By reilo Go To Post
doesn't this only matter for if it happened before the election?
If Trump gets impeached we're fucked because as everyone knows, someone who uses private email for government business can't be president.
President Paul Ryan with the exhumed corpse of Ayn Rand as First Lady.
President Paul Ryan with the exhumed corpse of Ayn Rand as First Lady.
Mike Pence uses a private AOL server to conduct state business and if was hacked lol
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/
Lock him up!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/
Lock him up!
the santa clausing of george w bush by some centrist dems demonstrates how they care more about optics than policy
By Francis Go To PostSuch a petulant child...
Trump is furious that his good news coverage didn't last so he's tweeting conspiracy theories from Breitbart that claim Obama had him wire tapped prior to the election. If he only had the power to declassify the documents if something like that did happen? 🤔
When Lindsey Graham is the comedic relief and the voice of reason, we're fucked:
The crowd is having a laugher. Also, why does it look like he's in a standup special?
The crowd is having a laugher. Also, why does it look like he's in a standup special?
This is possibly as scared as he's seemed. I'm inclined to believe the people suggesting that he's prepping for some kind of freshly savage disclosure or reporting.
Tapping these goons seems like a solid plan, though. Thinking about String and "is you taking notes on a criminal fuckin conspiracy?"
Tapping these goons seems like a solid plan, though. Thinking about String and "is you taking notes on a criminal fuckin conspiracy?"
The man's total lack of impulse control (or self-awareness) is the scariest thing about him.
Guy just does whatever the hell he wants, the first thought which pops into his tiny mind and bam! There it is. Completely unhinged.
I find it difficult to understand how his online "privileges" haven't been revoked at this stage. Must be seen as a gargantuan security risk.
Guy just does whatever the hell he wants, the first thought which pops into his tiny mind and bam! There it is. Completely unhinged.
I find it difficult to understand how his online "privileges" haven't been revoked at this stage. Must be seen as a gargantuan security risk.
Impotent president is impotent. Literally and figuratively, lol.
Lemmie know when something substantial happens...consequences and such.
Lemmie know when something substantial happens...consequences and such.
This is so obviously just a stunt. Now there are headlines saying "Obama lawyer denies wiretapping Trump Tower." And that's all it takes. The right wing proagandasphere will now run with headlines like that ("who hires a lawyer if they have nothing to hide?") until their audience believes it was actually a thing, and there will be howls of outrage at the mainstream media trying to hush up lieberal watergate.
This is a must-read article from The Guardian today, on how Trump's backed by a silent tech billionaire who is the hand behind the Breitbart network and has been using psyops techniques on voters from Brexit through the US election up to the present. The above is such a clear part of that pattern:
There's so much more in that article, about how centralized and directed this is - it's not just google analytics at work - with a number of quotes from experts and people directly involved. Really worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage
The world gets more Metal Gear by the day.
This is a must-read article from The Guardian today, on how Trump's backed by a silent tech billionaire who is the hand behind the Breitbart network and has been using psyops techniques on voters from Brexit through the US election up to the present. The above is such a clear part of that pattern:
By Carole CadwalladrIt was $10m of Mercer’s money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart – a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right. It has launched the careers of Milo Yiannopoulos and his like, regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands after an activist campaign. It has been phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. It’s bigger than its inspiration, the Huffington Post, bigger, even, than PornHub. It’s the biggest political site on Facebook. The biggest on Twitter.
But there was another reason why I recognised Robert Mercer’s name: because of his connection to Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company. He is reported to have a $10m stake in the company, which was spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group. It specialises in “election management strategies” and “messaging and information operations”, refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In military circles this is known as “psyops” – psychological operations. (Mass propaganda that works by acting on people’s emotions.)
Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, had mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites “strangling” the mainstream media.
On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters – its USP is to use this data to understand people’s deepest emotions and then target them accordingly. The system, according to Albright, amounted to a “propaganda machine”.
Michal Kosinski, the centre’s lead scientist, found that with knowledge of 150 likes, their model could predict someone’s personality better than their spouse. With 300, it understood you better than yourself. “Computers see us in a more robust way than we see ourselves,” says Kosinski.
Sam Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute’s computational propaganda institute tells me that one third of all traffic on Twitter before the EU referendum was automated “bots” – accounts that are programmed to look like people, to act like people, and to change the conversation, to make topics trend. And they were all for Leave. Before the US election, they were five-to-one in favour of Trump – many of them Russian. Last week they have been in action in the Stoke byelection – Russian bots, organised by who? – attacking Paul Nuttall.
You can take a trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it, turn it against the media that uncovered it
“Politics is war,” said Steve Bannon last year in the Wall Street Journal. And increasingly this looks to be true.
There's so much more in that article, about how centralized and directed this is - it's not just google analytics at work - with a number of quotes from experts and people directly involved. Really worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage
The world gets more Metal Gear by the day.
Will his second EO limiting travel from 7 majority Muslims countries hold up to legal challenges? Stay tuned to find out!
By Fenderputty Go To PostWill his second EO limiting travel from 7 majority Muslims countries hold up to legal challenges? Stay tuned to find out!They still haven't presented any evidence (the Trump administration? Evidence?) that this is in the interest of national security, which is why the last ban didn't stand.
I think this one will be upheld. A soverign state does not need to give a legal reason to tell another to fuck off. Naturalized citizens and those with valid VISAs are unaffected. In fact, he WH need not even say "for security reasons." Just say that this restriction is within the constructional jurisdiction of the EO and call it a day.
So there has to be a new term made up to describe people like Ben Carson right? There's just no way traditional terms like Uncle Tom can describe him.
Here's a summary: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/03.06.17-Section-by-Section.pdf
tl:dr; tax cuts for the rich so that the poor can lose their health insurance, like it was always going to be
tl:dr; tax cuts for the rich so that the poor can lose their health insurance, like it was always going to be
By RobNBanks Go To PostSo there has to be a new term made up to describe people like Ben Carson right? There's just no way traditional terms like Uncle Tom can describe him.
Uncle Tom was always a misnomer anyway.
Classic coonery will suffice
30% surcharge on premiums for those who go without health coverage for two months of more.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
They're closing off Medicaid expansion by 2020, which basically means no more poor people can be admitted to get health insurance. 2020 is also after the mid-terms and before the next general election, so just long enough for people to forget. Oh, and they dropped the tax on tanning salons, because how dare we tax rich people increasing their risk of cancer?
Uncle Tom was always a misnomer anyway.
Classic coonery will suffice
Who would you rather have speak for your character, Ben Carson or Judge Thomas?
This healthcare bill is basically the equivalent of Byron Scott yelling at players to "man up" after they get injured and keep playing.
By reilo Go To PostThis healthcare bill is basically the equivalent of Byron Scott yelling at players to "man up" after they get injured and keep playing.In the words of Pod Save America, it's repeal and go fuck yourself.
Paul Ryan just wants those sweet, sweet tax cuts on the wealthy. He's in to win it for corporate America.
By Francis Go To Post30% surcharge on premiums for those who go without health coverage for two months or more.
Brilliant.
It's a nice way of having a "mandate" without calling it a mandate. It's stupidly inefficient though. If you're trying to dodge paying the mandate you'll just go without insurance for 2 years and then pay the higher premium when time finally comes. The amazing thing is, this is the problem with the ACA. The mandate isn't harsh enough to keep insurance risk pools down and so policy prices go up. This would probably exacerbate the issue and could have shock ripples affecting employer based plans too.
By reilo Go To PostThey're closing off Medicaid expansion by 2020, which basically means no more poor people can be admitted to get health insurance. 2020 is also after the mid-terms and before the next general election, so just long enough for people to forget. Oh, and they dropped the tax on tanning salons, because how dare we tax rich people increasing their risk of cancer?
This won't pass.
A. It doesn't have Dem support. McConnell would have to nuke the filibuster.
B. The "replace" part might not be able to pass through reconciliation due to the reworking of taxation, if that's the route the GOP takes.
C. There are two factions within the GOP right now fighting over this. One faction wants to keep medicaid and make sure nobody loses coverage because they're in red states / districts with constituents that will be negatively impacted. The other faction is psycho and won't settle for anything other than a full repeal (including the medicaid expansion). So we have one side who will think this isn't extreme enough and the other who will think this doesn't protect them enough.
If it did pass, putting off the medicaid stoppage until 2020 won't save them. Insurers are already dropping out of the markets and this inefficient mandate, I mean surcharge, won't do anything but make this whole thing even less affordable. The tax credits to get young people on probably aren't enough to ensure a ton of healthy people enter the insurance risk pools and the extreme portion of the party is against those tax credits anyway.
Guys stop, this isn't anyone being an uncle tom.
He's a liberator, who has saved my caucasian brethren from the oppression of decades of white guilt. We pay good money for that sort of thing.
(Also, WTF at that part about being able to recite a book you read 60 years ago if he puts electrodes in your brain. This guy gets his credibility from being a neurosurgeon but he has absolutely no idea how memory works).
He's a liberator, who has saved my caucasian brethren from the oppression of decades of white guilt. We pay good money for that sort of thing.
(Also, WTF at that part about being able to recite a book you read 60 years ago if he puts electrodes in your brain. This guy gets his credibility from being a neurosurgeon but he has absolutely no idea how memory works).
Ohhh boy the replacement plan allows insurers to charge the elderly 5x the price of the young. Under Obamacare it was 3. Literrally no one will be happy if this is passed
By Fenderputty Go To PostOhhh boy the replacement plan allows insurers to charge the elderly 5x the price of the young. Under Obamacare it was 3. Literrally no one will be happy if this is passedthe rich will
they are the ones that matter anyway
By blackace Go To PostWho would you rather have speak for your character, Ben Carson or Judge Thomas?
Thomas because he actually does not say anything at all.
Thomas because he actually does not say anything at all.
Thomas admitted he hates black people tho.. lol
Yeah the Medicaid cap is just terrible.
One thing I'm not clear on though, is it repeal through reconciliation but replace through a normal vote?
One thing I'm not clear on though, is it repeal through reconciliation but replace through a normal vote?
Looks like everyone hates the bill and its rollout is being bashed left AND right literally.
Of course the right hates it (like above) because they think it's not a full repeal/replacement that provides consumer "choice". The Reagan quote is rich lol.
Of course the right hates it (like above) because they think it's not a full repeal/replacement that provides consumer "choice". The Reagan quote is rich lol.
It's gonna be crazy if the GOP really gets nothing done on healthcare because they can't agree on how many people they want to just kick off insurance right away.
For better or worse, Twitter isn't a great indicator of what the general population of America is thinking. If it was, Trump would have never been elected.
