President Trump

Tools    





“Let him [Colin Powell] resign. He can be replaced. Maybe by one of the people they fired from their job.” [OMNIZOA]

Colin Powell was highly respected both in the military and by the public. You might be one of those people I wrote of who are either too young to know or don’t remember how times have changed. William L. Shirer in his seminal history of Nazi Germany The Rise and Fall of theThird Reich spoke very disparagingly of homosexuals ("perverts" and "men of such unnatural proclivities") in a matter-of-fact tenor that was reflective of society in general then. What’s remarkable is that Shirer was no Bible thumping reactionary. On the contrary, he was a flaming liberal and was later tainted as a “pinko” during the McCarthy era. This was the attitude of even liberals then.

Likewise, many people would be shocked to learn that William Penn—the great humanitarian and advocate of religious liberty—owned slaves as did 70% of his fellow Quakers in early Pennsylvania. Penn even said that slaves were preferable to indentured servants because they served for life unlike the latter. It was only later that Quakers became prominent in the abolitionist movement.

Times change. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was a good first step.



@Omnizoa: why break down paragraphs and dispute individual sentences when they all say the same thing and/or you just end up replying to them as a group later? What purpose does that serve, other than perhaps encouraging the other person to tap out and end the argument? It doesn't make the argument stronger, or increase mutual understanding.

What more is there to talk about beyond trying to convince me that the interpretation was rational? I personally hate "agree to disagree", but this is so inconsequential and we've sunk so much time going around and around in circles I'd rather just drop it.
This is a pretty weird thing to say after 1,000 words of parsing and arguments. Usually if someone wants to move past something, they present some summarized version of their position, and the other person does the same. They generally don't atomize the whole thing even further (particularly with lots of flat contradiction and repetition) and then say "agree to disagree."

So while I agree that this has pretty much run its course, it doesn't feel quite right to let all that go unchallenged. So I'm still going to reply to a couple general things:
1) Your list of three things about the "context" that changes his meaning. The first seems to be based only on the fact that he later said "I wasn't saying that." This is a meaningless denial coming from any person accused of saying something wrong, let alone one with a long history of saying he never said things we have him on tape plainly saying. You might as well count a not guilty plea as evidence someone is innocent. The second, "The situation in which they were said," which is just another way of saying "context," which makes it a tautology. The third is just "sometimes people use these words badly, for emphasis," which is yet another version of "he didn't mean it," was never in dispute and has no bearing on the argument.

2) I really don't know what to say to the suggestion that there's a meaningful distinction between "literally spoke" and "literally said." You're saying you'd have totally agreed with me if I'd just said "spoke" instead? It's a particularly bizarre thing to say after all these replies, when it could have been clarified at any point. So it seems like you either obscured your meaning, or you decided to start arguing about this with great fervency and verbosity even before you had a handle on the distinctions you wanted to make. Either way: not great, Bob.
And remember, this all started because you said the claim was a "Lie." That is a stark claim, and a high bar to clear, and "I don't think he meant it" just doesn't get over it.

There's more, as always, and some of it I even already wrote-up, but since I said above that "agree to disagree" de-escalations should involve fewer words, I'll stop there.



@Omnizoa: why break down paragraphs and dispute individual sentences when they all say the same thing and/or you just end up replying to them as a group later? What purpose does that serve, other than perhaps encouraging the other person to tap out and end the argument? It doesn't make the argument stronger, or increase mutual understanding.
It strikes me as a form of the Gish Gallop method of debating.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



Meanwhile, worldwide public opinion is formed over the Trumpster.....

North Korean state media lashes out at China and suggests Trump is ignorant

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...4lo?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump to meet pope May 24 in potentially awkward encounter

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...syp?li=BBnb7Kz

....from the Pope to Kim Jong Un, the opinion seems the same.

Murica'



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
"Rape, postpartum depression, Cesarean sections, and surviving domestic violence are all considered preexisting conditions" under AHCA
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



You can't win an argument just by being right!
"Rape, postpartum depression, Cesarean sections, and surviving domestic violence are all considered preexisting conditions" under AHCA
Good flipping god.



I'm not exactly looking for reasons to defend this administration (and I don't even like the bill, albeit for different reasons), but I can't think of a single time I saw a headline like that which didn't end up being a massive oversimplification or highly misleading, at best.



"Rape, postpartum depression, Cesarean sections, and surviving domestic violence are all considered preexisting conditions" under AHCA
I don’t even understand what this means. Except for Cesarean sections, I’m guessing it means psychological counseling as a result of these traumatic occurrences? Regarding Cesarean sections, I don’t have a clue what this refers to. In any health insurance plan, isn’t pregnancy covered? What difference would it make how the baby is delivered? Or does this mean if a woman buys health insurance after she knows she is already pregnant then being pregnant itself would be considered a preexisitng condition? If that’s the case, then again, what difference does it make if it is a normal delivery or C-section?



You can't win an argument just by being right!
As per what Yods said you have to take any news article with a grain of salt, but how in god's name is rape a pre existing condition. Does this mean rape victims have to pay for rape kits to assist the police, or they arent afforded counselling? Even labelling it pre existing is utterly appalling.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
As per what Yods said you have to take any news article with a grain of salt, but how in god's name is rape a pre existing condition. Does this mean rape victims have to pay for rape kits to assist the police, or they arent afforded counselling? Even labelling it pre existing is utterly appalling.
I'm assuming it has to deal with HIV medications.

There are some preexisting conditions that would disqualify you from getting a policy. I believe having HIV is one of them. Rape victims sometimes are given HIV drugs as a precaution, thus disqualifying them.

Medicine is a business in America.

The listed things are not binary and curable issues, which means it could take a life-time of treatment. No profit for insurance companies in that.


Question: Will new mother's report signs of PPD now?



My biggest problem with the ******* that is the ACA is that it totally screwed over people with individual health insurance plans. Every November, my premiums would jump up at least $120.00, until this past year, my health insurance company (Coventry One) just didn't offer coverage in my state anymore. This forced me to get coverage under Blue Cross Blue Shield, by far the most expensive (and only) insurance company left. This is the first year that I get any kind of subsidy ($50.00), but from paying $90.00 a month when I first got insurance to paying $300.00 now with the same deductible is utter ********. Unfortunately, whether if it's the complete mess that is the ACA or this new abomination the Republicans are trying to get through, health care will blow for the next few years.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I'm assuming it has to deal with HIV medications.

There are some preexisting conditions that would disqualify you from getting a policy. I believe having HIV is one of them. Rape victims sometimes are given HIV drugs as a precaution, thus disqualifying them.

Medicine is a business in America.

The listed things are not binary and curable issues, which means it could take a life-time of treatment. No profit for insurance companies in that.


Question: Will new mother's report signs of PPD now?
Thanks TUS.

How about gyno care coming under the bill, and mammograms. What's pre existing - that the patient has a cervix and breasts? Or is it poorly worded and that aspect would only preclude patients who have a genetic predisposition to cancer? All seems a bit iffy and someone just running with his demented tweets more than anything. What's nymag? I've never heard of it.

Your question is pertinent, though. Is this kind of scare mongering enough to frighten new mums off seeking help if they get PPD. Disturbing prospect.



A "preexisting condition" is anything that's already happened to you that can meaningfully affect health in the future. Making a distinction between a preexisting condition and something that happens after you have insurance is literally the entire idea behind insurance. Any "health insurance" that doesn't distinguish between them isn't actually insurance at all. You can't "insure" against something that's already taken place.

So when someone says they want health insurance that doesn't charge different premiums for preexisting conditions, what they really mean is they don't want the concept of health insurance to exist at all.

Anyway, to the specific claims above:


The latest less-than-truthful meme about Republicans' Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA), passed by the U.S. House on Thursday, is that it makes rape a "preexisting condition" for health-insurance purposes ... None of this is true. Like, not even a little bit.

...

Nothing in the new Republican health care bill specifically addresses sexual assault or domestic violence whatsoever. What it does say is that states can apply for waivers that will allow insurance companies, under certain limited circumstances, to charge higher premiums to people based on their personal medical histories—that's it.
More fact checking on the claim can be found here.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
A "preexisting condition" is anything that's already happened to you that can meaningfully affect health in the future. Making a distinction between a preexisting condition and something that happens after you have insurance is literally the entire idea behind insurance. Any "health insurance" that doesn't distinguish between them isn't actually insurance at all. You can't "insure" against something that's already taken place.
Thanks Yods. Gotta love the gutter press.



Trump Administration Cites Segregation-Era Ruling To Defend Its Travel Ban

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...vQM?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump Walks Back Threat to Defund Black Colleges

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...XmA?li=BBnb7Kz



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Trump terminates Comey as director of the FBI.

This has to be a red flag right? He was investigating him for crying out loud.
Both sides seem to dislike him, but when I first saw him a few years ago, I kinda like him.... I just learned yesterday that in the late 70s, him and his younger brother were held captive, at gunpoint.... He's been pretty independent (October Surprise).

I guess for an FBI guy, he was pretty good, unlike J. Edgar Hoover.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
My casual $0.02 regarding Comey stuffs:
He has had a lot of spotlight first leading up to the election publicly commenting on Clinton's email investigation and then publicly contradicting Trump's tweeted claims of Obama's alleged wiretaps. It frustrated me at the timing of his email comments being right before the election. That seemed deliberate and calculated (to me!), as I could not comprehend why the FBI would make a public comment on something that was at that time and open investigation, especially so close to a presidential election when that comment could affect voter opinion. On the other hand, I had an evil grin cross my face when he contradicted Trump publicly.

I'm not even going to try to speculate as to why he appeared to help one side to then later buck the sitting president. From my very limited perspective, that seems unpredictable. Perhaps he is a man of deep principles and is apolitical in his views---wrong is wrong is wrong. I have no clue, I don't know the man; but I can see where that would be a problem in politics in general. Personally, had this firing happened at any other time, I probably wouldn't bat an eye at the spectacle because I can at least argue that unpredictability can be counterproductive, if not dangerous. The timing in context to the Russian ties investigation, however, leaves a vacuum of awkward questions and the administration should have predicted those questions such as "why now?" Surely the administration had the forethought to know that this would only bring more attention to itself? That lack of awareness in and of itself demands at least some doubt in either motive or ....the ability to predict the obvious. This reads to me as impulsive.

Maybe I'm wrong? God, I hope so. Checkers, anyone?



From an outside perspective and putting aside the real repercussions all of this has brought the Comey saga has actually been pretty hilarious. From reading other forums and not supporting either side i've loved watching Comey and his decisions being supported by Hilary Supporters (or just Anti-Trump people) while vilified by Trump supporters and vice-versa, i mean it's switched over at least twice now right? It's real time partisan nonsense and it's kind of beautiful in its own terrifying and horrible way.



Yeah, the Comey stuff has exposed lots of hacks on both sides. It's like the situation was custom engineered to expose all the people who make supposedly neutral comments about process that are actually just working backwards from whatever result they want.