skinny21

I mentioned earlier my issues with Fox, but I had (and will still have) trouble articulating them. A lot of it comes from times when someone says "Fox said...", when it should be made clear that "a tv personality on Fox said... yada yada". I mean, hell, even the WAPO gets wrongly used at times when it clearly says "opinion" (when apt). I just think that any 'news' platform should catch flak when they further conspiracy theories, ignore/mistreat major items, etc.

Edit: sorry, having posting some troubles of my own

^^ Wouldn't let me out of the quoted box for some reason...

Somewhat related to this (and your previous points), but at what point does Fox News get looked at? I could be wrong, but their efforts to downplay this whole process, the obfuscation, the outright lying about various aspects... they seem to be the driving force behind the 'confusion' (doubt) as to whether this whole thing is a big deal. I wish I could articulate my thoughts better, and that I knew more about the particulars in terms of laws, etc., but it seems the FEC should have some concerns here. I'll add that of course they are allowed to lean right in their reporting, and you could argue they simply balance the 'left wing media' (and obviously the first amendment factors in a big way), but this **** seems genuinely hurtful to the country. Is there no recourse? In a general way, it mirrors how I feel about Republicans in general - the Right is a useful foil for the left - I can embrace and appreciate aspects of the traditional conservative view - but the current iteration of the GOP (outside of a handful) are a scourge on the country.

Think you got it right there, though I can't recall the "dirt is still coming bit". You may well be right, but that's even more damning than I recall considering that Wiki dump. Here's my deal - he called the press conference for a reason (he was going to spill some dirt on HRC) - so there's reason to believe it was either stuff from Don Jrs. meeting, or he thought he was getting info from Wikileaks. So, the conference was cancelled either due to lack of info received at the meeting with the Russian lawyer, or (presumably) because someone convinced him that it would be better optics to let Wikileaks do the 'unveiling'*. (if it was just a matter of maximum damage - releasing day before the DNC convention - he still would have been the one to divulge the info) * there's also a chance that 1) Wikileaks didn't want to give the info to Trump (why would anyone believe that?) or 2) the info was deemed insignificant to live up to the planned press conference. Either way - DTJ or Wiki - (ridiculous to deny both) Trump knew something, which is coordinating. Given how the Intelligence community views WIkileaks, both of the above deal with coordinating with Russia... though he likely pleads ignorance to the Wiki/Russia connection. In the long run, I wonder if Trump's avoidance of details saves his bacon. If the **** really hits the fan, the irony might be that he gets off due to psychological issues.

And pay for the pleasure... yep.

Got an email response (about not voting for this mess) from Senstor Cornyn saying premiums have gone up 104%... quick google search and I responded with how much it had gone up historically (pre-ACA). I mean, c'mom man, try harder.

Diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain... oops, I think I meant "tells it like it is".

NSFW, BTW!

You know what else jumped out at me from the article? The fact that foreign Intelligence officials warned the US that Russia might be funneling money into the election. Can't recall seeing that bit of info before and maybe it doesn't mean all that much, but "follow the money" came to mind...

I've got almost nothing against Melania, and I assumed it was Rocky that voted for Trump... he's been acting squirrelly for a long time now.

Another random note (just put one in the Asia thread) - if the world is serious about wanting Russia out of Ukraine and out of everyone's elections... I have a hunch threatening to move the World Cup could be a big step in that direction. At least, from my vantage point, the only thing that really threatens Putin is putting the oligarchs under pressure (and tarnishing Putin's reputation at home). The sanctions help, I imagine, but it certainly doesn't seem to carry the risk of fomenting rebellion (among his Russian allies). Some other strong steps: 1) Don't allow Russians to buy property or invest in countries united against their actions 2). Don't allow anyone associated with Russian oligarchs to travel to any of these same countries 3) Suspend their position on the UN Security Council 4) Merely threatening any, or all of the above. Of course, there's always the chance these things backfire and start a war, or further cyber incursions, but the slap on the wrist doesn't seem to be cutting it. Perhaps a sobering slap to the face would...

That is too funny - since I first started noticing drug ads (and listing of side effects), I'd joke around with that exact line. Speaking of Big Pharma, I'm surprised they haven't gone all in to change the "Don't do drugs" slogans taught at school. Something to differentiate themselves a bit.

I have to wonder, if roles were reversed and you were told by all our Intelligence Agencies that the Russians aided the election of a Democratic President (under a Democratic Congress) that planned on enacting many of the scary lefty threats the GOP often crows about - taking away gun rights, Socialist healthcare and tax reform, free abortions for everyone, yada... and then you find out that numerous administration officials (prior to taking office and frequently during the election) met with the Russians, lied repeatedly about meeting with the Russians, changed the party's platform (suddenly and with no apparent reason) regarding Russia, and now wants access to all voter rolls while planning to team up with Russia on cyber security issues... would you mind if I laughed at your outrage and inability to do anything? 'Cause that's about where I'm at (give or take), and there are pages and pages I left unwritten. I suppose that makes me a snowflake Of course, in that scenario (same as our actual situation), I sure as **** wouldn't be laughing.

@EBozHow do you feel about Putin? Any thoughts as to his endgame in Europe and the US? (I'd ask how you feel about the Healthcare bill, but that's for a different thread)

I believe it's legal because it was understood that certain things are not done. There used to be respect for the office. We're seeing numerous 'traditions' broken by this administration. Traditions that were based on common sense and common decency. Depending on how things shake out in the midterms and beyond, my guess is a lot of these traditions will be turned into law to prevent their reoccurrence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read the Medicare "cuts" don't kick in until 2020 - allowing the GOP a chance to keep their promise of repeal and replace, while putting off (one of?) the most damaging aspect to allow them to retain control of congress (and keep the heavily gerrymandered districts in place).

Yeah, watched that yesterday - Maddox has her issues, but she presents info pretty well and does a good job putting things into historical context. it was (of course) presented maybe a bit too dramatically, but that's some messed up stuff. I dont know the fix for it, but there needs to be a news option that people can generally trust - the erosion of trust in the media is turning into an extremely dangerous result for this country (and others).

First off, let me say that you have a valid point in there about focusing on championing only certain ethnicities. People tend to latch on to the latest, or loudest outrage and others fall by the wayside. My issue with the ban (aside from the devastating stories), is that I believe the ban actually empowers Islamic terrorist groups to some degree. People of different nationalities (and religions) move to the US and often thrive, thereby engendering good will for this country abroad. By treating Muslims as (pretty much solely) a threat, this administration is damaging that perspective. Same thing, or close to it anyway, with latinos. Now, you can say this is the price that must be paid for security, but that's essentially lip service since the 90 days that were needed are long up, and not too long ago, people in charge of vetting were saying that the administration had not contacted them about their policies or procedures. And so, the ban should be perceived for what it really is - a follow through on the promises Trump made. Yet he has lied and stoked fear to create (or further) the desire for these extreme measures. My hunch is that what he has done instead is make the US less safe - both by enabling the anti-US rhetoric abroad, as well as aiding the rising tide of anti-Muslim behavior here at home. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and yet here is the President (during his campaign and now) stoking fear (and hatred) of Islam, latinos, the media, liberals, etc, etc. That is a very serious problem.

As much as I want to point out that it's crazy to think the Left has any say in how long and where the Special Investigation goes, maybe you can tell me why you believe this? As to the other investigations - the FBI investigation, the Senate Intelligence investigation, and the House Intelligence investigation - what do you mean by "I do not know when they started so I can't say they were one side or the other?"

Are you saying Democrats are driving the investigation? Or maybe you're saying that they will be the ones to decide when the investigation is over? I think many GOP supporters have bought into the idea that this whole thing is a partisan witch hunt and are 1) ignoring any GOP voices that insist on the need for it (the investigation), 2) ignoring the fact that 4 separate investigations were commenced all by GOP lead groups. This last point would be a good sign if the WH weren't tainting the proceedings. Nunes on the House Committee, Trump's dealings with Comey (not to mention Session's) affecting the FBI investigation, and now the campaign to fire Mueller. It's a shame that so many of the President's lies are bought into by his supporters ("Russia wasn't responsible for hacking", "This is a witch hunt", etc.). Even bigger shame that our President's strongest character trait seems to be "liar". Sounds like hyperbole, but no...somehow it's a very fair judgement on my part.

The growth of Medicaid births is very interesting. Also interesting that many pretty staunchly GOP states top the list, along with the fact that states like California, New York and Texas are so high. Whether it's concerning depends on so many factors that I don't have enough info on: what were mothers doing prior to using Medicaid? What is and what was the financial impact (on the family/state/fed/taxpayer)? Who is better and worse off with these changes?

Your first sentence is what I was getting at in my post, yes. As for the 2nd sentence, would you say conditions (and, maybe more importantly, perceptions) have worsened in the last several months? You've seen other countries leaders speak up about bringing in the workers the US seems to be shunning? But no, I did not say the US is a bad option for foreign workers (doctors), but I'd at least say the gap between us and some other countries is lessening. Wouldn't be surprised if the US (assuming a need to work in rural areas especially) was no longer one of the top options in the near future.

Well, yes and no. Money and the ability to locate/study in the US have been a draw for foreign doctors (to more rural areas), but increase in crimes, immigration laws and sentiment against them might stunt that flow. Couple that with other countries stepping into that breach and it could get even tougher. Money is a big draw, as you allude to, and laws/practices can be changed, but it sure seems like a lot of damage has already been done... perhaps enough that we can't recover from it. As I wrote this I realized you probably already thought of all of that and you're just playing your usual Devil's Advocate role. Funny that playing Devil's Advocate means advocating/defending GOP practices... but you probably recognized that irony eons ago.