All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post Reply
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27117
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:00 am

And it was 11 billion that was spent, ear marked money does not count.
A HUD official said Puerto Rico has the $1.5 billion in hand, but has spent just $42,000. “It should take Puerto Rico approximately two to three years to spend the $1.5 billion,” the official said. “Following Superstorm Sandy, the state of New Jersey disbursed $1 billion over the course of two years.”

Another $8.2 billion of the $20 billion HUD allocation was approved in February but not yet delivered. That still leaves about half of the $20 billion untouched.

In other words, depending on how you do the math, only about a quarter of the total pot of money has actually been spent on the island — $11.2 billion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d4b6d9e9c5

delay in aid
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/health/h ... index.html
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27117
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:46 pm

4796CA75-1FCE-4C45-B6E9-33871856745C.jpeg
Trump’s beautiful healthcare is not coming, he admits.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Sean Hayden » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:00 pm

You can't fix healthcare. In fact you can't fix anything along those lines because the fix is likely to be at odds with what's good for business. The best we can hope for is our turn at not getting screwed, because rest assured, someone will be.
shut up

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27117
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:07 pm

Well, let’s socialize as much as we can. There is no reason insulin costs what it costs now. There is no patent on it. You could legislate subsidize etc certain drugs. If you cannot sue the maker (the government, which contracts manufacture) then the costs go down. A lot of the cost of drugs is patients suing the maker.

Humira is another. It gets sued a lot because it is an immunosuppressant. That is its function!

Bush Jr was right. Only thing I agreed on. Put caps on jury awards.
Last edited by Tero on Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 11372
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:12 pm

We are producing generic drugs in hospital labs.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27117
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:16 pm

I don’t support any small scale operations. We had a disaster.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Eng ... s_outbreak
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 11372
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:20 pm

Who is saying small scale. Just because you made a mess.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:25 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

I understand that you're not happy with people mocking or ridiculing the president personally -- you've consistently championed him and defended him in that regard for many years now.
You "misunderstand." I have championed to no greater degree than those who supported Obama defended Obama - because they supported him politically. I support Trump politically. Everyone has every right to mock the president.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

But you also seem keen to confuse and blur the personal critique and the political critique.
I'm not - that's more invention. You understand - I also seem keen - this is all just you setting premises for some position you want to take that needs those premises. It's nothing that I've said.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am
For example, the president demanded an oath of fealty from the director of the FBI, he asked the FBI to drop an investigation into a member of his administration--who subsequently pleaded guilty to charges--and then he sacked that official precisely because 'of this Russia thing'.
That's one interpretation of the facts. However, he did not say "oath of fealty." Comey says that they were having a conversation about various things - crowd sizes, the election, small talk, and then Comey says the president turned the conversation to whether Comey would pledge loyalty to him. That's a paraphrase. Comey said he would always be honest, but that he was not "reliable" in the political sense. The White House said that wasn't the way it happened, or what was said. And, I find that dinner conversations are often remembered differently by people. A question to a person who is expecting to be put on the spot, for example, can self-fulfill that prophecy.

I do not credit Trump with any particularly strong level of credibility. I.e., I don't trust his word on what exactly was said at the meeting/dinner. But, Comey also is not entitled to and has not earned a great level of trust either.

What I suspect - I suspect Comey remembers it one way, and Trump remembers it another. I suspect what Trump would characterize as a discussion to see if Comey was a good fit, and reliable person, was taken by Comey to be something sinister, because Comey has always suspected Trump of being sinister.

At bottom, I don't know what was said at the meeting, and neither do you. We know what Comey reported, and we know what the White House reported. And, those aren't the only two choices - another option is that they're both wrong to some extent, even if they are both sincere. And, of course, one, the other, or both, may not be sincere on this point.

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

He publicly declared that he considered the assurances of the Russian leader as more trustworthy and credible than the conclusions of 11 national security agencies, and he had a number of off-the-record meetings with the Russian president which themselves blurred the line between is personal status as an individual and his role as representing the state.
He didn't exactly declare that he considered Putin's assurances to be more trustworthy and credible than the conclusions of 11 national security agencies. One, the conclusions of security agencies are not iron clad to begin with - they are conclusions drawn with levels of confidence, and for much of the conclusions, the confidence level was "moderate." Moderate confidence.

Again, that's your interpretation. Your inference. But what he said about Putin was "I have great confidence in our intelligence agencies. But, I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today." Trump also said he doesn't see any "reason" why Russia would interfere.

My inference from that is that he doesn't know, because the intelligence community did not give him hard proof. They too have inferences. When they say they have moderate confidence in Putin, the intelligence report that I read says they thought it was him because it was the kind of operation they think would have been ordered at the higher levels of Russian government. They are themselves making an inference, because they do not have direct evidence. And, Trump's comments were political - made during a summit with Putin - in my opinion, he was making a calculated move - if he did what the media seemed to want him to do - "call out" Putin and riddle him with hard words and call for repurcussions, that would ratchet up tensions, and make the entirety of the meeting rather pointless. Trump's statements are the equivalent of a Biden shoulder rub. Meaningless signalling.

At bottom, I don't know and you don't know if Putin, himself, was involved in the interference operation. The intelligence agencies did not conclude that with ironclad confidence - only some degree of confidence, and only through an inference as to who would normally be involved in such an operation. Nobody has presented proof. That's neither a defense of Putin, nor an indictment. It just is.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am
His administration instituted the special council investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and then spent their time calling it a witch hunt, discrediting it, and disavowing any idea that it was, or could ever be, independent or non-partisan.
Are you suggesting the Mueller investigation was a Trump tactic? He created it, then attacked it, and now he claims victory over his own administration's bogus investigation of itself?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

The administration also consistently briefed against the various congressional investigations that were also instituted under the House majority of his own party.
Right - remember "never Trump?" Half the Republican party was against him, to make a conservative estimate. Prominent Republican Senators, like McCain for instance, actively worked against him.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

To criticise the president's action here is to criticise him personally - you can't have the one without the other - and yet in response to this the president and his supporters have been vociforously OUTRAGED!! Mentioning people calling him a lard arse just lends weight to that OUTRAGE!! while implying that political criticisms are necessarily of the same token as and indistinguishable from derogatory personal slanders.
Meh - I don't see that. I find it hilarious that fat-shaming him, and shaming him for a stripper's mocking of his penis, and shaming him for his skin color, and shaming him for his hair, etc., and ridiculing the way he eats, and crediting rumors about how he eats and how he behaves, is somehow equated to political criticism. Go ahead and do it, but it's not political criticism. And, so many criticisms of his actual politics are not criticisms of his politics, they are veiled accusations of something else - like his calls for border security are called racism - he says when Mexico is sending something other than their best and brightest -- he's called a racist because he is interpreted as saying all Mexicans are rapists and criminals - that kind of thing, People hear what they want to hear.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

If anyone was maintaining the 'collusion narrative' in he media then they were merely keeping apace with the administration. Given what has occurred (only some of which I mention above) it any surprise that questions were asked in public, propositions forwarded, debates and discussions aired, criticisms made? This is only as it should be, and while I doubt any politician in a free society would argue against the idea that questions, debate and criticism of the government and it's officials are illegitimate components of public political discourse, some are more than willing to argue, call for, and to place, stringent conditions on the content thereof - to control the story, as they say.
Nobody really has a problem with questions, debates and discussions - what they have a problem with is epitomized by Jim Acosta - hollering nonsense at the President - refusing to give up the microphone in normal course -- giving speeches at the President, rather than asking him questions. that time Acosta was booted from the press corps is emblematic. He asked why the president called it an invasion, when Acosta believed it was not an apt characterization. Trump said he sees it as an invasion. Acosta argued back, not questioned, argued - "...but it's not an invasion." O.k., Jim Acosta, you don't think it's an invasion. You're entitled to your opinion. Whether it's an invasion is just that, a matter of opinion.

That's reporting? That's criticism? No - that's an argument. A news reporter who is being given the opportunity to inquire about the President's position on issues isn't inquiring about the President's position, he's arguing with the President.

Is it an invasion? Maybe, maybe not. If you need or want the President's view, then ask, "Mr. President, why - on what basis - do you call it an invasion?" Funny how Acosta never asked that. Instead, Acosta said "I wanted to CHALLENGE you on one of the statements that you made at the tail end of the [midterms] campaign... that this caravan was an invasion." Trump, "I consider it to be an invasion." -- Acosta doesn't say "what's your basis or rationale for calling it an invasion?" He says, "Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It's a group of migrants moving up from central America towards the border with the US..." Trump, "thank you for telling me that..." Acosta, "and why did you characterize it as such.." Trump, "because I consider it an invasion and you and I have a difference of opinion..." -- Acosta cuts the President off the explanation, and says "Do you think you demonize immigrants..." and then Trump says "no, I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. I want there to be a process, and we need the peop..." and Jim Acosta cuts him off again - interrupts him again, and says "Your campaign, your campaign!" as if he's getting into another allegation -- and the President has to say, "wait! wait! we need the people, because we have hundreds of companies opening businesses and they need the people..." Then Acosta jumps in again, "But your campaign showed videos of people climbing over walls..." and Trump said, "Well, that's true. They weren't actors. Do you think they were actors? They didn't come from Hollywood - these were ..." Acosta cuts him off again "...they're hundreds of miles away, though." -- and the President then answered sarcastically that Acosta should leave the Presidency to him.. then Acosta wants to make another statement, and the President says, "o.k. that's enough --" and tries to get Acosta to step down - he's already had way more time than is usual for reporters, and there are many other reporters who want to ask questions. Acosta refuses to step down, and continues to grandstand.

He's part of the resistance. He's a news reporter, acting as part of the resistance.

That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong with there being a resistance. That's freedom and liberty. But, if you're going to be a news reporter, then you ought act like one, not a member of a political activist group.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

The idea that the president and/or his administration have played no part in this story, but that it is something which has just happened to them, has been thrust upon them unbidden, that they are the powerless recipients of some vast and organised malignancy and have prevailed entirely by force of will and strength of character against overwhelming odds, is the 'collusion narrative'. That is, it is not the narrative or agenda of the press but the political narrative and agenda of the presidency. If you want people to take you as a dragon-slayer then you surely must find some dragon to slay - and preferably one with no teeth and bad eyesight.
Meh - not sure what you want them to say. That the investigation into whether I conspired with the highest levels of a foreign government, and committed acts that would, if true, amount to Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors, not only punishable by impeachment but by the death penalty, is on firm ground? That there is probable cause for the investigation? That the people who supplied the initial information leading to the investigation (Steele report, Democrat operatives, Fusion GPS, basing FISA warrants on the word of political enemies...) is somehow a good use of government time and resources, because I might very well be in league with the Russians to undermine the United States electoral process and illegally conspire with a foreign government?

That's what you want him to say?

If he did not, in fact, conspire with anyone, and never committed these acts he's been accused of for the last 2 years - then he's going to say that it just didn't happen. If it didn't happen, then the allegations are bullshit. There is no in between here - if what is said about Trump is true, he is a traitor and should be hanged. Literally. Not figuratively. The penalty for Treason goes up to death, and to commit crimes of such seriousness as conspiring with the Russian leadership to undermine the accuracy of the election, to hack into opponent's secure computer systems, to conspire with wikileaks to distribute the stolen email information in a manner to defeat the opposition, is criminal in the highest degree.

That is what the Teros of the world and others have been screetching for the last two years, isn't it? Trump's crimes wouldn't be just a little bit of Treason, either - not just leaking some embarrassing stuff, or selling some code to a foreign power - no. Trump's Treason would be meddling with and actually destroying the electoral process itself - such that he struck a blow at the very fabric of our Republic.

That's what is hurled at him -- you are in league with the Russians to line your own pockets, Mr. Trump. You struck a blow at our electoral process for profit, to build buildings in Moscow, to hide your defalcations in Moscow hotel rooms where you solicited illegal prostitution, engaged in illegal (in Russia) sexual acts, and criminally hired a hotel room to commit destruction of private property by having them do unspeakable acts (all because of your hatred of Obama, who supposedly stayed at the hotel room), not only that, but you then willingly and intentionally conspired with that foreign government to hack, to obtain dirt on your opponent, and distort the electoral process. Every communication -- if Jeff Sessions talks to the Russian Ambassador (as many people do) it's not as many people do, it's quite possibly to conspire illegally with the Russian government.

If that's true, then Trump ought to be in prison for life, if not getting the death penalty. And, if it's not true, it is a giant fabrication of the highest order. There isn't much room for it to be in between - reasonable suspicion of legal violations. If it's a giant fabrication concocted by his political opponents, then of course it's a witch hunt, and he needs to say so. If he stayed silent, and said 'I'm just not going to comment - say what you want, but I'll let the legal process take it's course," it's not as if his opponents and the media would have done the same - they would have smelled weakness - blood in the water - and gone in for the kill.

If you don't think Democrats play that way TOO - not just them - if you don't think they ALSO play hardball - if you don't think they will sink an opponent using underhanded methods, then you're naive. I don't absolve the Republicans - they are just as bad.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

No doubt you'll take issue with this, and I look forward to reading your thoughts - but fair warning, I have no interest in debating equivocations at the level of the sub-clause. Anyway...
It's not debating equivocations - it's discussing what someone actually said and did versus what is inferred and extrapolated. You do a lot of inferring and extrapolating, without acknowledging it being that.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am
Now the president is on his self-declared victory lap, the dragon has been slain and the damsel saved, and seemingly unhappy to let democratic processes run their course he is singling out his political rivals while his administration writes letters to media outlets suggesting the views of those rivals be banned.
Oh, he's expressing his opinion? He's taking an opportunity to attack his political opponents who spent the last two years trying to destroy him. The nerve of him.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am

In the current climate that sets up a perfect feedback loop which provokes media outlets to either defy the president, and thus single them out for yet further censure under the #FAKENEWS banner, or to capitulate, and thus limit the scope and extent of the national political discourse at the president's discretion.
Nonsense - outlets like CNN earned the fakenews moniker because they fucked up time and time again. Not just once or twice. Not by publishing true, but damaging reports, but by knee-jerk reactions and publishing reports that were false. And, outlets like CNN and MSNBC are obviously not just publishing damaging reports, but they are biased. They shine a spotlight on Republicans, and they shine a nightlight on Democrats. The reporting is plainly - in my opinion - not fair. That's especially true of Trump, in my opinion. Your view may differ.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:19 am
On that specific matter, how does the White House telling Media outlets which politicians and commentators they should and shouldn't give time to sit with the constitutional imperative for unabridged free speech? What is your view? Do you think there are free speech implications to the White House's letter to television producers?
Trump's re-election campaign sent a memo to television producers instructing them to "employ basic journalistic standards when booking" six current or former government officials that the campaign said "made outlandish, false claims, without evidence" while on air. So, the outlets were sent a memo by the campaign asking them to "employ basic journalistic standards." The memo referenced Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, as well as Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, Adam Schiff, and former CIA Director John Brennan. Three guys who did, in fact, make accusations "without evidence."

The memo said - "At a minimum, if these guests do reappear, you should replay the prior statements and challenge them to provide the evidence which promoted them to make wild claims in the first place."

Should they? Shouldn't they now be going back over what Schiff and the other douchebags said, and ask them to show the evidence they apparently saw? What would be the problem? They think the entire Mueller report and ALL documentation involved in the investigation should be made public, regardless of any redaction concerns. So, when Schiff came out after briefings and closed door committee meetings and declared that they had the goods on Donald Trump, let's replay that and have him tell us exactly what evidence he had.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
BarnettNewman
extemporaneous
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by BarnettNewman » Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:09 pm

42 owes me a new scroll wheel.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 11372
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Well charge it to troll central.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27117
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:02 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:20 pm
Who is saying small scale. Just because you made a mess.
Injectable products require special facilities. Vaccines etc are sealed in ampules. The mercury compound in there was to keep it sterile. It is not used anymore. The equipment is very specialized, even to make just distilled water. Not for amateurs. Not for small batches.

All makers of pills, cough syrups and injectables have a full time microbiologist on hand.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 11372
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:00 pm

What do you think we have? We are not a third world country but have the best healthcare system in Europe.
Do you think it is a shed at the bottom of the garden? Honestly. :whistle:
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Sean Hayden » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:12 pm

Dutch meth labs are the best meth labs.
shut up

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 33942
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Svartalf » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:15 pm

I hear they blow up less often than US meth labs... or rather I never hear about them at all.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

Post by Sean Hayden » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:17 pm

Yeah, they aren't prevalent in our gated communities either. When you reach the top you're just a user.
shut up

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests