It's about time!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Hard to say what the biggest U-turn will turn out to be. Economically, I'd say that it is either abandoning America First, or abandoning the health care overhaul. Of course, the health care overhaul isn't technically dead....but it pretty much is. That has a very large economic impact, just as doing something with health care would. However, he seems to be strongly walking back his isolationist message. If that extends to not doing punitive tariffs, that could end up being the biggest economic change. Domestically it's a bit harder to say. If he walks back the Muslim ban and the anti-Mexican things, that would have a pretty big impact, but I'd say that the increased focus on external issues may still be the biggest change there. He thought we could do a deal with Russia, and he said he'd label China a currency manipulator. Now, he seems to recognize that China is a much more valuable ally on some pressing issues than Russia has any potential to be, so he's gone from positive about Russia, negative about China over to positive about China, negative about Russia.

I think he's right about that, so I see this as a good thing. The relationship with China is a touchy one, but useful. The relationship with Russia was never useful.

[TysonLPrice]

You do realize that we have been actively fighting ISIS in the eastern half of Syria? Prior to Trump...

Of course...L listen to Trump just like you. I remember some of the things he has said about it:

"We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO"

"Let the Arab League take care of Syria. Why are these rich Arab countries not paying us for the tremendous cost of such an attack?"

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not"

[szlamany]

I thought you said you understood.

ISIS in Syria is not the rebels in Syria.

We have an active war with ISIS - from Syria through Afghanistan.

Rebels fighting Assad - that's not the battle in Syria we are fighting and that is what those comments were about.

[TysonLPrice]

I thought you said you understood.

ISIS in Syria is not the rebels in Syria.

We have an active war with ISIS - from Syria through Afghanistan.

Rebels fighting Assad - that's not the battle in Syria we are fighting and that is what those comments were about.

It is amazing to me the lengths you will go to defending that buffoon...

[szlamany]

Removed...

Out of here for the wknd...

[TysonLPrice]

Removed...

Out of here for the wknd...

Have a good one

[FunkyDexter]

Happy Easter, all.

The biggest U Turn for me is probably the stance on Russia but, frankly, there's a good half dozen I good pick. Which does bring me to something else:-

I forgot one "U Turn" theory. I should say that this one falls squarely in the realm of "crackpot conspiracy theory" to me but it's worth mentioning for completeness if nothing more. I saw one guy proposing that the whole Syria bombing (including the preceding Sarin attack) was just a conspiracy between Trump and Putin to divert attention from the FBI investigations into Russian hijacking of the election and possible collusion by members of the Trump campaign. The theory was that stoking up a bit of apparent hostility between the two of them would make those accusation less credible. Seems pretty crackpot to me but it does show the sort of things people are starting to say.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's a conspiracy theory making the rounds in the US that the chemical weapons pictures were all phony, and that they were just used as an excuse for an attack that was desired for other reasons. I didn't read what those other reasons were....and I really don't care. The seed for this one was a Syrian release, and how it grew is fairly well documented, with some notable holes in the article I read on it. That doesn't matter to people who are into conspiracy theories, of course, but for those who marvel at them, this one has left some tracks. In fact, some of the spread strongly resembles a tactic attributed to the Russians during the election, as revealed in Congressional testimony. As to whether we know the Russians were behind the growth of this conspiracy theory, all I can say is: Not nyet.

[szlamany]

... I'm still somewhat mystified as to how those who supported the Trump who campaigned can continue to support the Trump we see now but, <shrug>, not my problem really.

Granted this is a very conservative site - but the read is still good.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ing-attention/

I've been trying to get this point across for months here - about how Trump negotiates.

This article lays it out in detail.

Make sure you pay attention to the part where the Grandpa Trump and Grandpa Xi stuff is described.

And if you were unable to complete the read make sure you indicate that in any attack post. That would be a key piece of information...

[FunkyDexter]

Meh, I read the beginning and got bored. It's a one sided fluff piece.

I fully understand the negotiating tactic they're describing and wouldn't argue with you that Trump uses it. So what? That has no bearing on the argument that the things he's now negotiating for aren't the things he campaigned for. He stood on an isolationist "America First" platform which is clearly not the agenda that's now being pursued. That's nothing to do with his negotiation strategies.

[TysonLPrice]

And if you were unable to complete the read make sure you indicate that in any attack post. That would be a key piece of information...

Really...let me respond with your exact words from post #909:

I'll post whatever I want to and I'll start ignoring your posts more thoroughly - that seems like a better plan.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Pull in the horns. Disagreements over politics are understandable, and can be quite heartfelt, but it's not good if people don't talk, and it's also not productive if they don't talk respectfully. A few barbed comments are understandable, just that everything must be in moderation.

[techgnome]

Thoughts?
https://downsizedc.org/blog/good-new...re-replacement

Some of it I think I can get behind... some of it ... not sure. It still has the promise of reducing healthcare costs, but with out actually doing it. I'm just as dubious about it as I am the original ACA.

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

There are some points I like, but plenty that I don't like. They talk about PEC as if it was largely a political problem, but I'd say it's largely an economic problem. Many things that fall into PEC, like diabetes, can't be economically covered by ANY insurance plan. Those are going to be loss making accounts unless something radically changes in health care (which might happen through certain advances that are appearing on the horizon). Therefore, an insurance company has two choices: Raise rates for everybody, or don't cover those expensive PEC items (cheap PEC items probably don't even get classified as PECs). There's no getting around this. Insurance is all about the lucky paying for the unlucky. If you relate it to auto insurance, a PEC would be like somebody who had a perpetually recurring claim simply as a result of having a car, which is a scenario that doesn't happen.

So, I feel they dismiss PEC issues too casually. That may be because I feel that they largely ARE the issue with health care, and the rest is totally manageable. If an insurance company can't drop you when you get diagnosed with a hideously expensive ailment, then they need to spread the cost over a big pool, cause your premiums aren't going to cover the treatment, so you'll be a net loss for the company, even if you stuck with them for a long, long, time. There are plenty of ailments that fall into that category.

I like some of the HSA things, but I'm not so keen on yet another tax carve out. Let's get rid of the mortgage interest deduction and a few other big ones, and then we can talk about introducing the mother of all tax carve outs for health care. At some point, if only the healthy are paying taxes, and we're all unhealthy eventually or some of the time, then why not go to single payer and be done with it, since the government is already paying for it?

Finally, I realize that they've long felt that allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines will make things wonderful, but they're totally wrong about that, because there's a big hidden cost. All insurance is regulated by the states. Insurance companies CAN cross state lines now, as long as they are willing to deal with the different regulatory regimes, which can add significant overhead. Allowing them to sell across state lines largely ends up being a question of jurisdiction. The same thing happened with credit card companies, as each state had their own usury laws. Once credit card companies could sell across state lines, they became regulated by the state they were based in...so all credit cards are issued from South Dakota, which had the laxest usury laws and oversight. If they don't get free of 50 different sets of regulations, then the insurance companies haven't gained anything that they don't currently have. If they do get free of the 50 different sets of regulation, what regulation ARE they subject to? If it isn't federal, then it would be the state with the least ability or willingness to regulate them. A race to the bottom that would be over in no time.

In short, there are some good ideas, but it isn't sufficient.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Hard to say what the biggest U-turn will turn out to be

Well thats easy to say now the biggest U-Turn is Theresa May calling a General Election in the UK in 2 months time.

It was only 2 years since our last Election and she must have ruled out another one more times that Trump has use the phrase Make America Great Again!

FD - i have some hopes that your lot do better in this election, it would be really great if this early election call bit her on the arse, but i fear that Corbyn is just a vote loser and even if the Lib dems gain, Labour will lose votes leaving the Tories with an even bigger majority which would be very very sad place to find ourselves in.

Hopefully i am proved wrong but i am not optimistic.

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am. I'd have liked to se Corbyn do much better and bring a genuine socialist voice back into British politics but a combination his intransigence and the PLP repeated undermining of him and I'm afraid the Labour party's torn itself apart. They're weaker than they've been since the eighties. I hold the PLP more responsible for that but both sides have shown themselves to be pretty self interested I'm afraid.

I'd love the Lib to pick up that slack but I don't think they'll manage it. They might be able to harvest the Bremainer vote but I'm not convinced they will to any significant extent. Bremainers aren't happy but I don't get the feeling they're ready to embrace the Libs as a solution. If anything they're more likely to just stay home. The SNP will be massively strong in Scotland again but I'm afraid England's going to go very, very blue.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Blue is conservative over there? Red is conservative over here, while blue is liberal.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am. I'd have liked to se Corbyn do much better and bring a genuine socialist voice back into British politics but a combination his intransigence and the PLP repeated undermining of him and I'm afraid the Labour party's torn itself apart. They're weaker than they've been since the eighties. I hold the PLP more responsible for that but both sides have shown themselves to be pretty self interested I'm afraid.

Thats interesting as i keep hearing the message of him being underminded by his own party and i was happy to buy that for a while, but i find that the longer his leadership has gone on the more i feel that he and john mcdonnell are to blame. They preach compromise and inclusion within the party but dont practise it.

My other problem is they are continually fighting old battles, its like there still stuck in the 70's and have forgotten the rest of the country has moved on.

I'd love the Lib to pick up that slack but I don't think they'll manage it. They might be able to harvest the Bremainer vote but I'm not convinced they will to any significant extent. Bremainers aren't happy but I don't get the feeling they're ready to embrace the Libs as a solution. If anything they're more likely to just stay home. The SNP will be massively strong in Scotland again but I'm afraid England's going to go very, very blue.

My feelings too, i expect the LD's to pick up some votes but far from enough, but hey you never know maybe something will come along

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Blue is conservative over there? Red is conservative over here, while blue is liberal.

Yup in the UK Blue is Conservative, Liberal is Yellow and Labour is Red, UKIP is Purple, Green is Green, and The Monster Raving loony party is who the hell knows !!!!

People tend to liken the Democrats to the UK Labour party, and while that was true under Tony Blair, its probably not true at the moment as Labour are currently more left wing.

The UK Liberal Democrats are also closer to the Democrats than any other US party, however they sold there soul under the last leader in order to get into power and went into power with the right wingers and paid for it and got annihilated at the last election. There current leader is trying to move them away from that legacy.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, those colors make more sense. I'm not sure how we got the blue and red designations that we have. Red for leftists makes sense, and blue for blue-bloods makes sense.

[InvisibleDuncan]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am. I'd have liked to se Corbyn do much better and bring a genuine socialist voice back into British politics but a combination his intransigence and the PLP repeated undermining of him and I'm afraid the Labour party's torn itself apart. They're weaker than they've been since the eighties. I hold the PLP more responsible for that but both sides have shown themselves to be pretty self interested I'm afraid.

Personally, I hold Corbyn (and McDonnell and Abbott) responsible for what's happened to the Labour party.

Corbyn is an awful, awful man; his praise and support for the IRA while they were carrying out their bombing campaign is really quite sickening, as was his opposition to the Good Friday agreement and the overall peace process. This is a man who was paid by the Iranian government to appear on Iranian State TV to complain about the evils of the US and the West, while ignoring Iran's massive ongoing human rights abuses. That, coupled with his willingness to accept the vicious levels of antisemitism within his party, rather flies in the face of his "man of principle" shtick. Oh, and the sheer pettiness of his "this train is too full for me to get a seat" lie was remarkable to behold

As for John McDonnell, I find it hard to take seriously someone who considers Chairman Mao to be a suitable source of inspiration for economic policy despite his actions being responsible for about 45 million deaths. Could you imagine the furore if a Tory had decided to quote from Mein Kampf?

Diane Abbott is an inveterate racist who is nevertheless determined to play the race card at every opportunity. She rails about selective schools and public schools while sending her own son to a public school - the epitome of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that pervades the Labour party.

The Lib Dems are also pretty grim (I'm particularly concerned by Tim Farron's views on homosexuality, for example), but at least they've consistently stuck to their guns about wanting to remain in the EU. Their record while in coalition with the Tories is obviously shaky, but I'm not sure what else they could have done other than accept a place in the coalition. If they had chosen to team up with Labour, who had come quite some distance behind the Conservatives in the GE, that would have meant that the first placed party wouldn't have been in power, which I'm not sure is an acceptable outcome. I do think they managed to curb some of the Tories' more extreme ideas, so as much as I resent the university fees issue (especially as my kids are the ones who are paying them) I don't think we can judge them too harshly.

In Scotland, I think the Tories (or maybe even the Lib Dems) might actually gain a few seats. As a Scot myself, I know that there's a lot of ill-feeling towards the SNP and their insistence on pursuing the independence agenda at the expense of everything else (education, health, transport and social mobility are all falling behind the rest of the UK, particularly England). There seems to be a misconception that the SNP speak for Scotland as a whole, but they don't.

As for the Conservatives, I'm hoping that a significantly increased majority for them will actually allow for a smoother Brexit. If Theresa May knows she has more wriggle room, she won't have to pander to the hard-right element in her party which would have been the case if she carried on with such a slender lead, given that even the Labour party (who theoretically back Brexit) say they would have fought her over the details of any deal.

A final point on the fact that the election has been called at all - I love the fact that all of those commentators and opposition politicians who have spent months moaning that May was never elected as PM and therefore has no mandate to govern (despite the fact that we never directly elect PMs and half of all PMs in the last 100 years came to power without winning an election to do so) are now complaining that she has called an election that will (almost certainly) give her that mandate.

[dilettante]

If anyone thinks the U.S. "Blue" team is progressive/pro-worker or populist they must not be paying attention.

"Liberal" maybe, in the sense of Social Libertarianism. And "Neoliberal" in the sense of Economic Libertarianism for sure.

It would be funny if voters weren't too dense to perceive the shell game. The U.S. Libertarian Party was started as a right-wing scam to break up FDR's New Deal and now it is basically the core of our Democratic Party.

[Spooman]

Thank goodness president Trump is going to get to the bottom of the massive election fraud that was perpetrated in 2016...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9eaf6673af5f

This goes to the very heart of our Democracy and must be exposed to the light of day.

I'm just so glad we are going to disregard "alternate" facts and find out what really happened. This is the first real thing I agree with him on.

Could this (and Comey) be it?
Stock market down nearly 2% today.

[TysonLPrice]

And just around 120 days or so in also...

Last I saw on PolitiFact he has told roughly 440 plus lies (statements proven to be false) in that time.

Now I know to Trump supporter those are just "alternative facts"...

[dilettante]

I'm not sure neoliberal propaganda is going to buy you a lot here. The DNC is actually digging their hole deeper and deeper, driving voters further away. Even Sheepdog Sanders is now a Bush apologist. Crazy.

Nice job helping ensure that Trump gets a second term. Is this really what you want?

[Sitten Spynne]

It feels like watching two kids bicker going over the last exchanges.

Sure, the Democrats don't seem to be plotting a great trajectory for the next elections.

But I think it's sort of important to focus on the GOP's different kind of self-destruction.

At the top, you've got Trump, who is the world's worst at appearing innocent. He seems to believe that the best way to show people you didn't steal a cookie from the cookie jar is to secretly buy a cookie and scatter crumbs all over your face in another room, then emerge from the kitchen announcing, "GEE, I SURE AM COMING OUT OF THE KITCHEN WITH CRUMBS ON MY FACE, I HOPE NO ONE THINKS I STOLE A COOKIE, I'D NEVER DO THAT".

Beneath him, you've got the party, doing what it always does: defining "deeply-held values" as "whatever the President believes in". This has been very difficult in 2017. Almost every action Trump has taken has been a reenactment of something he accused Obama for in 2013, or Hillary in 2016. It seems like even the most washed-in-the-blood are a little upset at how quickly they have to transition from, "Sharing classified information over unsecured email is treason!" to "OK from now on I can only correspond with people via this gmail account that Trump knows the password to. For some reason he would only speak the password aloud and he was leaning over a flowerpot on his desk every time he said it."

But yeah, sure, it's best to just ignore all that because there's a liberal around and those sweet tears are worth it, right? I'm reminded of an equally childish but apt-feeling post I found, which I'll paraphrase slightly because I think it was erroneous that it was originally too specific:

There are people that would let Trump **** in their mouth if it meant a liberal had to smell it.

Can't we all just join hands in bipartisan horror at the system that's above us?

[dilettante]

Trump was a big "screw you" to both parties. I can't imagine anyone wanted Trump, but then when you look at the alternatives on offer it is no wonder things turned out as they did.

They can avoid this happening again. The question is will they? The answer is "probably not."

[TysonLPrice]

It feels like watching two kids bicker going over the last exchanges.

Sure, the Democrats don't seem to be plotting a great trajectory for the next elections.

But I think it's sort of important to focus on the GOP's different kind of self-destruction.

At the top, you've got Trump, who is the world's worst at appearing innocent. He seems to believe that the best way to show people you didn't steal a cookie from the cookie jar is to secretly buy a cookie and scatter crumbs all over your face in another room, then emerge from the kitchen announcing, "GEE, I SURE AM COMING OUT OF THE KITCHEN WITH CRUMBS ON MY FACE, I HOPE NO ONE THINKS I STOLE A COOKIE, I'D NEVER DO THAT".

Beneath him, you've got the party, doing what it always does: defining "deeply-held values" as "whatever the President believes in". This has been very difficult in 2017. Almost every action Trump has taken has been a reenactment of something he accused Obama for in 2013, or Hillary in 2016. It seems like even the most washed-in-the-blood are a little upset at how quickly they have to transition from, "Sharing classified information over unsecured email is treason!" to "OK from now on I can only correspond with people via this gmail account that Trump knows the password to. For some reason he would only speak the password aloud and he was leaning over a flowerpot on his desk every time he said it."

But yeah, sure, it's best to just ignore all that because there's a liberal around and those sweet tears are worth it, right? I'm reminded of an equally childish but apt-feeling post I found, which I'll paraphrase slightly because I think it was erroneous that it was originally too specific:



Can't we all just join hands in bipartisan horror at the system that's above us?

Oh...and you are the adult in forum. People in glass houses.

I believe, and dilettante probably will disagree, the difference between our posts concerning Trump is what I post is TRUE. dilettante tends to respond with name calling and broad statements that are opinions posted as facts (alternative facts). I just wish his Chit Chat posts were as precise and contributory as his technical posts

[FunkyDexter]

Let's not bait each other, please.

Personally I sort of agree with both sides. I think about the only person I've seen unequivocally defend Trump has been SzLamany (and he's done it well). Everyone else has said either "TRUMPS A NIGHTMARE, AARRGGH" or "Yeah, Trumps a nightmare, but the alternatives were BIGGER NIGHTMARES, AARRGGH". People seem to agree on the first half and differ only on it's import.

I think the next week will be really interesting. Given the threatening tone of Trump's "you better not leak any recordings of our conversations" tweet to Comey and the demands for the FBI to release any such recordings, things are about to get very interesting. We may not have Tricky Trumpy to kick around for much longer. Or he'll somehow come out smelling of roses.

[TysonLPrice]

Let's not bait each other, please.

Personally I sort of agree with both sides. I think about the only person I've seen unequivocally defend Trump has been SzLamany (and he's done it well). Everyone else has said either "TRUMPS A NIGHTMARE, AARRGGH" or "Yeah, Trumps a nightmare, but the alternatives were BIGGER NIGHTMARES, AARRGGH". People seem to agree on the first half and differ only on it's import.

I think the next week will be really interesting. Given the threatening tone of Trump's "you better not leak any recordings of our conversations" tweet to Comey and the demands for the FBI to release any such recordings, things are about to get very interesting. We may not have Tricky Trumpy to kick around for much longer. Or he'll somehow come out smelling of roses.

I'm willing to bet he doesn't finish out his term...

[Spooman]

I'm willing to bet he doesn't finish out his term...

Agreed.

Question.. what will be the nature of not finishing..

1. Impeachment?
2. He just quits?
3. Other

I'm leaning towards 2 as his temper may get the better of him.

[Sitten Spynne]

The response is more or less what I meant. Some of FunkyDexter's post aligns with what I wanted to say.

This is going to play out with no end.

The Democratic party has split itself into two factions that mix about as well as oil and water. If they run Bernie-type candidates a lot of their base will abstain from voting. If they run Hillary-style candidates the other "a lot of their base" will either abstain or vote for the Republican out of spite. The reasonable solution would be to run a candidate with some Bernie tendencies and some Hillary tendencies, but because they let their party be so divided I think that will result in both camps of Democratic voters taking the mid-terms off or, worse, voting against the Democrats. Probably the best solution is to burn down the whole party.

The GOP is more or less doing what it's threatened to do for a few decades. Except no one believes it, because they've characterized ALL news as fake, even direct quotes. What Trump's party says today, we are to believe, has no bearing on what they say tomorrow, and we're wrong if we try to hold them to it. So let me ask you, how am I to take it seriously when they make a promise to me? The thing is it's easy for them to secure votes. Yesterday the story to Joe Public was they wanted to give him relief that will allow him to prosper. Today the story to Joe Public is, "Well, sorry Joe, but I'm going to have to raise your taxes and lower my own because I'm really under pressure here." Joe sighs and rubs his American flag, cursing the Democrats for making circumstances what they are.

So the GOP is going to dominate because aside from Trump, they don't tend to throw each other under the bus. The kind of Republican I absolutely despise makes every political decision based on "What will upset the Democrats the most?" The other side of that coin doesn't really exist. The shittiest Democrats right now focus on either, "What will rile up those dastardly Bernie Bros?" or "I can't wait to see how those Hillary fans react to THIS."

That means, to some capacity, everyone's voting for Trump. Even the Democrats are out to prove no one should vote for a Democrat.

This is not going to end well. But it's certainly going to end.

RE: current developments:

The Russian investigation is good TV. It's not going to end in impeachment no matter what evidence is found. Impeachment requires action from Congress, and Congress hasn't been capable of action for at least 9 years. Throwing Trump under the bus breaks the GOP code of unity, and the Democrats won't do it because there's always a chance the WRONG Democrat could take credit.

The only way we get out of a Trump Presidency is if he chokes on a steak or something. He's old, but I'm not placing bets on natural causes. Being rich affords one pretty good health, even if you do believe exercise saps your life energy.

[dilettante]

Well the DNC/DW Schultz primary rigging lawsuit may turn the tide. With the media blackout few people even know it is going on, much less what it is about.

When it all comes out some people are going to really be upset at how corrupt the system has become and how badly they have been used.

[Sitten Spynne]

Yes, I can't imagine why people interested in finding corruption could possibly be looking in any other direction than the Democratic party. If we'd quit devoting resources to the fruitless efforts to slander Donald Trump, we'd find that a legion of thousands of Comet Pizza sex slaves were used in a nationwide illegal voting ring that used Santa Claus's sleigh to ensure they could vote thrice in every district in the nation. And the only reason it was possible is because Microsoft released VB .NET.

Like, in case my contempt isn't showing, I'm completely disgusted by the attitude "I don't like party X, so I don't want to talk about what party Y is doing because party X is bad."

It's my opinion your hatred of Hillary Clinton has blinded you to the notion that any politician anywhere could be actively committing wrongdoing. You don't want the discussion to be about anything but. Trump could have just murdered a baby on live television but you'd be here, informing us it's nothing compared to what Hillary would have done, if only we'd finish reading through the emails.

Me, personally, my problem is I can't figure out which detestable politician is currently the worst and I'm sick of them all. But I think the ones in the highest positions are worth the most scrutiny and are the best targets, if we're going to try and fight corruption. Putting Hillary in jail's not really going to do much at this point. I'd argue Alex Jones has more influence, and he had to apologize to yogurt for defamation yesterday. That doesn't mean I don't think it isn't worth punishing her, but damned if it doesn't seem like straight priorities to go after the dog that bit you last week when there's one currently gnawing on your leg.

[Spooman]

Me, personally, my problem is I can't figure out which detestable politician is currently the worst and I'm sick of them all.

,,, to go after the dog that bit you last week when there's one currently gnawing on your leg.

Al Franken for Prez.
And he loves dogs

[dilettante]

Hillary Clinton is a symptom of the Democratic Party's problems, not the cause. She has her own issues she should fry for, and that's a separate unrelated matter for the most part.

Was the Election Rigged Against Bernie Sanders? DNC Lawsuit Demands Repayment for Campaign Donors

The most recent court hearing on the case was held on April 25, during which the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.

Even the Republican Party doesn't get that bad.

Quite a statement. Maybe the states should join the lawsuit to reclaim the costs of running the Democratic primaries and caucuses as well.


The DNC could have trivially defeated Trump. All they had to do was run an acceptable candidate. But acceptable to them wasn't acceptable to the voters.

[dilettante]

Another issue:

Wash Post poll hides: Trump still beats Clinton, 43%-40%

A new Washington Post poll that declares President Trump as "the least popular president in modern times," waits until the second to last paragraph to reveal another tidbit: He'd still beat Hillary Rodham Clinton if the election were held today and in the popular vote, not just Electoral College.

And that's just a popular poll that ignores the Electoral College. He might even win bigger than he did last November if the election were held today.

[Sitten Spynne]

Even the Republican Party doesn't get that bad.

The Republican Party wants most of my friends AND me to die, be in a prison, or possibly die in a prison. This is for the crime of being born with asthma or some other health condition, or in some cases for being born with a messed-up body chemistry that doesn't make them look at the world the way Republican Jesus looks at the world.

I'm very sorry the Democrats dared to run a woman for President, but I've watched the GOP callously suggest we should thank them for helping push a bunch of innocents off this mortal coil. I got called a "snowflake" at Christmas dinner. The Democrats have their own problems, but there's no damn comparison.

I don't know what promise you're hoping for from them, but you're gutter trash to all of them. We're all gutter trash to them.

[dilettante]

Wow, now playing the sexism card? You do know how ridiculous that is, don't you? You have completely undermined your credibility.

The level of personal attacks here has been ridiculous. Can't refute the message so kill the messenger. How dare anyone not fall to their knees and worship the worst candidate ever to run for President!


Of course we should be offering a health care system that is cost-effective, efficient, effective, and accessible to all. It should also be affordable by everyone, and a good start might be one run very much along the lines of the Medicare and VA systems. If somebody has another viable alternative I'd love to hear it.

Sadly Hillary Clinton wants no such thing. She insists wanting it is impractical and foolish.

Instead she backs a system that rewards bureaucracy and waste and ever increasing costs for medical services and drugs. The winners aren't people needing health care but her donors in the insurance, medical services, and pharmaceutical industries, and of course her pals on Wall Street who play casino with securities that fund them. Hillary and the DNC oppose any form of single payer system... just as the Republicans do with few if any exceptions.

The sooner you realize you are supporting Reaganites the sooner much needed change can begin.

[Sitten Spynne]

I can't argue that things would be better under Hillary, but I can point out that is a completely hypothetical scenario and has no impact on my assessment of, "Do I think things are bad and worsening under Trump?" That's "whataboutism". I know you and I think you are a smart person. I think if you directed your snark and cynicism towards Trump's GOP I'd have choked on my drink several times by now.

But that's not happening. We're past the 100 day mark and you're still directing your snark and cynicism at the candidate that lost and anyone who wants to talk about something else. I can't come up with a rational reason for that, and that tends to mean an irrational reason is correct. Sexism is an irrational one, and can be subconscious. I reached for it because I wanted you to ask yourself, "Why am I focusing on a fantasy where Hillary won instead of discussing the reality where she didn't?"

There are no shortage of concerning stories coming out of the Trump administration. It'd be nice to see some discussion about which parts are hyperbole (like "Trump just curtseyed to the Saudi King" and "Trump didn't even bow! Take that Obama!") and which parts are fact (like "It's hard to enumerate the people in Trump circles who DON'T have long-term ties to Russia.")

We're stuck with Reaganites for a long damn time. Most Americans are indoctrinated to believe in it, the attitudes are part of our cultural fabric. The only thing that changes that in a hurry is something dramatic like a famine or depression. I'm hoping we can pull off more gradual change. News of retail closings and factory layoffs do not seem to be making that vision a probable reality.