Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 504564)

The GOP did try to work with Obama, but at the first meeting when they tried to make a suggestion, they were told that elections had consequences.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 504564)

Mocking somebody's idea and then stealing it and taking credit when it turns out to be right. Not exactly a bias unless you point out where Obama acknowledged Romney was right on that issue.

The GOP did try to work with Obama, but at the first meeting when they tried to make a suggestion, they were told that elections had consequences. And remember the budget deal that was reportedly busted by Obama moving the goal posts after an agreement had been reached? After that, of course there will be obstructionism. I would be the last to argue that McConnell and Boehner didn't suck. Ryan sucks less, but keep in mind that many of those Red State representatives were doing exactly what they were elected to do my their constituents. What will your reaction be to hearing that we have to pass the replacement for Obamacare for you to find out what is in it? Or with the gamesmanship regarding the Wheeler and the FCC?

I thought at the time it was shortsighted to fail to approve qualified appointees like judges, but it was also shortsighted to make unjustified recess appointments and muck with the appointment filibuster rule, and while I would hope that the GOP would change it back, I understand why they wouldn't. The GOP are total hypocrites too. If they thought a foreign power influenced an election for a D win, they'd speak of nothing else.

At this point the system is pretty much screwed forever. Unfortunately the only thing that would possibly get both parties to work together would be a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 event.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 504551)

The Trump administration is almost certainly going to try to go to war with Iran, largely on the same pretext as Iraq - they're bad and that's all that matters. Heck, we know they've tried to get WMD!

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504567)

That is totally, completely, and laughably false. The GOP absolutely did not try to work with Obama -- they made a concerted effort to do the absolute opposite. Defend it if you like as smart politics, and if you assume conservative ends you can make a case, but don't pretend it wasn't true.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504561)

If the Dems don't repay GOP obstructionism with their own, they don't deserve to ever have any kind of power.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504570)

Of course its false, but she's stuck in Fox World and can't find her way out. She thinks what Roger Ailes wants her to think.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 504565)

I would like to discover the Constitution someday, too. In my visions, I imagine myself discovering it in a treasure chest, nestled in an enormous pile of gold coins and jewelry, buried in a beach at the spot marked on a faded scroll of a map with an elaborate X, and guarded by four rainbow unicorns wearing red baseball caps. Here's the Skull Snaps with "I'm Your Pimp" for the Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri4paYFz-h4

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504574)

One of the best bits of irony recently is that Trump is all high and mighty over bribing Carrier not to lay off a few hundred people while Iran has now placed an order with Boeing that will result in thousands of jobs.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504572)

I assume good will and bad sources. But apparently facts are passe now -- everyone can have their own.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 504575)

aerospace is one of our last truly domestic industries, thanks in large part to me

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504578)

Hank would call this speculative:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Czk0pwGWgAAXphY.jpg

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 504579)

not knowing science is a pretty thing- but drawing a graph is not proof. but assuming it is supported, but non-speculation, which it ain't, the slope of the costs w/o is not linear.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504578)

Hank would call this speculative:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Czk0pwGWgAAXphY.jpg

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 504581)

So why doesn't the actual premium line drop $2500? Isn't that what was promised?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 504579)

not knowing science is a pretty thing- but drawing a graph is not proof. but assuming it is supported, but non-speculation, which it ain't, the slope of the costs w/o is not linear. Why?

Also, co-pay increases are how much? And coverage drops are how much? and how much are people who had no real coverage under their jobs are included?

math is hard.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504582)

Cite?

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 504584)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ance-premium-/

I'm not citing Cruz. Obama said it himself. Repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504585)

I don't think that one addresses whether or not this was a flat decrease or a decrease from anticipated increases. It mostly focuses on whether the pledge was for premiums or all in costs. See Wapo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.13398f267492

This was drilled down a lot at the time. He took flak for it but it was explained in some detail. In retrospect, he appears to have accomplished it, at least if limited to premiums.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 504586)

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc-GY

Have premiums for anyone decreased by 3000% so that they received a raise?

I think it is reasonable for normal people to understand this to be a clear promise to decrease the premium. It's not ambiguous. You can say he misspoke repeatedly, but together with the "You can keep your plan" and "You can keep your doctor" lies, seems to be more of the intentional misrepresentation to get it passed.

Even if Obamacare is not a total failure, can you understand why many feel deceived about what it is, versus how it was sold?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 504566)

Here's my prediction (I hope it proves wrong).

When Trump starts losing some domestic battles or embarrassing himself in one way or another, he'll get increasingly bellicose on foreign policy. His favorite targets are going to be Iran and China. They will respond to his escalation with escalation, expecting it to lead to rational discussions before anything crazy happens, but will instead get crazy. And Iran is an easier target for a bully than China.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504569)

So far, Trump foreign policy appears to assume the best of the Russians (who are white) and the worst of the Iranians (not white), Moslems in general (rarely white), and the Chinese (not white). Correlation is not causation, and make of that what you will.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 504563)

Wait and see, but Flynn is a nutjob who seems to want it, Mattis seems to have an interest in it and Bolton will certainly not oppose. ETA: And Trump wants to tear up the deal.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 504572)

I assume good will and bad sources. But apparently facts are passe now -- everyone can have their own.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504591)

I don't like a post-fact world any more than you, but among the basket of deplorable journalists in this cycle, there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between WaPo and Brietbart. When Bezos dictated, for selfish reasons, that his paper would take its editorial cues from HuffPo, and toil assiduously to get HRC elected, the old guard became indistinguishable from the new guard of admitted bullshit artists.

(I have to actually give the Times credit here. The Old Grey Lady was chock full of Leftist tripe, but not much more than usual. And it really was about as even handed as any major outlet. LATimes also gets kudos for printing polls showing a much closer race, despite howling criticism from Lefties.)

The post-facts world was delivered to us by media on both sides of the aisle, and if you thinking claiming this is false equivalence, you need to get the fuck out of your echo chamber. The only difference between the Left's and the Right's fake news is quality, subtlety, and delivery. The Left and the media outlets that carry its water claim to be incensed at the Right's crass, overt bullshit. Actually, they're just jealous that the Right has an audience so easily manipulated. It sucks to have to work really hard to try to cleverly manipulate everybody and fail while your competition shoots fish in a barrel.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504588)

Addressing China sooner than later may actually be a sound strategy. They are not a benign trading partner. They are intent on surpassing and supplanting while we dither.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504589)

identity politics

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504590)

Tearing up the deal and going to war are like the Beatles and Black Sabbath.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504591)

I don't like a post-fact world any more than you, but among the basket of deplorable journalists in this cycle, there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between WaPo and Brietbart. When Bezos dictated, for selfish reasons, that his paper would take its editorial cues from HuffPo, and toil assiduously to get HRC elected, the old guard became indistinguishable from the new guard of admitted bullshit artists.

(I have to actually give the Times credit here. The Old Grey Lady was chock full of Leftist tripe, but not much more than usual. And it really was about as even handed as any major outlet. LATimes also gets kudos for printing polls showing a much closer race, despite howling criticism from Lefties.)

The post-facts world was delivered to us by media on both sides of the aisle, and if you thinking claiming this is false equivalence, you need to get the fuck out of your echo chamber. The only difference between the Left's and the Right's fake news is quality, subtlety, and delivery. The Left and the media outlets that carry its water claim to be incensed at the Right's crass, overt bullshit. Actually, they're just jealous that the Right has an audience so easily manipulated. It sucks to have to work really hard to try to cleverly manipulate everybody and fail while your competition shoots fish in a barrel.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504561)

If the Dems don't repay GOP obstructionism with their own, they don't deserve to ever have any kind of power. I expect and welcome them doing so because, if that's how checks and balances are going to work in our nihilist political climate, then the necessary obstructionist checks should and need to be applied by both parties.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 504593)

They are going to surpass and supplant (eventually) whether we fight a war with them or not. So let's not.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 504597)

I agree. The problem is: Democrats necessarily lose this fight because they actually care about having a working government and Republicans are okay with destroying it (or huge sections of it). Dems can't win that game of chicken. And if they can't figure out how to deliver that message, we're all fucked.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504589)

thinly veiled hatred for Russians embraced by the Left is quite disturbing

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504591)

I don't like a post-fact world any more than you, but among the basket of deplorable journalists in this cycle, there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between WaPo and Brietbart. When Bezos dictated, for selfish reasons, that his paper would take its editorial cues from HuffPo, and toil assiduously to get HRC elected, the old guard became indistinguishable from the new guard of admitted bullshit artists.

(I have to actually give the Times credit here. The Old Grey Lady was chock full of Leftist tripe, but not much more than usual. And it really was about as even handed as any major outlet. LATimes also gets kudos for printing polls showing a much closer race, despite howling criticism from Lefties.)

The post-facts world was delivered to us by media on both sides of the aisle, and if you thinking claiming this is false equivalence, you need to get the fuck out of your echo chamber. The only difference between the Left's and the Right's fake news is quality, subtlety, and delivery. The Left and the media outlets that carry its water claim to be incensed at the Right's crass, overt bullshit. Actually, they're just jealous that the Right has an audience so easily manipulated. It sucks to have to work really hard to try to cleverly manipulate everybody and fail while your competition shoots fish in a barrel.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 504594)

Someone purportedly interested in liberty should read this.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 504600)

I think there is something legitimately wrong with you. Really. Where do you get this absolute flaming bullshit?

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 504603)

Take almost any story about there about Russians and swap in "Muslims." I know, I know -- when the media says Russians, it means Putin and the Kremlin, not the people. I agree. But just imagine if people threw around "Muslims" in the same way. Actually, we don't have to imagine it. People have done that. Many politicians and pundits have loosely accused "Muslims" generally of certain things, without noting it's but a tiny fraction of crazy Muslims who deserve criticism. And they've been slammed for it, unfairly. I notice no similar outrage when people call out "Russians" instead of specifically limiting criticism to Putin and the Kremlin.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 504592)

I'm not going to address the substance of your post because even bothering to note that it is completely ridiculous absurdist nonsense would be the biggest waste of time and effort that I engage in all day, despite the fact that, at 3:30 p.m., I am planning on spending 15 minutes exclusively devoted to watching a Nyan Cat video loop. So yeah, I'm not touching that. Instead, I am going to ask that we all stop using the term "echo chamber." It might have been a useful metaphor for about three minutes, but now it is just lazy and meaningless and hopelessly trite. The fact that it appears in every seventh post here should be proof enough that I am mainly correct.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 504600)

I think there is something legitimately wrong with you. Really. Where do you get this absolute flaming bullshit?

TM