Re: Come on.
 

He'll reach China by next Tuesday at this rate.

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

I responded to this in an exchange with Adder.

I think Both HRC and Trump's campaigns engaged in criminal acts.

I didn't think HRC's email destruction or use of a private server themselves were worthy of any investigation or prosecution. I suspect they covered up more problematic relations with foreign govts via the foundation.

I don't think Trump was sophisticated enough to have engaged in anything truly illegal with Russia. From what I've seen, however, some of his people probably did so.

In both cases, there's probably some criminal shit. In both cases, it's not much. I'd be against prosecuting HRC for any technical "crime" involved in her relations with foreign govts. That's just practicing politics. And as to the allegation she and Bill stole money or improperly used foundation cash for personal expenses, whatever. No there there either.

Re: Aca
 

So basically just defense then. You know this means should be a Dem, right?

Re: L'affaire Rice
 

They were investigated and the law enforcement professionals decided that there were no charges to be brought.

You believe this because you're completely, willfully, ignorant of what happened.

They used a private server, because it was difficult/impossible to use State Department servers with the mobile devices they wanted. They assumed they could rely on her corresponding with underlines on department servers to comply with records retention requirements. When they found out that assumption was faulty, they had a vendor do searches to identify documents that needed to be returned to State for compliance with those requirements.

Having done that, the vendor - according to testimony to the FBI by at least two vendor employees, as well as the Clinton people - decided on it's own to delete the remaining emails. After all, they weren't relevant.

You think the vendor was lying to the FBI? Why?

Ah, yes, the "truly illegal" standard, which can be satisfied without actual investigation. Great.

Re: Aca
 

I'd pare each of those down (SSDI needs an audit; SS needs means testing), give education back to the states as much as possible, get rid of all agriculture subsidies... There's a good bit of fat to cut aside from just defense.

Re: How Much Acid Has Sebby Eaten? How Much Alex Jones has he Watched?
 

God this is bullshit. Don't tell me, you think she was peddling American uranium assets to the Russians?

You do realize Foundations like this get reviewed and ranked by people who have a good sense of what they are doing, and you do realize how the Clinton Foundation does in those reviews, don't you?

Re: Aca
 

Mulvaney was parroting your (and the right wing media's) talking point that SSDI is the new long term unemployment insurance, citing outdated numbers, of course.

I'm open to it, but it's politically toxic to take away something people think they paid in for. Probably just easier to tweak how it's taxed.

Meh. The states already have it, really. Federal education spending is minimal.

There are lots of small tweaks anyone could make based on their preferences, but really, if you're expanding Medicare and leaving SS more or less the same, you're not making big changes to non-military federal spending.

Although I'd argue that we should be spending more on veterans benefits too.

Re: How Much Acid Has Sebby Eaten? How Much Alex Jones has he Watched?
 

Yes. And he ignored the Rice part of the post. Whatever.

TM

Re: Aca
 

Sebastian does not see labels. He's label-blind.

Re: How Much Acid Has Sebby Eaten? How Much Alex Jones has he Watched?
 

I can't bother with the massive drivel salad and just respond to the occasional few trigger words I come across. I think the world of the Clinton Foundation, and really hope the assholes like Sebby spewing shit don't result in things like losing millions of doses of aids drugs for Africa.

As someone who takes charitable trust duties seriously, I just can't believe that these hateful morons' rants mean that a Foundation which, in addition to a thousand other things they do, is one of the world's leading operations addressing AIDS, became more of a negative in the campaign than a foundation that spent its money settling a lawsuit on behalf of the controlling individuals for-profit business.

Re: Aca
 

New Board Motto!!!!!

I've been slacking on the Daily Dose. So here's some wah-wah heavy funk for you. Leon Mitchison with "Street Scene":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NuYp6blQpA

Re: Aca
 

It's a great board motto, made better because it applies more to Sebby's post than the Adder post to which it referred.

As someone who spend much of their life focused on what it means to be a corporation and the advantages that brings in different jurisdictions, Adder's point was dead on.

Re: Aca
 

:(:( I was hoping for, "Basically a bunch of nuisance socks." :confused::mad:

Re: Aca
 

You acknowledge that you lack liberty when a non-governmental actor locks you up, so your assertion that there is no deprivation of liberty when the market doesn't give you choices is just silly. Suppose you live on an island and you can't drive, and
1) the government forbids motor vehicles,
2) the government taxes gasoline at steep rates, and no one offers bus or taxi service, or
3) there are no taxes or regulation of any kind, but no one offers bus or taxi service,
and as a result you can't get around.

As I use the word, you lack a certain liberty in all three cases, because you can't get around. In your world, apparently you have variable degrees of liberty -- not in 1), maybe in 2) depending on the prices, and yes in 3) -- even though your actually ability to get around is exactly the same in all three cases. You can believe this if you want, and you can use words in this way if you want -- my point is that it's intellectually incoherent. If you (sometimes) call yourself a libertarian because you actually care in some fashion about the sort of choices and freedom that individuals have, then you actually should care about things that limit people's choices and freedom, whether they seem to be the result of public or private actors.

Of course it can. That said, the idea that this is less of a threat to liberty then regulating a market is totally bizarre.

More semantics, with most of the word being done by "unreasonably." The government doesn't force anyone to offer anyone else insurance. It says, if you're going to underwrite insurance, you have to do it in a certain way. Conceptually, you have no problem with that, because you surely accept that insurers can't deceive people about what kind of insurance it's selling. So you're just arguing about whether it's "reasonable" to require that insurance include, e.g., coverage for pre-existing conditions or maternity care. The argument that it's reasonable is that if you don't have these requirements, insurers will be unable to offer such coverage and people will be unable to get it. Sounds "reasonable."

If you've got nothing else, try a slippery slope argument. I'm not making an argument that you have the right to have anything you want provided by the government if the market doesn't provide. I'm not relying on the language of rights at all. You keep muddying things that way. I'm saying that government policy which provides more meaningful choices is better, because liberty. What's the absurd result of requiring that health insurance for those older than 30 cover maternity care?

Why not? If it's easy enough for the government to regulate the insurance market so that everyone has those choices, what's the problem with making people better off? We are, after all, talking about the way that the law has been working now for several years. I'm not proposing recognizing some new constitutional right. I'm saying it's good as it is. You're proposing getting rid of regulation in a way that will make people worse off, for no apparent reason.

This is twaddle. I see a lot more innovation and dynamism when you can buy meaningful health insurance without needing to get it from a large employer. The state ought to do what it can to make sure people have meaningful choices. Obviously, in a lot of cases things that the state might try to do can be counterproductive, because they reduce the efficiency of the private sector. That's not the case here -- the whole point is that the regulations I'm talking about are necessary to make sure that a private market supplies the sort of insurance at issue.

I understand -- you use labels to describe other people, but you don't wish to be bound by them yourselves.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

Two obvious counterarguments are, (1) these markets will work better if you have private companies competing with each other to provide the services, rather than a government monopoly, and (2) the votes weren't there to enact single-payer, so that option wasn't on the table.

(1) So? (2) If the privity really bothers you, the government can act as a broker -- problem solved.

I understand the difference, but I don't understand why you think it's important, and just repeating what you're saying again as if it's obvious lacks explanatory force.

Suppose that my county requires every household to obtain trash-removal services. My town taxes me, and provides the service free of additional charge. The next town over doesn't tax me, and approves a handful of private companies to offer services, letting residents pick which one they want use. What you're saying is, you are freer and better off in my town because no one is forcing you to contract with a private party. That's dumb. I understand that you see a grave threat to liberty from the county requirement that you arrange to get rid of your trash, but once you're living in the county and subject to that requirement, it's pretty obvious that you might be better off being able to pick which private company you want to use.

Fine, but you're no longer defending the silly slippery-slope argument you were making a post ago.

Re: Come on.
 

If Assad is really worse than Hitler, that suggests we should do more in Syria than lob a few cruise missiles.