I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I just don't we'll find much of a link to Trump.

If you mean they won't find Trump personally on the phone, that might be right, but we're already aware of two of his top aids, and Roger Stone, so I'd call that a link. We just don't know how serious the things they were up to are.

As for connecting to Trump personally, this seems a bit conspiratorial so I'm not going to vouch for it's credibility, but check out this Twitter thread.

But I wasn't talking about Russia in the post to which you've responded.

No, you were equating how normal people are now freaking out to how the Fox News crowd freaked out under Obama. These things are not the same. Which I why I listed valid reasons for freaking out, only one of which is Russia.

I was talking about the Left's general proposition that the only valid comment about Trump is negative

Feel free to share what you think has been positive. All I've got is that in sort of respecting the courts on his immigration orders, he's not been as horribly authoritarian as I'd feared. Yet.

Meanwhile, he's till openly courting racists.

, and any hint of tolerance for him, or even a blasé attitude toward him, is invalid or heresy. That's batshit.

So crazy to care about refugees, immigrants and vaild visa holders. Or the 24 million people who will lose their health insurance (won't actually as they've already failed to pass the AHCA, but still). Crazy to think immigration raids and deportations of people are scary and unwarranted. Just total batshit.

But we know, you don't care about other people.

ETA: Oh, yeah, and how his DOJ is going back into private prisons. That's great.

But his attempt to pare regulation is good.

No it isn't, especially not in the stupid, ham-fisted way he's "attempted" to do it. Seriously? An exec order that creates extra busywork for beaurocrats to rearrange regs to they can count fewer? It's meaningless on it's face.

His unfortunately incoherent effort to undo McCarran Ferguson, allowing cross-border insurance competition, is good.

Honestly, I don't even know if it's in the AHCA, but no, it's not "good" and it's not "competition." It's being able to sell the shittiest policy you can get past the shittiest state regulator nationwide.

Or do you think health insurance doesn't need regulation? Because it very much does.

If you want the federal government to take over insurance regulation, then fine, you can sell it across state lines.

His tax plan's feature which would allow repatriation of foreign held US corporate money is good.

OMG. Seriously? No, this is widely acknowledged, like all across the political spectrum, as bad policy.

His relaxation of Dodd Frank, if it ever happens, is good.

Is it? How can you tell if you don't know what it actually means?

Look at the man as a dim sum restaurant. Compromise on the good dishes, register dislike with the bad ones.

They're aren't any dishes good enough to make it worthwhile. This isn't normal. He's not W.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not the hacking. The coordinating with Trump. One advantage they get out of coordinating with Trump is influence over Trump, including the ability to threaten him with the release of the coordination.

Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Dude, seriously... Are you asserting Trump's people engaged in espionage by putting themselves in a position to be blackmailed? I want to call this a Rube Goldberg theory, because it's such a tortured mechanism. But technically, a Rube Goldberg Machine works. This does not.

Creating a situation in which a foreign nation can exert influence over a sitting President is not a crime. In fact, it happens all the time. In your scenario, intelligence sharing among spy agencies could render their employees traitors.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

If you mean they won't find Trump personally on the phone, that might be right, but we're already aware of two of his top aids, and Roger Stone, so I'd call that a link. We just don't know how serious the things they were up to are.

As for connecting to Trump personally, this seems a bit conspiratorial so I'm not going to vouch for it's credibility, but check out this Twitter thread.



No, you were equating how normal people are now freaking out to how the Fox News crowd freaked out under Obama. These things are not the same. Which I why I listed valid reasons for freaking out, only one of which is Russia.



Feel free to share what you think has been positive. All I've got is that in sort of respecting the courts on his immigration orders, he's not been as horribly authoritarian as I'd feared. Yet.

Meanwhile, he's till openly courting racists.



So crazy to care about refugees, immigrants and vaild visa holders. Or the 24 million people who will lose their health insurance (won't actually as they've already failed to pass the AHCA, but still). Crazy to think immigration raids and deportations of people are scary and unwarranted. Just total batshit.

But we know, you don't care about other people.

ETA: Oh, yeah, and how his DOJ is going back into private prisons. That's great.



No it isn't, especially not in the stupid, ham-fisted way he's "attempted" to do it. Seriously? An exec order that creates extra busywork for beaurocrats to rearrange regs to they can count fewer? It's meaningless on it's face.



Honestly, I don't even know if it's in the AHCA, but no, it's not "good" and it's not "competition." It's being able to sell the shittiest policy you can get past the shittiest state regulator nationwide.

Or do you think health insurance doesn't need regulation? Because it very much does.

If you want the federal government to take over insurance regulation, then fine, you can sell it across state lines.



OMG. Seriously? No, this is widely acknowledged, like all across the political spectrum, as bad policy.



Is it? How can you tell if you don't know what it actually means?



They're aren't any dishes good enough to make it worthwhile. This isn't normal. He's not W.

The areas I follow closest are taxes and foreign policy. Here's the thing on foreign policy, where I'm accustomed to finding plenty of Rs to agree with in dealing with one issue or another: his approach to every situation is just incredibly assinine. He's a clown who has assembled a clown car for a team. There are - count them - two people on his foreign policy team who have avoided self-inflicted wounds in the first 60 days - Haley, who has done nothing useful but at least hasn't screwed up badly, and Greenblatt, who may be the surprise star of the administration in part because he seems to admit his shortcomings and be willing to learn.

Tillerson, who ought to be at least competent, proved himself about the worst of them on the Asia trip.

I never believed I would say this, but I really miss Cheney and his neo-cons.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dude, seriously... Are you asserting Trump's people engaged in espionage by putting themselves in a position to be blackmailed?

Let's review.

Sebby: "Of course the Trump people talked to the Russians, who wouldn't?"

Me: "Anyone with half a brain, as it compromises the Trump people."

Sebby: "It only matters if they talked about something illegal."

Me: "You're ignoring the espionage value to the Russians."

Sebby: "No I'm not but talking to them isn't illegal espionage."

Me: "Dude, the point is they compromised themselves."

Sebby: "You're saying that being compromised is illegal espionage?"

Me, having caught up to real time: No, I'm saying that letting yourself be compromised is a very serious blunder.

Above and beyond whether the Trump people did anything illegal (I have no idea why you'd be certain they didn't), the contacts alone are a major scandal that undermines the administration's credibility, and may have left them compromised. It was stupid. It wasn't what "anybody" would do. It's bad even if it isn't illegal.

ETA: And if you're really caught up on illegal behavior, it's not hard to extrapolate from the facts we know to Manafort or whoever joining in on an ongoing criminal hacking conspiracy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the thing on foreign policy, where I'm accustomed to finding plenty of Rs to agree with in dealing with one issue or another: his approach to every situation is just incredibly assinine. He's a clown who has assembled a clown car for a team.

Yes. Much of this stuff isn't even partisan.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's also a lot of fun to say, "I like Trump. I think he's doing a great job," to Lefties at parties. It works like that line in Dylan's "Motorpsycho Nightmare," where he screams "I like Fidel Castro and his beard!" to piss off the crazy farmer. Thankfully, the Lefties don't chase you from the room with a shotgun.

I suggest trying it. It also works on Bush Republicans.

You mischievous rascal! How I'd love to be a fly on the wall for all that. I bet your fellow party-goers, after their initial outrage, end up having a grudging respect for your witty provocations.

Daddy has some soothing music to ease your woes. The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSERB93GYfw

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You mischievous rascal! How I'd love to be a fly on the wall for all that. I bet your fellow party-goers, after their initial outrage, end up having a grudging respect for your witty provocations.

Don't want to learn
About etiquette
From glossy magazines
Why should I try
To talk correct
Like they do
In another scenes
Say no more
About imagery
You're starting to confuse
Just make an offer
Of more romance
Of course I can't refuse

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Encouraging an enemy of a political opponent to smear her with stolen emails is not conspiracy.

Perhaps not, but hacking is pretty easy to prosecute (cf. Aaron Swartz), and the line between encouraging and conspiring is not one I'd want to count on to keep me out of prison.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I will have to say that my absolute favorite story of this year is how Shia Labeouf cannot even successfully fly a stupid flag in protest, even outside of the US. I know virtually nothing about 4Chan, but if the CIA showed that kind of initiative, the world would be a safer place.

That was pretty funny.

[Hank Chinaski]

Health Care: Spending a year with people actually thinking about what to change that could get through Congress might be a good thing. An actually functional HC act would be a good thing. And I've felt forever that 2018 and the "Ford Pinto" tax kicking in would be the point that makes clear the ACA was a really evil deal. Once 50% of America sees its HC significantly lowered there might be critical mass to fix some shit.

And the failure to push through some half-baked hate act, despite the "it is all in our control" gives me a little bit of hope that we will ultimately be able to get through this*?


*this being the next years, not just HC

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Health Care: what to change that could get through Congress

I don't see how any Republican on the Hill can work with Democrats on a bill to improve the ACA without getting primaried and losing his or her seat.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Health Care: Spending a year with people actually thinking about what to change that could get through Congress might be a good thing. An actually functional HC act would be a good thing. And I've felt forever that 2018 and the "Ford Pinto" tax kicking in would be the point that makes clear the ACA was a really evil deal. Once 50% of America sees its HC significantly lowered there might be critical mass to fix some shit.

And the failure to push through some half-baked hate act, despite the "it is all in our control" gives me a little bit of hope that we will ultimately be able to get through this*?


*this being the next years, not just HC

The pinto/caddy tax, whatever you want to call it, has been delayed to 2020. While apparently economists who like to force people to see the real cost of their health care, instead of the tax-advantaged costs, people don't, and most betting is that it will be foreover out there, a gimmick used to offset accounting costs that is forever delayed.

The only people who can do a big health care bill, that addresses system-wide issues, on the scale of the Affordable Care Act or even Trump Care, are the republicans. What do you think their next bill will look like? Do you see any chance they'd even talk to Dems about the shape of the bill while they control both houses?

Expect dems to put forward a series of little bills, fixing individual pieces or making proposals on one part or another - e.g., a government payor option at least for places where a state opts for it or where there is only a single option under ACA, an attempt to fund the coops, that sort of thing. Anything else is for show, and can't have a snowball's chance in Hell until they have control of at least one house, and probably at least one house and the Presidency.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Health Care: Spending a year with people actually thinking about what to change that could get through Congress might be a good thing. An actually functional HC act would be a good thing. And I've felt forever that 2018 and the "Ford Pinto" tax kicking in would be the point that makes clear the ACA was a really evil deal. Once 50% of America sees its HC significantly lowered there might be critical mass to fix some shit.

We have one party that's fully willing to fix some shit. And one that is still posturing only.

And the failure to push through some half-baked hate act, despite the "it is all in our control" gives me a little bit of hope that we will ultimately be able to get through this*?


*this being the next years, not just HC

The dark thought of the morning is that an incapacititated legislative branch may actually facilitate authoritarian creep. Let's hope not.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Perhaps not, but hacking is pretty easy to prosecute (cf. Aaron Swartz), and the line between encouraging and conspiring is not one I'd want to count on to keep me out of prison.

True. That's why I'm confident if there was culpable contact, it was expendable infantry like Stone. There will always be plausible deniability at the upper levels. And if you can't get anyone near the top, it's meh...

A cynic would say Stone is being set up to take the fall already. I think he's just too dim to shut his mouth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The pinto/caddy tax, whatever you want to call it, has been delayed to 2020. While apparently economists who like to force people to see the real cost of their health care, instead of the tax-advantaged costs, people don't, and most betting is that it will be foreover out there, a gimmick used to offset accounting costs that is forever delayed.

The only people who can do a big health care bill, that addresses system-wide issues, on the scale of the Affordable Care Act or even Trump Care, are the republicans. What do you think their next bill will look like? Do you see any chance they'd even talk to Dems about the shape of the bill while they control both houses?

Expect dems to put forward a series of little bills, fixing individual pieces or making proposals on one part or another - e.g., a government payor option at least for places where a state opts for it or where there is only a single option under ACA, an attempt to fund the coops, that sort of thing. Anything else is for show, and can't have a snowball's chance in Hell until they have control of at least one house, and probably at least one house and the Presidency.

Why did we pass a bill that was due to explode by 2020?