patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
751,402 comments in 77,251 posts by 11,017 registered users, 2 online now: vishnureddykal, Waitup

new post

Will Trump resign . One lawyer thinks so

By Tim Aurora   Jul 16, 11:41am   2 links   1,874 views   85 comments   watch (0)   quote      

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scandal-donald-trump-jr-apos-103704137.html

law and son, a leading professor of law at Columbia University predicts.Philip Bobbitt describes the Presidents resignation as a consequence of his family members being prosecuted as the likeliest possibility.Emails released by Donald Trump Jr show that he met with a

« First     « Previous     Comments 46-85 of 85     Last »

46   iwog   2234/2236 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 1:23am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

That's right, click dislike. You read the question now answer it.

47   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 1:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Does the public support a law eliminating pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny insurance?

It depends what you bundle that provision with. That's why I used the corn-in-manure metaphor. Maybe you just can't help yourself: if you saw a pile of manure with a piece of corn in it, you'd swallow the whole thing, and thus you couldn't understand the metaphor.

48   iwog   2234/2236 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 1:29am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

curious2 says

It depends what you bundle that provision with. That's why I used the corn-in-manure metaphor. Maybe you just can't help yourself: if you saw a pile of manure with a piece of corn in it, you'd swallow the whole thing, and thus you couldn't understand the metaphor.

Oh I understand the metaphor. In this case it's the mob saying "YEAH COVER EVERYONE BUT DON'T ALLOW A WAY TO PAY FOR IT!"

Right? Is that what you meant? Did you mean to say the public wants to cover pre-existing conditions but doesn't want a law to pay for it? Because that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about most Americans wanting a strong military and simultaneously most Americans complain that taxes are too high.

The provisions of Obamacare are popular and generally supported by the public. That's the reason why Republicans refuse to repeal it. They know damn well that a total repeal will cost them congress in 2018 and if you weren't so dishonest, you'd admit this as well.

It's time to grow up.

49   Quigley   892/898 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 1:43am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

You mean lie?

True, touche iwog! Democrats would HAVE to lie if they claimed to have better policies than the Republicans! There's no way they could pull that kind of con off without lying!
Galactically right, you are!

50   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 1:51am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

you'd admit

You don't even know what they'll do yet. Democrats took 14 months to enact Obamneycare. Republicans have had less than half that time. Look again next year and see what they've done.

iwog says

doesn't want a law to pay for it?

That's a lie spread by Democrats, though you might believe it. IOM reported 30% of current spending goes to waste, fraud, and abuse. If you add in toxic placebos and disproved modalities that Obamneycare subsidizes infinitely, and the absurd markups on generic drugs (e.g. daraprim, doxycycline, more), you can see the game: mandate infinite subsidies for absurd overpricing. You focus on the corn, and insist somehow that corn can only ever be found in manure. They might still fool you, but they didn't fool enough people enough of the time to remain in office.

51   iwog   2234/2236 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

You don't even know what they'll do yet. Democrats took 14 months to enact Obamneycare. Republicans have had less than half that time. Look again next year and see what they've done.

What part of Republicans have already voted to eliminate Obamacare 50+ times did you not comprehend?

What part of Republicans have FULL STOP refused to outright repeal Obamacare NOW in both houses did you miss??

DO YOU THINK that a bill to repeal Obamacare will pass either house when the House bill didn't do it and barely passed and the Senate bill is currently dead?

Part of telling the future is not lying to yourself about what is possible and what is impossible. A repeal of Obamacare is impossible. If you say otherwise, I'm simply smarter than you are.

52   iwog   2234/2236 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:40am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

That's a lie spread by Democrats, though you might believe it. IOM reported 30% of current spending goes to waste, fraud, and abuse. If you add in toxic placebos and disproved modalities that Obamneycare subsidizes infinitely, and the absurd markups on generic drugs (e.g. daraprim, doxycycline, more), you can see the game: mandate infinite subsidies for absurd overpricing. You focus on the corn, and insist somehow that corn can only ever be found in manure. They might still fool you, but they didn't fool enough people enough of the time to remain in office.

That's right, just muddy the water to obscure what the fuck you were originally talking about.

You were originally talking about how the public overwhelmingly hates Obamacare right? That's a funny position to have considering you've now admitted (by implication) that the majority would support coverage of pre-existing conditions and now you've admitted (explicitly) that the public would be fine paying for it. However since waste and fraud are not part of ANY legislation nor are they implied in Obamacare nor can they possibly be included in a simple poll question about the provisions of health care reform, you have now admitted that two of the largest parts of this legislation are indeed SUPPORTED by the majority.

Shall we move on to medicaid?

53   YesYNot   1137/1138 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:49am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

Kynect is the website where people who were required to submit to Obamneycare had to sign up. Its approval rating was actually lower than the legislation's. But, you were fooled by a fake news headline that said disapproval was even lower. Of course disapproval was lower: many people weren't even eligible for the website, and so 50% had no opinion of it. In your mind, you fell for the headline. Fake news. In reality, only ~30% supported it no matter what it was called.

As you correctly pointed out, 50% had no opinion of it. Of the people who did have an opinion, 58% supported it and 44% disapproved. That seems pretty good. When expressed as a percentage of total population, the 44% becomes 22% and looks low. For the same reason, the 58% becomes 29% and looks low. Is there some reason that you think an objective person should make excuses for why the 22% disapproval number is low, but then claim that the 29% approval number is proof that people hate it? This makes no sense, especially when a basic understanding of statistics can explain exactly what those numbers mean.

54   iwog   2234/2236 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:54am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Statistical sampling is a tool of the devil and never means anything.

55   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 4:05am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

YesYNot says

Is there some reason that you think an objective person should make excuses for why the 22% disapproval number is low, but then claim that the 29% approval number is proof that people hate it?

You seem to have misunderstood, and as usual your purported paraphrasing is either wildly mistaken or dishonest. iwog linked two polls from Kentucky, both showing the legislation polled around -20. That's a landslide loss. iwog's NBC fake/misleading news link said, ""When it comes to views of the new health care law, sometimes it’s all in a name." In reality, the actual article showed the legislation had the same level of support no matter what they called it. As for the website, I would not expect people who have never seen a particular website to have an opinion of it, although some seem so partisan that they'd support practically anything. In any event, the ~30% support does not add up to enough to win an election, as Democrats have experienced in losing power 2010-16. The only really relevant bit to this thread is the discrepancy between the MSM fake/misleading news headline and the underlying evidence: we see the same in the latest Russia narrative. You seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

56   iwog   2234/2236 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 4:58am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

curious2 says

You seem to have misunderstood, and as usual your purported paraphrasing is either wildly mistaken or dishonest. iwog linked two polls from Kentucky, both showing the legislation polled around -20. That's a landslide loss. iwog's NBC fake/misleading news link said, ""When it comes to views of the new health care law, sometimes it’s all in a name." In reality, the actual article showed the legislation had the same level of support no matter what they called it. As for the website, I would not expect people who have never seen a particular website to have an opinion of it, although some seem so partisan that they'd support practically anything. In any event, the ~30% support does not add up to enough to win an election, as Democrats have experienced in losing power 2010-16. The only really relevant bit to this thread is the discrepan...

You clearly have no ability to read or comprehend the article you are commenting on.

I'm actually going to go into more detail although you don't deserve it. The ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that poll can be interpreted as "having the same level of support no matter what they called it" would be if you knew with absolute certainty that once educated, those who polled as never having heard of the program would 100% reject it. Out of those who were unsure, 100% would either remain unsure or reject it.

Since this is fucking stupid and since statistically both groups would fall in line with the statistical positives and negatives if forced, what you said is absolutely wrong, utterly without merit, and I don't think you even understand why.

57   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 12:27pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

iwog says

The ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that poll can be interpreted as "having the same level of support no matter what they called it" would be if you knew with absolute certainty that once educated, those who polled as never having heard of the program would 100% reject it. Out of those who were unsure, 100% would either remain unsure or reject it.

That's false. Your NBC fake/misleading news link said, ""When it comes to views of the new health care law, sometimes it’s all in a name." In reality, the actual numbers in your NBC and WaPo links showed the legislation had the same level of support no matter what they called it. You have now switched to a totally different hypothetical scenario in which people are forced at gunpoint to express an opinion where they had none, while I was looking at what YOUR LINKS said in reality.

Then you go on to say that wouldn't matter either:

iwog says

statistically both groups would fall in line with the statistical positives and negatives if forced

You have no evidence to support that assertion, and regarding the website it doesn't follow at all.

You've gone into ODD mode again, using ALL CAPS TO SHOUT FALSE THINGS, defending an indefensible position. The bottom line remains, your own links show support for the legislation, the website, and President Obama were all around 30%. Opposition to the legislation and President Obama were both around 50%. That's net negative 20, and explains why Democrats lost.

Moreover, you've become so obsessed with defending Kynect (of all things) that you've lost sight of any relevance to the current thread. That's another sign of your ODD: you lose all perspective, and can only FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT to defend an indefensible position.

The relevance to the OP is only this: MSM push fake narratives all the time on behalf of their corporate sponsors. You choose to swallow greedily the whole pile of manure and then demand more. The Russia narrative is much the same: mostly BS that you insist on swallowing. Maybe you see some bits of undigested corn in the manure, and that's enough incentive for you to swallow all of it. Bon appetit! I hope you won't mind too much if others choose not to join you in your feast.

58   Booger   652/652 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 12:50pm  ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote    

59   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 12:55pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

"That's false. Your NBC fake/misleading news link said, ""When it comes to views of the new health care law, sometimes it’s all in a name." In reality, the actual numbers in your NBC and WaPo links showed the legislation had the same level of support no matter what they called it"

What are you talking about? When you call it Obamacare it polls at -24. When you call it something else (Kynect) it polls at +7.

You can try and explain away the difference but it's pretty stark. There is a HUGE measurable difference.

And, like Iwog says, Congressmen are smart enough to know this and that's why they are scared as hell to actually repeal it.

60   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 12:58pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

"Moreover, you've become so obsessed with defending Kynect (of all things) that you've lost sight of any relevance to the current thread. That's another sign of your ODD: you lose all perspective, and can only FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT to defend an indefensible position."

Yes, of course. Again, anyone who points out the fallacies in curious' logic is only "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT (ing)". It's funny how that always happens to you.

61   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 1:04pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

joeyjojojunior says

What are you talking about?

As I said, quoting one of iwog's links, the level of support remained around 30% no matter what it was called. Opposition depended on whether people were asked about the legislation or the website. Most people were ineligible to sign up via the website anyway, and around 50% expressed no opinion of the website. There was no "stark" or "HUGE" difference in support as you claim: it remained ~30%, for both the legislation and the website, in two separate polls (Marist and Democrats' Partisan Push Polling). Read the linked NBC article for yourself, and compare the numbers to the misleading headline. There isn't a logical fallacy; you simply lack reading comprehension.

62   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 1:19pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

No, actually it didn't. The fact that you quote the plus/minus earlier in the thread but ignore it now shows that you are being purposely dishonest.

I comprehend fine. I know that 29-22 = +7. Evidently you do not.

63   Quigley   892/898 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 1:40pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Need to repeal first.
That will light a fire under Democrat butts to participate in crafting good legislation as a replacement. That way if the GOPe which supports these horrible pro-corporate health bills doesn't like the outcome, it won't be able to totally shoot it down. A compromise bill is what the American people deserve.

64   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 1:46pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"Need to repeal first. That will light a fire under Democrat butts to participate in crafting good legislation as a replacement. That way if the GOPe which supports these horrible pro-corporate health bills doesn't like the outcome, it won't be able to totally shoot it down. A compromise bill is what the American people deserve."

lol--The Dems will craft the replacement after the 2018 elections as the majority party if that happens.

65   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 2:16pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

joeyjojojunior says

The fact that you quote the plus/minus earlier in the thread but ignore it now shows that you are being purposely dishonest.

Nationally the legislation polleed around -10, and in KY it polled around -20. You choose to fixate on the website, which illustrates that you've either been hypnotized by misleading headlines or you're being dishonest. The fact remains, only the same 30% supported the website and the legislation that enabled it. 30% are not enough to win an election, which is why Democrats lost.

Each major party has net negative approval, including majority disapproval. Partisans within each major faction refuse to hold their own party accountable. You went so far as to deny the Democrats even had power when they enacted Obamneycare. Your dishonesty and others' enable the good-cop, bad-cop two step, as each party sells out to its corporate sponsors.

If Democrats want to win, they'll need to campaign on better policies instead of endless TDS.

66   Quigley   892/898 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:25pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

joeyjojojunior says

lol--The Dems will craft the replacement after the 2018 elections as the majority party if that happens.

What's the point of another Obamacare clone? Trump will just refuse to sign. And you're making a YUUUUGE assumption that the Democrats will gain seats rather than continue to lose bigly.
Lemme give you a hint: Russiagate is hurting your party in the polls, and the continued hysterical #resist movement makes Dems look like spoiled toddlers not responsible legislators.

67   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:35pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"What's the point of another Obamacare clone? Trump will just refuse to sign"

Are you kidding me. Trump will absolutely sign anything that makes it to his desk. As to the point-- #1 it will likely benefit the 1% that control the Republican party, and #2 it will allow them to tell people that they fulfilled a campaign promise.

"Lemme give you a hint: Russiagate is hurting your party in the polls, and the continued hysterical #resist movement makes Dems look like spoiled toddlers not responsible legislators."

All evidence to the contrary. The average of special election results shows about a 14 point swing in favor of Dems. And that's before repeal of Obamacare.

68   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:37pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

"Nationally the legislation polleed around -10, and in KY it polled around -20. You choose to fixate on the website, which illustrates that you've either been hypnotized by misleading headlines or you're being dishonest. The fact remains, only the same 30% supported the website, and the legislation that enabled it. 30% are not enough to win an election, which is why Democrats lost."

I chose to fixate on the actual data that showed Obamacare polling at -20 in KY and the same thing called a different name polling at +7. It is a clear example of the power of propaganda.

You choose to ignore and try to hand wave your way out of the obvious conclusion.

69   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 2:41pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

joeyjojojunior says

The average of special election results shows....

Republicans winning 100% of the time. If there are any exceptions, please do let me know. If your strategy is to keep "winning" by losing, then would you please consider switching to a different party?

joeyjojojunior says

You choose to ignore and try to hand wave your way out of the obvious conclusion.

I didn't ignore it. The obvious conclusion is Kentucky opposed the legislation by a margin of 20 points, but most of the people who had no occasion to experience the website (e.g. most were ineligible to use it) expressed no opinion of the website. Then, dishonest partisans tried to spin that, fooling no one but themselves.

70   Quigley   892/898 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 2:42pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

joeyjojojunior says

All evidence to the contrary. The average of special election results shows about a 14 point swing in favor of Dems. And that's before repeal of Obamacare.

Fine, believe what you like! Check my post history, and you'll find I'm batting close to 1000 with major political predictions. Especially when they directly contradicted all major polls and media predictions.
Iwog has a better batting average with economics, stocks, and especially housing, but I beat his ass in politics these past few years.

71   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 2:45pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

oops I misread who posted the previous comment - sorry - how do I delete?

72   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 3:50pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

curious2 says

I didn't ignore it. The obvious conclusion is Kentucky opposed the legislation by a margin of 20 points, but most of the people who had no occasion to experience the website (e.g. most were ineligible to use it) expressed no opinion of the website.

Exactly. So those folks that had no occasion to experience the website should be ignored which leads to the conclusion that the health care bill, when called something else, polls at +7

73   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 3:51pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Quigley says

Fine, believe what you like!

It's not a matter of believing. The +14 is a fact. There is no believing or not believing.

74   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 3:54pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

Republicans winning 100% of the time. If there are any exceptions, please do let me know. If your strategy is to keep "winning" by losing, then would you please consider switching to a different party?

While you may like to only look at the result, I find that much can be learned by digging into the details and understanding what the result means in terms of the current political landscape and predicting future elections. It might be more than you are capable of understanding.

75   curious2   1128/1128 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 4:02pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

joeyjojojunior says

So those folks that had no occasion to experience the website should be ignored which leads to the conclusion that....

Your conclusion does not follow at all. For one thing, you are assuming that people mistook the legislation for the website. You don't know whether they did or not. To the contrary, a much more likely conclusion is that they knew the legislation and the website were two different things. You assume everyone is ignorant, but that's your own reflection.

joeyjojojunior says

It might be more than you are capable of understanding.

Indeed, your lack of integrity does mystify me. I don't know what you gain by claiming Democrats were not even in power when they enacted Obamneycare, for example.

76   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Jul 17, 4:21pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

Your conclusion does not follow at all. For one thing, you are assuming that people mistook the legislation for the website. You don't know whether they did or not. To the contrary, a much more likely conclusion is that they knew the legislation and the website were two different things. You assume everyone is ignorant, but that's your own reflection.

I am assuming no such thing. There is no assumption at all on my end. I think people who said they have no opinion, have no opinion. I don't think anyone mistook the legislation for the website. My theory is that people have been conditioned to have an unfavorable opinion of Obamacare, but they don't really know why. But they actually like most of what's in it.

curious2 says

You assume everyone is ignorant, but that's your own reflection

Certainly not everyone...

curious2 says

Indeed, your lack of integrity does mystify me. I don't know what you gain by claiming Democrats were not even in power when they enacted Obamneycare, for example.

lol. You bring this up in every comment. Is this your attempt to change the subject?

77   RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   207/207 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 6:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

lets have one big discussion about every single opinion of every lawyer in the world shall we.

78   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 6:56pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

2 GOP senators just stepped forward in opposition of the healthcare bill this evening. That brings total to 1 over what was needed.

I now await Trumpian tweets. :)

Wishing McCain speedy recovery from his surgery as well.

Anxiety still high, but the winds have really been at our backs this past week and a half.

79   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 7:02pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Going virtually unreported, looks like the US has likely killed as many civilians in the past 6 months as we did in past 8 years. Also, China just killed some Indian troops on the border.

Proxy wars in ME are likely going to get hotter from here. Maybe we will just cave though. Iran appears pretty dominant now.

Still very much our move on Russia too.

80   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 7:37pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rew says

I now await Trumpian tweets. :)

Welp, didn't take long. Trump and the GOP really suck at policy making. BAD.

81   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 7:44pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Mike Lee, new no vote:
"After conferring with trusted experts regarding the latest version of the Consumer Freedom Amendment, I have decided I cannot support the current version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act,” Sen. Lee said. “In addition to not repealing all of the Obamacare taxes, it doesn’t go far enough in lowering premiums for middle class families; nor does it create enough free space from the most costly Obamacare regulations.”

Jerry Moran, new no vote:

Look at Jerry's language closely too: closed door policy, not open legislation, hehehe.

I think that is 9 total GOP no votes now. The marathon will continue. But it is dead for now.

82   APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   1350/1350 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 7:53pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Trumpligula will have the No voting GOP traitors impaled and replaced with compliant hostages snatched off the streets of Baltimore and Alexandria. Why is this even considered a threat to the will of THE! PLENIPOTENTIARY!

83   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 8:23pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ahhh the GOP 2018 strategy has taken shape finally:

Piss off the base
Energize the opposition
Frighten and alienate swing voters (Of which many former Obama counties that voted Trump, just swung back to blue this past month)

Winning!

84   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 8:25pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Major protests are going to happen still this week against this crap, but watch the Russia Russia Russia come back with a vengeance as well.

Leave Trump. Go home. It's Pence time.

85   Rew   1138/1138 = 100% civil   Jul 17, 8:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Oh oh oh, and now McConnell is pitching the true "Repeal and go F Yourself" bill that failed earlier this year. Reminder, that's the one where 16 million lose their coverage year 1, and it climbs up to 32 million, and premiums double.

They call it "Repeal" and "Delay" ... but really is it "Repeal" and "Crash!". People will die from this. It's a humanitarian disaster that would be made possible by the GOP. Political suicide.

« First     « Previous     Comments 46-85 of 85     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home