront to their supremacy. And most simply don't care about the later, because they know it will never effect them, by default. I would actually be more than happy to see the "papers please" law be applied to absolutely everyone just to see how ape-shit conservatives would go when it happened to them and reveal their hypocrisy.
This. So much this.
When I was, I believe, 19, we went to visit a college buddy of my friend, in her hometown. It was a just a general bonfire type thing that happens in the midwest on weekends. An off-duty cop happened to be there. The discussion came up about what criteria they use to pull you over at any time after midnight (when it is definitely more likely drunk drivers will be out). The hypothetical speed limit was 55, with no other erratic driving or obvious violations being involved. First I said, "ok, let's say you are going 60 mph" and he said that of course you would get pulled over. Then I asked, "well, what if you were going 52 or 53 mph??" and he said he would also pull you over for that because they don't believe anyone would drive UNDER the speed limit and it was suspicious. Then I asked "well, let's say you're able to keep your car at EXACTLY 55 mph" and he said it didn't matter, they would pull you over for that too, since it doesn't seem like something someone would normally do. I never forgot that conversation, because it revealed the entire thing to basically be a sham. They have no criteria, it's based on their feelings, mood and gut. You don't have a right to drive after midnight under the speed limit without arousing suspicion, you don't even have the right to drive the EXACT mph of the speed limit. You are guilty of something if they say you are.
A police officers first and foremost job is to protect the citizens of their county/state/country whatever.
I would rather have the officer use his intuition and gut, and pull someone he suspects might be drunk driving than have that person kill someone later down the road because he wasn't driving erratically at the time. A couple quick questions and polite answers can let that person go on their merry way once it is established they are not under the influence.
It is why some places have roadside checks, pulling EVERY car over and asking the driver is a common occurrence during holidays and other times (concerts/sporting events) when alcohol consumption is high.
You also have to remember, driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your rights are not being infringed if a officer suspects that you driving the vehicle will put the rest of the community in danger.
If you feel like what ever infraction they charge you with is unjust, you have the right to fight it in court.
Of course, the former would never pass, because white Americans would never tolerate such an affront to their supremacy
Sorry, But i'm going to have to complain a little here.
As a non-white person, I've always been absolutely grateful for 'White people' in the West and barring a few bad apples that would exist in any ethnic group, I've found them by far the most tolerating and accommodating people in the world.
I also find this sort of statement essentially racist and wouldn't be tolerated if stated for any other ethnic group and i also don't think such rhetoric helps any issue at all.
And as a white person, who grew up around nearly all white people, I can say they would definitely never tolerate having to show their citizenship papers every time they were pulled over for a traffic violation. But that is small potatoes compared to what I'm posting next......
Trump has fired Comey. Fired the FBI Director in charge of the investigations into his campaign. On the heels of the Yates testimony, possible witness intimidation through Twitter, and attempts to get the Senate GOP to stop her from testifying. If anyone is unfamiliar with the Saturday Night Massacre, now would be a good time to brush up on history. Except the Republicans during the Nixon Administration actually had some sense of right and wrong. The cover-up is in full effect. Yesterday sent them over the edge.
So Trump fired Comey who among other things was investigating Trump. Presumably Ted Cruz will be his replacement or someone else who will not investigate Trump-Russia.
So Trump fired Comey who among other things was investigating Trump. Presumably Ted Cruz will be his replacement or someone else who will not investigate Trump-Russia.
Again....do innocent people attempt to shut down the testimony of the former Acting AG one day, then fire their FBI Director who is in the middle of leading a probe of the campaign the next?? Even if you DON'T believe anything about Trump/Russia, we are now firmly in the territory of cover-up. And you don't cover-up something that isn't there. If there were ANY doubts before about this, they are now gone.
Edit: Good god, the excuse is that he didn't end up prosecuting Hillary Clinton during the campaign. This is a Banana Republic as of right now. He fired his FBI Director for, ostensibly, not trying to jail his campaign opponent without evidence.
There were plenty of us that told you about this guy, and the inevitability of him triggering a Constitutional crisis. It's on the way. Mark....my.....words.
It's odd. Comey has not done anything recently to upset Trump or the GOP, or even their enemies for that matter.
My only theory at this moment is that the Trump team has already chosen one or more possible successors, a man who will be more pliant and willing to work for Trump's priorities.
Conceivably, the Trump team might want an FBI director who would, unlike Comey, indict Clinton. But I thought the Trump team had lost interest in taking down Clinton after the election was over; I thought they had moved on.
It's odd. Comey has not done anything recently to upset Trump or the GOP, or even their enemies for that matter.
My only theory at this moment is that the Trump team has already chosen one or more possible successors, a man who will be more pliant and willing to work for Trump's priorities.
Conceivably, the Trump team might want an FBI director who would, unlike Comey, indict Clinton. But I thought the Trump team had lost interest in taking down Clinton after the election was over; I thought they had moved on.
I have no idea why anyone would find this odd given what happened yesterday. And this is FAR more dangerous than you are making it out to be. Comey's FBI is investigating his campaign, and he wants someone who was more interested in jailing his recent political rival. These are the actions of a Banana Republic.
Honestly, if people want to be blind about it at this point, fine. Every single other thing that has slowly dripped out about Trump and Russia is stuff I and others were greeted with "lol" for posting about weeks or months before it happened, and this will be no different. People do not seem to get it. Trump is a thug, likely a guilty thug, and he, after a horrendous news day yesterday with the Yates testimony, decided to nuke the entire playing field. I DESPISE Comey for the most part, but this is a threat to our entire democracy. What happens now will decide if we remain one.
The kicker here is that Nixon was actually about 1000x smarter than Trump could ever hope of being. He thinks this is just some chess move in a game-show. It's not, this is about the fundamental integrity of our system of government. There is no doubt Trump has the POWER to do this. But I ask one question: How in the hell can the person whose campaign is under an ongoing investigation be allowed to appoint someone who will certainly shut it down or sabotage it??
It's odd. Comey has not done anything recently to upset Trump or the GOP, or even their enemies for that matter.
My only theory at this moment is that the Trump team has already chosen one or more possible successors, a man who will be more pliant and willing to work for Trump's priorities.
Conceivably, the Trump team might want an FBI director who would, unlike Comey, indict Clinton. But I thought the Trump team had lost interest in taking down Clinton after the election was over; I thought they had moved on.
Comey was stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Hillary did commit crimes and everyone admitted that, However he simply deferred to Lynch which pissed off Trump supporters and pissed off Hillary supporters.
I sympathize with the man, I have no idea on his competence but damn being in such a situation is hectic.
Hillary did commit crimes and everyone admitted that, However he simply deferred to Lynch which pissed off Trump supporters and pissed off Hillary supporters.
I sympathize with the man, I have no idea on his competence but damn being in such a situation is hectic.
Nobody admitted that Hillary committed crimes which is the opposite of what you said that everyone admitted that Hillary committed crimes. And Comey did not defer to Lynch, Lynch deferred to Comey. You could not be more wrong so far.
Hillary is guilty of poor judgement in using a private server and she admitted that, that's it. That's not a crime and there was no intention to do crime so no reasonable prosecutor would pursue a case. And they didn't.
In one of his early post election rallies Trump responded to the "lock her up" calls he said 'nah that was just a campaign thing' and that he didn't care anymore. But if there's one thing that has shown it's that Trump cares above all else about the election where he lost the popular vote by more than 3 million votes. He's still constantly tweeting about it and attempting to brag about it.
Hillary did commit crimes and everyone admitted that, However he simply deferred to Lynch which pissed off Trump supporters and pissed off Hillary supporters.
I sympathize with the man, I have no idea on his competence but damn being in such a situation is hectic.
Nobody admitted that Hillary committed crimes which is the opposite of what you said that everyone admitted that Hillary committed crimes. And Comey did not defer to Lynch, Lynch deferred to Comey. You could not be more wrong so far.
Hillary is guilty of poor judgement in using a private server and she admitted that, that's it. That's not a crime and there was no intention to do crime so no reasonable prosecutor would pursue a case.
When Trump ends up driven from office @smeagolheart, everyone can come back and read these posts and pretend some of us weren't saying it from the very beginning:
Hillary is guilty of poor judgement in using a private server and she admitted that, that's it. That's not a crime and there was no intention to do crime so no reasonable prosecutor would pursue a case.
Mishandling classified information is a crime, intent is not required. If you served in the military you would definitely understand this.
The firing happened on the recommendation of Attorney General and Deputy General, I attach their letters for their rationale.
Comey specifically said she had not committed a crime. He said her actions were (1) wrong and (2) legal.
Lynch did not make that decision (though she had the power to do so herself). Lynch announced that she would accept whatever decision Comey recommended, which she did.
No, Comey didn't defer to Lynch. It was the exact opposite. She publicly and explicitly deferred to his judgment, and he was the one who announced it in the end.
You are, of course, assuming that there is a single, solitary reason to believe anything that comes out of the Trump Administration. Which for many of us was obliterated long ago, based on the fact that the President lies as often as the rest of us breath.
Well considering the GOP has shot themselves in the foot with allowing your ISPs to sell your browser history and with passing the American Healthcare Act in the House and the other misssteps they've made they may be in for an ass whooping in 2018. Those are two things Democrats will be able to shove in their faces. And that's not even mentioning the historic unpopularity of Trump and people's desires to kneecap his unamerican agenda.
With a Democratic majority the investigation won't be swept under the rug like it is now. But by then will there be any evidence left after Trump's cronies have their way with things. But that almost doesn't matter because he's still in violation of the emouluments clause of the Constitution and personally enriching himself so that's another impeachment avenue.
Comey specifically said she had not committed a crime. He said her actions were (1) wrong and (2) legal.
Lynch did not make that decision (though she had the power to do so herself). Lynch announced that she would accept whatever decision Comey recommended, which she did.
No, Comey didn't defer to Lynch. It was the exact opposite. She publicly and explicitly deferred to his judgment, and he was the one who announced it in the end.
They are going to use Clinton to cover-up for the blatantly obvious real reason this was done. You know it and I know it. Without the foil of Hillary or Obama, Trump has no cover on this. It was INEVITABLE that Clinton would have to be brought into this story. It's raw meat for his base, and it the necessary fairy-tale being created as we speak on FOX News and AM radio stations across the country. If you switch to any of them, you can watch how propaganda works in real-time.
Comments
If it does collapse, I'd be skeptical that it was just a coincidence that it happened right after its biggest enemies took over all levers of government.
I don't know what's going to happen to Obamacare. But Trump is in power now. The GOP controls the House, Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.
The country is in their hands now.
Obamacare survives largely by the subsidies from the Government (Which ironically is illegal in itself).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finally released the 2015 Affordable Care Act (ACA) risk corridor data. The data show the rapid deterioration of the ACA exchanges from 2014 to 2015.
The ACA’s risk corridor program was intended to transfer funds from profitable insurers to unprofitable ones for the first three years of the exchanges (2014 to 2016). The program ran a $2.5 billion deficit for the 2014 plan year as far more insurers incurred losses than made profits. In 2015, the deficit increased to more than $5.8 billion—a 132% increase.
These losses in the individual market occurred despite huge back-end subsidies received by insurers selling ACA plans. In both 2014 and 2015, insurers received payments for people covered in individual market ACA plans of nearly $8 billion through the ACA’s reinsurance program. These payments reimbursed insurers for a large cost of their most expensive enrollees. In 2014, net reinsurance payments equaled nearly 20% of insurers’ premium revenue. In 2015, since enrollment increased, reinsurance payments likely equaled about 13% of insurers’ premium revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/11/21/a-taxpayer-bailout-of-obamacare-insurers-just-got-a-lot-more-expensive/#35de4be21e4f
In other words, Obamacare hasn't been self-sustaining since 2014 at least and the Government has been taking massive loans to pay off Insurer losses.
So more accurately it was collapsing in 3-4 years and required Government bailout, in fact it was bailed out right from the start and Obama hoped that it would become more financially feasible as time went on, this did not happen to be the case.
It is also the case therefore that Obama handed off a massive mess for the Trump administration to handle, kind of Like Bush handed over the Iraq mess for Obama to handle.
But beyond that, the public now knows what Republicans plan for heathcare is. Kick 24+ million people off insurance, re-instate discrimination for pre-existing conditions (the list of which is so vast that almost ANYONE could be considered) and cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid to fund a tax cut for almost the same amount. You want to see what it's like when heathcare collapses, you are about to if anything like this passes the Senate. And every single medical organization in the country (not insurers) agrees it's total garbage. It's "Lord of the Flies" for American heathcare.
Whenever I see people having heated disagreements over politics all I can think of are green Drazi and purple Drazi.
But then 18 days later Flynn was fired for having those very contacts that the Trumpists had already been warned about twice? Something is rotten there. Either Trump is incredibly stupid and stubborn or incredibly corrupt.
This is ridiculous how little is getting done in the investigations and how little the Republicans care about foreign interference in our government as long as it benefits them.
The problem is that at the epidemic level there may not be enough uninfected people to keep everyone hydrated. Plus the problem of getting uncontaminated water.
I was actually heading in the direction that we are fully at the point now where people talk *at* each other rather than *with* each other, often only because of an arbitrary letter which may happen to be listed after someone's name like "R", or "D", or even "L".
Consider another political topic which has actual stakes--immigration. Governor Abbott just signed SB4, which bans "sanctuary" cities in Texas and allows local police officers to check a person's immigration status if--and these a very big ifs--Federal authorities request it or the officer in question thinks it is necessary when they have stopped and/or detained someone. I have no doubt there are going to be cases where some cop has a chip on his shoulder and he is going to take it out on someone he has pulled over, resulting in that person being detained and possibly deported. In most cases, though, this is not going to happen. More on the new law may be found here.
The last time I was in Europe I was required to carry my passport with me at all times if out in public just in case a police officer stopped me and asked me to identify myself; this actually happened twice. Although this is essentially the same as "papers, please" I did not find it to be an inconvenience nor did I find it to be insulting or demeaning. I would much rather comply with the laws of the country which I am visiting (well, actually living there for a short while) and avoid undue scrutiny than to engage in non-compliance and risk the penalties. Given that this is not an unreasonable view to hold, why do so many people feel like it is unreasonable? That being said, our immigration system needs some serious overhaul and some streamlining but not a ridiculous wall that is never actually going to be built (I don't care what he says).
Disclosure: my grandfather owned a construction business in the late 1970s/early 1980s in Texas. The likelihood that he employed illegal/undocumented workers is pretty high but I was too young to be fully aware of that topic; however, that means that at some point in my life I most likely received tangential benefit from their labor.
The court challenges to SB4 have already been filed, at least by one county and city in South Texas. Now, when I say "Texas", what is the first thing that pops into your mind? Probably cowboy hats, boots, a longhorn, or something like that. What color is the person wearing the hat? You said "white", didn't you? Actually, Texas is now 40% Hispanic/Latino overall; south of I-10 going into the Rio Grande Valley that number rises to 70% - 80%. Incidentally, Houston is now more ethnically diverse than New York City--shocking, I know. Anyway, the local police and sheriff's deputies in those cities/counties--most of whom are also probably Hispanic--also face a penalty under the law: non-compliance with a Federal request is a Class A misdemeanor, which is only one step down from a felony. This will be a headache for them because they often have better things to do than to do ICE's job for it.
The challenges to SB4 are going to focus on two things: the State trying to worm its way into immigration enforcement (which isn't a State's responsibility) and how much authority the Legislature has to tell cities how their police departments are to be managed. It is highly unlikely that SB4 survives to become implemented on 1 September.
Some of the protesters outside the Capitol building in Austin held signs saying "Abbott is a racist". erm...have they met his wife? This is ironic for another reason--"Mexican" isn't a race. *shrug* If you are going to protest, at least protest intelligently.
As a non-white person, I've always been absolutely grateful for 'White people' in the West and barring a few bad apples that would exist in any ethnic group, I've found them by far the most tolerating and accommodating people in the world.
I also find this sort of statement essentially racist and wouldn't be tolerated if stated for any other ethnic group and i also don't think such rhetoric helps any issue at all.
I would rather have the officer use his intuition and gut, and pull someone he suspects might be drunk driving than have that person kill someone later down the road because he wasn't driving erratically at the time. A couple quick questions and polite answers can let that person go on their merry way once it is established they are not under the influence.
It is why some places have roadside checks, pulling EVERY car over and asking the driver is a common occurrence during holidays and other times (concerts/sporting events) when alcohol consumption is high.
You also have to remember, driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your rights are not being infringed if a officer suspects that you driving the vehicle will put the rest of the community in danger.
If you feel like what ever infraction they charge you with is unjust, you have the right to fight it in court.
Trump has fired Comey. Fired the FBI Director in charge of the investigations into his campaign. On the heels of the Yates testimony, possible witness intimidation through Twitter, and attempts to get the Senate GOP to stop her from testifying. If anyone is unfamiliar with the Saturday Night Massacre, now would be a good time to brush up on history. Except the Republicans during the Nixon Administration actually had some sense of right and wrong. The cover-up is in full effect. Yesterday sent them over the edge.
Edit: Good god, the excuse is that he didn't end up prosecuting Hillary Clinton during the campaign. This is a Banana Republic as of right now. He fired his FBI Director for, ostensibly, not trying to jail his campaign opponent without evidence.
There were plenty of us that told you about this guy, and the inevitability of him triggering a Constitutional crisis. It's on the way. Mark....my.....words.
My only theory at this moment is that the Trump team has already chosen one or more possible successors, a man who will be more pliant and willing to work for Trump's priorities.
Conceivably, the Trump team might want an FBI director who would, unlike Comey, indict Clinton. But I thought the Trump team had lost interest in taking down Clinton after the election was over; I thought they had moved on.
Honestly, if people want to be blind about it at this point, fine. Every single other thing that has slowly dripped out about Trump and Russia is stuff I and others were greeted with "lol" for posting about weeks or months before it happened, and this will be no different. People do not seem to get it. Trump is a thug, likely a guilty thug, and he, after a horrendous news day yesterday with the Yates testimony, decided to nuke the entire playing field. I DESPISE Comey for the most part, but this is a threat to our entire democracy. What happens now will decide if we remain one.
And just for the ultimate holy-shit moment, even though I have no great love for this guy:
The kicker here is that Nixon was actually about 1000x smarter than Trump could ever hope of being. He thinks this is just some chess move in a game-show. It's not, this is about the fundamental integrity of our system of government. There is no doubt Trump has the POWER to do this. But I ask one question: How in the hell can the person whose campaign is under an ongoing investigation be allowed to appoint someone who will certainly shut it down or sabotage it??
Hillary did commit crimes and everyone admitted that, However he simply deferred to Lynch which pissed off Trump supporters and pissed off Hillary supporters.
I sympathize with the man, I have no idea on his competence but damn being in such a situation is hectic.
Hillary is guilty of poor judgement in using a private server and she admitted that, that's it. That's not a crime and there was no intention to do crime so no reasonable prosecutor would pursue a case. And they didn't.
In one of his early post election rallies Trump responded to the "lock her up" calls he said 'nah that was just a campaign thing' and that he didn't care anymore. But if there's one thing that has shown it's that Trump cares above all else about the election where he lost the popular vote by more than 3 million votes. He's still constantly tweeting about it and attempting to brag about it.
And another smart guy who has been quite prescient:
"A Republic, if you can keep it"
If you served in the military you would definitely understand this.
The firing happened on the recommendation of Attorney General and Deputy General, I attach their letters for their rationale.
Lynch did not make that decision (though she had the power to do so herself). Lynch announced that she would accept whatever decision Comey recommended, which she did.
No, Comey didn't defer to Lynch. It was the exact opposite. She publicly and explicitly deferred to his judgment, and he was the one who announced it in the end.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine
The problem that Hillary and the FBI created is that this long-standing law has been jeopardized and courts are un-sure as to how to litigate.
With a Democratic majority the investigation won't be swept under the rug like it is now. But by then will there be any evidence left after Trump's cronies have their way with things. But that almost doesn't matter because he's still in violation of the emouluments clause of the Constitution and personally enriching himself so that's another impeachment avenue.