[jjbrr]

It's interesting to see a racist's participation begin to steadily increase as we approach November. I guess the marching orders are clear.

[hrothgar]

jjbrr, on 2018-July-27, 20:23, said:

It's interesting to see a racist's participation begin to steadily increase as we approach November. I guess the marching orders are clear.

I figured that it was either

A. The latest Cohen news
B. The Helsinki debacle

[jjbrr]

neither is even on his radar. his ilk has never had an independent thought their entire life, bless their heart.

I figure it's either

A. he'd rather vote for Putin than a librul
B. hillary's emails

[johnu]

In more lighthearted news, if you can call the President of the USA telling another lie lighthearted,

Dennison Celebrates ‘Record’ Sales of Nonexistent Health Insurance Policies

There's nothing better than health insurance that doesn't cover what ails you. Health plans with significant exclusions may be worse than having no health insurance at all, since you are paying premiums for insurance that ultimately may not pay anything when you need it most.

I would to hear the Dennison supporters support this

[barmar]

rmnka447, on 2018-July-26, 14:05, said:

Trump supporters are smart enough to understand that there are more important things in this world than the consensual sexual escapades of a President long before he even ran for office.

It's not the sexual exploits that are so questionable -- we all knew that he was a slimeball, he bragged about this stuff on TV.

It's all the payoffs to stifle the women he banged. And the lying about it (although he lies about everything, and people like like don't care).

[y66]

From Why Washington insiders think Democrats will take back the House by Amber Phillips at WaPo:

Quote

Here's a striking stat: The House of Representatives has flipped parties only three times in the past 60 years. The conventional wisdom in Washington right now is that Democrats are about to make it four.

As we come up on 100 days before the midterm elections, nearly every key sign is pointing to Democrats controlling the House of Representatives next year for the first time since 2010.

“Democrats remain substantial favorites for House control,” writes David Wasserman, a nonpartisan election analyst for the Cook Political Report, in an analysis out Friday that has the political world buzzing.

Of course, the conventional wisdom in Washington is fallible. (See: Trump vs. Clinton, 2016.) And next week we'll be analyzing why it might be wrong.

But while Republicans are publicly bullish they'll keep the House, nonpartisan analysts are leaning toward Democrats. That's because there are some solid reasons to predict that this time, Democrats will win. Let's run those down.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2018-July-28, 09:48, said:

It's not the sexual exploits that are so questionable -- we all knew that he was a slimeball, he bragged about this stuff on TV.

It's all the payoffs to stifle the women he banged. And the lying about it (although he lies about everything, and people like like don't care).

Many types of campaign finance violations are felonies...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-28, 13:58, said:

Many types of campaign finance violations are felonies...

And if you set up your LLC to hide the source of the money, I think money laundering charges could also come into play. Then there are also conspiracy charges if Mr. Pecker of the National Inquirer knew about and went along with a plan to obfuscate a campaign donation.

[ldrews]

And this guy is in tears over getting his job back: https://youtu.be/qPrkRpRgz54

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-July-28, 16:18, said:

And this guy is in tears over getting his job back: https://youtu.be/qPrkRpRgz54

No one claims that the beneficiaries of a massive income redistribution scheme aren't going to be happy about it...

I'm just surprised that the GOP has become so enamored about picking "Winner and Losers".

[Chas_P]

johnu, on 2018-July-27, 21:31, said:

In more lighthearted news, if you can call the President of the USA telling another lie lighthearted,

Dennison Celebrates ‘Record’ Sales of Nonexistent Health Insurance Policies

There's nothing better than health insurance that doesn't cover what ails you. Health plans with significant exclusions may be worse than having no health insurance at all, since you are paying premiums for insurance that ultimately may not pay anything when you need it most.

I would to hear the Dennison supporters support this

It's terrible! It's almost as bad as Obama promising that your premiums will decrease by 20% and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. I'm heartsick.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-28, 16:37, said:

No one claims that the beneficiaries of a massive income redistribution scheme aren't going to be happy about it...

I'm just surprised that the GOP has become so enamored about picking "Winner and Losers".

Isn't all government action "picking winners and losers"?

[Chas_P]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-27, 09:45, said:

Simple question for the Trumpistas

Suppose that the Mueller probe were to find conclusive evidence that the Trump "real estate" empire is, in fact, a large scale money laundering scheme, with its profits coming from some mixture of

1. Russian Oligarches
2. South American drug cartels
3. The Iranian National Guard

Would this disclosure change your opinion about whether or not Trump should remain in office?

The New York Times is reporting that the Mueller probe is now trying to put together an obstruction of justice case against the President based on his tweets, TV appearances, and public conversations. If true...and it must be true if reported by the NYT...it suggests that Mueller has no credible evidence of any wrongdoing by the President and is now trying to manufacture a crime from acts that are completely legal. This renders your question, though simple, moot.

[hrothgar]

Chas_P, on 2018-July-28, 19:19, said:

The New York Times is reporting that the Mueller probe is now trying to put together an obstruction of justice case against the President based on his tweets, TV appearances, and public conversations. If true...and it must be true if reported by the NYT...it suggests that Mueller has no credible evidence of any wrongdoing by the President and is now trying to manufacture a crime from acts that are completely legal. This renders your question, though simple, moot.

Please try to familiarize yourself with the actual facts before posting.

1. Executive orders made by a President are not "legal". Nor are they "illegal". Context matters greatly.

As a practical example, the president has an unfettered power to pardon, however, a presidentially pardon can still be a criminal act if it was offered for an illegal purpose.

2. As such, it can be extremely difficult to bring charges of obstruction of justice against a sitting president. Not only do you require evidence about the act itself, you also require knowledge regarding the state of mind of the President when they took said action.

3. In turn, this is where Trump's State of consciousness stream of tweets and quotes enters into the picture. It is why Trump's direct on camera statements that specifically link Comey's firing to the Russia investigation are so important.
https://www.youtube....h?v=5Wvuw_Zmubg

4. When you say that Mueller has no "credible evidence", I don't think that either you or I has direct knowledge of the full set of data that Mueller has available to him.

I do know that Mueller's been able to get a whole lot of convictions and flip a whole bunch of insiders for someone with "no credible evidence"...

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-July-28, 18:13, said:

Isn't all government action "picking winners and losers"?

No. However, some government action certainly has this effect.

What you seem to be missing is the following:

I belong to a political affiliation that is happy to pick winners and losers, so long as this is done in an efficient manner.
For example, I don't have philosophical objections to using taxes to transfer wealth from individuals with large amounts of $$$ to those who are less fortunate.

You, on the other hand, have frequently stated that you believe that all taxes are theft.
Therefore, the rank hypocrisy inherent in you're making the previous post seem to be worthy of comment.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-28, 21:27, said:

No. However, some government action certainly has this effect.

What you seem to be missing is the following:

I belong to a political affiliation that is happy to pick winners and losers, so long as this is done in an efficient manner.
For example, I don't have philosophical objections to using taxes to transfer wealth from individuals with large amounts of $$$ to those who are less fortunate.

You, on the other hand, have frequently stated that you believe that all taxes are theft.
Therefore, the rank hypocrisy inherent in you're making the previous post seem to be worthy of comment.

You are right, I believe that all taxation is legalized theft. It is extracting money from non-consenting individuals through the use or threat of us of force. Isn't that theft? The fact that it is authorized by law simply makes it legal. Hence, legalized theft.

I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?

And once again we can depend on you to make a personal attack. I appreciate your reliability.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-July-29, 07:27, said:

And once again we can depend on you to make a personal attack. I appreciate your reliability.

Drews, of yo want people to stop treating you like an idiot, stop acting like one.

Its not my fault that that your positions are ideological inconsistent.
And, given how much is despise you I'm sure as hell not going to stop mocking you whenever you show yourself to be a *****head.

> I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't
> advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group.
> Can you supply one?

The government engages in all sorts of "pure" research.
I'd find it hard to claim that that this sort of activity disadvantages one group or advantages another.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-29, 12:28, said:

Drews, of yo want people to stop treating you like an idiot, stop acting like one.

Its not my fault that that your positions are ideological inconsistent.
And, given how much is despise you I'm sure as hell not going to stop mocking you whenever you show yourself to be a *****head.

> I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't
> advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group.
> Can you supply one?

The government engages in all sorts of "pure" research.
I'd find it hard to claim that that this sort of activity disadvantages one group or advantages another.

Most, if not all, government research is carried out via contracts. Those receiving the contracts are advantaged versus those that don't. The research actually conducted by the government yields policy decisions. Those policy decisions advantage certain groups over other groups. Finally, those government employees are paid to conduct the research. They are advantaged over others who are not paid.

Would you like to provide mare concrete examples or do you prefer invective?

[Al_U_Card]

Guns and religion versus anger and invective. There's the rub, common ground breeds compromise rather than conflict, but some people are just plain (insert left to right adjective here).

[Cyberyeti]

ldrews, on 2018-July-29, 13:05, said:

Most, if not all, government research is carried out via contracts. Those receiving the contracts are advantaged versus those that don't. The research actually conducted by the government yields policy decisions. Those policy decisions advantage certain groups over other groups. Finally, those government employees are paid to conduct the research. They are advantaged over others who are not paid.

Would you like to provide mare concrete examples or do you prefer invective?

Well they could just not bother paying for an army or nuclear weapons and allow the Iranians or North Koreans to vaporise the place.