Donald Trump and US politics

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Regarding CIA:



TL;DR: the CIA can make their own hacks look like foreign hacks. The whole Russia narrative never really had a leg to stand on, but now with Wikileaks releasing Vault 7, it falls apart entirely. Libs who still yell "muh Russia" are literally Alex Jones tier.

So wait, it was the CIA who hacked Clinton's emails?

Wat.

No, really, I'm curious. What's the logic here? Our intelligence agencies hacked Clinton and released massive amounts of harmful, one-sided information on her, then pinned it on Russia in an attempt to link it to Trump, lying to Obama in the process, and pissing off literally everyone involved in the chain of command on both sides of the aisle? That somehow makes more sense to you than "Russian hackers with a clear motive (get Donald Trump elected) acted by their usual MO - find dirt on an opponent, and release said dirt at politically opportune time". I'm not entirely sure why.

I've seen the "CIA hacked DNC and left Russian fingerprints" narrative too, but that story does indeed fall apart.

1. The fingerprints on the hacks are NOT sophisticated Russian hackers, but inside job and/or unsophisticated hacker using very old (originally Russian) malware. If the hackers were trying to frame the Russians, they're going about it an odd way. Therefore, I don't think the CIA hacked any Clinton targets; furthermore, I think the bulk of their activity, although perhaps not all of it, is pointed at foreign entities as per the CIA mission.

2. The Vault 7 release alleges that control over CIA hacking tools and information has become a significant agency concern, with previous leaks to outside entities, which Wikileaks is merely one of. The point isn't that the CIA have UMBRAGE, a "false fingerprinting" tool; the point is anyone could. This is a cybersecurity crisis; the CIA has invented Pandora's Box and then didn't guard it properly. For example, it reframes the Russian interference narrative as "we have this hack that happened, and here are some fingerprints, but potent fake fingerprinting technology exists and has been distributed on the black market, so we basically have nothing."

By the way, I knew well before this that false fingerprinting was possible. I didn't know the CIA had developed it, but I figured it would be something they'd do. I didn't know the CIA had lost it, but I figured other entities would make their own versions (and likely have, prior to UMBRAGE leaking). I hoped those other versions would themselves be detectable, but I wasn't optimistic. There's a reason I linked John McAfee saying earlier that the last thing state-sponsored Russian hackers would do is leave Russian fingerprints. Maybe, just maybe, this was predictable.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

I kinda want to talk about the current Republican health care plan (who would have guessed that it does a whole lot less to help the poor and has a whopping big tax cut for the rich, except literally anyone with pattern recognition skills?), but given that there are enough republicans in the senate who consider the bill too conservative and enough who consider it too liberal to sink the bill, and there is very likely not much reconciling those two groups, chances of this actually passing are slim to none, so the only real value is showing where the priorities of the republicans lies, and how abysmal they are at their job. They had six years to work on that whole "repeal and replace" thing, and this is the best they can come up with? Should've spent less time on protest votes and more time doing your damn jobs, fellas.

I actually agree with most of this. I do think Trump was an opportunity to break from that GOP pattern you speak of, but frankly they didn't with this one. It's deeply disappointing.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

So wait, it was the CIA who hacked Clinton's emails?

Wat.

No, really, I'm curious. What's the logic here? Our intelligence agencies hacked Clinton and released massive amounts of harmful, one-sided information on her, then pinned it on Russia in an attempt to link it to Trump, lying to Obama in the process, and pissing off literally everyone involved in the chain of command on both sides of the aisle? That somehow makes more sense to you than "Russian hackers with a clear motive (get Donald Trump elected) acted by their usual MO - find dirt on an opponent, and release said dirt at politically opportune time". I'm not entirely sure why.

To my understanding, they can leave their fake fingerprints without actually hacking the DNC. They just need to attack the server (without actually breaking into it) and there it is. Then they can claim "look, Russia attacked the server thousands of times. This means Russia wanted to meddle in our elections". Would be classic CIA.

Also I like how your only worry about all this is how Russia might feel good about the leaks. Top kek.

Why ObamaCare Cannot Simply Be Repealed…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/07/why-obamacare-cannot-simply-be-repealed/#more-129661

"

A clean repeal bill, meaning a law to repeal the entire ObamaCare construct only, would require another 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.

Republicans, while in the majority, only control 52 seats. Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a “repeal bill”, any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.

"

The only bill that can pass the Senate is a bill that can utilize the process of reconciliation, which has a lower vote threshold of 51 votes. A reconciliation bill is a budgetary bill designed around the financial drivers of ObamaCare. This is what HHS Secretary Tom Price, Speaker Ryan and President Trump are attempting to do.

A reconciliation bill cannot add substantively to the existing law. It can only modify the financial structures and retain the same 10-year budgetary impact. If you want substantive adds or removals of the law, beyond the financial structure, it is no longer a reconciliation bill.

If it is no longer a reconciliation bill, it requires 60 votes. 52 Republicans + 8 democrats. Democrats have already stated they will not support any substantive changes that undermine the key ObamaCare provisions.

Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law… The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority, for all legislation.

However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.

There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions. What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.

"

♦ Option #1 – We can do nothing – and allow ObamaCare to collapse on it’s own. In the interim many Americans will be negatively impacted and the more vulnerable and needy will be worst hurt. Premiums and co-pays continue to skyrocket while the insurance system tries to preserve itself.

♦ Option #2 – We can Repeal and Replace using the three-phase approach being proposed by Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:

1. Pass reconciliation legislation targeting the financial mechanisms.
2. HHS rewrites rules.
3. New laws are proposed by a full congress to adjust ObamaCare and add to it, and laws debated/passed.

Yes, this has it’s risks. No guarantee you’ll get the cookie you want in phase three.

♦ Option #3 – Pass futile structural repeal bills in the House, and watch them pile up in the Senate without the ability to pass and earn 60 votes. Shout and holler some more, gnash some teeth, and wait for 2018 when Republicans will attempt to win the other 8 seats needed. Again, even less of a guarantee on the outcome.

It's a mess, alright. ='[.]'=

"

SarahAustin wrote:

Can we get a political sub section? This politics crap is just stupid...

Don't like it, don't click on it. It's a simple concept.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

The poorest people will be subsidized. Like people with little to no income won't be left hanging.

A comparison of subsidies:



So Trumpcare subsidizes considerably less, and does less to account for regional pricing differences or differences in incomes, instead giving money based on age. It also completely removes the medicaid expansion that many relied on, and jeapordizes the funding for the program by making it a block grant. I'm sure the poorest will be subsidized, but will they actually be able to get health care? It's a legitimate question, particularly given that the replacement for the individual mandate (that thing that ensured that people didn't just buy into health insurance only when they got sick) will actually incentivize people to stay off insurance until they absolutely need it.

I don't like this particular solution, but it's just one of the proposals on the table at the moment. I think Paul Ryan's plan is Obamacare-lite. The poorest will still be covered under medicaid, unless they just entirely scrap medicaid and offer no alternative program.

"

Well it's not like privatizing social security and medicare haven't been on Paul Ryan's agenda for quite some time now. And it's not like the republicans didn't try this back in '05 (the plan was dropped after massive public outcry).

People who paid into Social Security and are currently drawing it would still get their checks. They're not wrong to seek an overhaul of the current system, which currently has too many beneficiaries, and fewer people paying into it than when the system was setup. Should attempts be made to fix this imminent train wreck before it happens, or should we just let it fail so we can blame the Republicans for it at a later date?

"

But looking at this bill, my statement was entirely accurate. It does a lot less to help the poor, and it offers the rich a nice bonus. Case in point:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/06/gop-s-bill-includes-tax-deduction-for-insurance-ceos.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

The law removes a regulation introduced by Obamacare that made it so that insurance companies could not deduct executive pay above $500,000 from their taxes.

I dunno why people think it's the government's responsibility to even dictate such measures. I'm glad it's getting repealed.

People who are young and don't get sick very much do have a few options that don't require a full plan. They could simply get coverage for a catastrophic plan, something that would cover them if they sustained major injuries in an accident, or got diagnosed with cancer.

For random illnesses, they can just go to an urgent care clinic. The local Walmart in my area doesn't charge much to see you even if you don't have insurance. A nurse practitioner is there, who can diagnose and prescribe medicine for flu, colds, sinus infections, etc or whatever other bug someone might show up with. This is what I did when I wasn't covered, and the expense wasn't that much. Ok, so worst case scenario I might have to spend $50-$100 when I get sick to get treatment + meds. Once every 1-2 years.

But, no, the Democrats would rather have young people who don't get sick pay for full insurance plans that they don't need just to offset old people. Just because big insurance says so. Why should the college kid who works part time at Jimmy Johns for $8000/year have to pay anything out of pocket for something they don't need, and aren't gonna use on a regular basis? The Democrats want every young person like this paying for something they don't need. They're the ones shilling for the insurance companies.

Democrats are the true evil in this country.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

People who are young and don't get sick very much do have a few options that don't require a full plan. They could simply get coverage for a catastrophic plan, something that would cover them if they sustained major injuries in an accident, or got diagnosed with cancer.

For random illnesses, they can just go to an urgent care clinic. The local Walmart in my area doesn't charge much to see you even if you don't have insurance. A nurse practitioner is there, who can diagnose and prescribe medicine for flu, colds, sinus infections, etc or whatever other bug someone might show up with. This is what I did when I wasn't covered, and the expense wasn't that much. Ok, so worst case scenario I might have to spend $50-$100 when I get sick to get treatment + meds. Once every 1-2 years.

But, no, the Democrats would rather have young people who don't get sick pay for full insurance plans that they don't need just to offset old people. Just because big insurance says so. Why should the college kid who works part time at Jimmy Johns for $8000/year have to pay anything out of pocket for something they don't need, and aren't gonna use on a regular basis? The Democrats want every young person like this paying for something they don't need. They're the ones shilling for the insurance companies.

So, cut insurance companies out of it, everyone pays a % of income, everyone gets better care as there is no insurance companies profiting. But, but, but choice. Yeah, hang on to that choice thing your corrupt politicians keep telling you so that they continue receiving donations from the profits those companies are making from you while charging high premiums and deductibles.

It's not like it works in other countries which are poorer than the US but have better healthcare. Oh, wait.

30 poorer countries than US have better healthcare.

They did before ACA.

They did during ACA.

They will after ACA.


???