America - The Official Thread

[fatkrakr]

Don't even bother

👍

 

[huskeR32]

I'm trying to keep up with this conversation, but I can't stop laughing at the notion that Fox is "marginalized." You guys will have to continue without me for a while.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Either quote me arguing that we can dismiss the entire Trump tweet based on the use of the term wiretap or drop it.

I have not disputed that it can be used as a wider term for surveillance once, so to continue to suggest that I have is to be blunt a lie.

Except I have never said any such thing at all, you are now just making things up, I strongly suggest that you stop doing so, and stop right now.

I reread what you originally said, I apologize. That wasn't what you said originally, and something was lost in translation between my eyes and my brain. It can happen sometimes.

Now aside from the fact that we know Trump is aware of how to use 'continuation' in tweets you can actually word it to apply to a wider audience with less words.

Not that (as I have already said and you have ignored) it matters, as even if its applied wider it would still be direct surveillance, something no evidence has been shown happened.

Seriously, have we seen Trump use continuation on his tweets? Not when he wants to drive a very important point. I have also never seen him use twitlonger, which bypasses the 140 character limit.

So when Trump said Victory he actually means Transition!

Then why not use the word transition?

No one was supposed to be aware that he set up his transition team already.

So he doesn't know when it started, but he does?

You are aware that you contradict yourself in the space of two sentences, nor do you (despite how you keep posting) speak for Trump. His words on the timing were quite clear, he claims to have evidence to support his claim but will not release it.

Again lost in beta. I was intended to say that Trump didn't know when the surveillance started, but he knew that he was under surveillance around election day.

Also I want to point out that I hope that you don't take this argument a statement that I am in support of Trump. I don't. I just take allegations like this on the same level as the Watergate break in.

 

[Scaff]

I reread what you originally said, I apologize. That wasn't what you said originally, and something was lost in translation between my eyes and my brain. It can happen sometimes.

No problem at all, it just seemed odd and a bit frustrating from my point to be accused of a position I don't hold.

Seriously, have we seen Trump use continuation on his tweets? Not when he wants to drive a very important point. I have also never seen him use twitlonger, which bypasses the 140 character limit.

We have (no if it was him holding the phone at the time is a different matter, however it doesn't change the fact that it could have been broader in scope with less words, nor that either scenario makes no difference. It would still be a direct surveillance campaign, which currently no evidence exists for.

No one was supposed to be aware that he set up his transition team already.

He posted it well after he took office, as such the distinction makes no sense, and still would not change the claimed time scale, for which once again no evidence has been presented.

Again lost in beta. I was intended to say that Trump didn't know when the surveillance started, but he knew that he was under surveillance around election day.

OK, but if he knows (which would suggest evidence) then why has he not provided the evidence (and I'm aware of the separation claim - which makes no sense at all)?

Also I want to point out that I hope that you don't take this argument a statement that I am in support of Trump. I don't. I just take allegations like this on the same level as the Watergate break in.

I doesn't really bother me if you are or are not; for me it about claims he is making and how accurately they are able to be supported with solid evidence.

Look at it this way, two possible Watergate level situations exist, one is the claim Trump was directly spied on during the campaign, and the other is that he was working in conjunction with Russia to win the election. Its quite possible that both of these are true, its equally possible that neither of them are true. Currently one has more supporting evidence than the other, however the 'jury' in my mind is still out on both of them.

Right now it is certainly true that members of the Trump campaign had contact with both the Russian government, Wikileaks and agents of the Russian government prior to him taking office. We also know that a lot of Russian money is invested in Trump's businesses. We also know that members of his team have lied about these events (some under oath). This alone is very disturbing, however its not proof of collusion, that we don't have. Nor is it proof that Trump was aware at the time, or was aware at a later date and covered it up.

We also know that conversations between members of the Trump campaign and Russia were monitored by the US intelligence services, however we also know that the Russians were the target of the surveillance and the Trump team were incidentally included (and no matter how much Fox tries to spin it that's not direct spying on the Trump Team). What we don't know is what was said in those discussions, nor do we know if Obama knew about them at the time, or was made aware of them after the fact and covered it up.

We also know that some of this information was leaked to the media, but again we don't know when, by who or how high is was directed from (if at all). Now I don't know about the US, but in the UK if this does lead to evidence that the Trump team was colluding with Russia then its covered under Whistle-blower acts (as its of both public interest and in the benefit of national security), if it however doesn't confirm that then its an illegal act.

What I object to (and I aim this at both sides if the story) is those who work with assumptions as if they were fact, and are happy to present them as such. A lot of nonsense, assumptions and outright propaganda come from both sides, and the media outlets that support them, and a fact based approach to this, is in my opinion, a vital one.

That is simply all I am doing, and will continue to do, call out what I see as opinion and presumption being presented as fact.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Look at it this way, two possible Watergate level situations exist, one is the claim Trump was directly spied on during the campaign, and the other is that he was working in conjunction with Russia to win the election. Its quite possible that both of these are true, its equally possible that neither of them are true. Currently one has more supporting evidence than the other, however the 'jury' in my mind is still out on both of them.

Right now it is certainly true that members of the Trump campaign had contact with both the Russian government, Wikileaks and agents of the Russian government prior to him taking office. We also know that a lot of Russian money is invested in Trump's businesses. We also know that members of his team have lied about these events (some under oath). This alone is very disturbing, however its not proof of collusion, that we don't have. Nor is it proof that Trump was aware at the time, or was aware at a later date and covered it up.

We also know that conversations between members of the Trump campaign and Russia were monitored by the US intelligence services, however we also know that the Russians were the target of the surveillance and the Trump team were incidentally included (and no matter how much Fox tries to spin it that's not direct spying on the Trump Team). What we don't know is what was said in those discussions, nor do we know if Obama knew about them at the time, or was made aware of them after the fact and covered it up.

We also know that some of this information was leaked to the media, but again we don't know when, by who or how high is was directed from (if at all). Now I don't know about the US, but in the UK if this does lead to evidence that the Trump team was colluding with Russia then its covered under Whistle-blower acts (as its of both public interest and in the benefit of national security), if it however doesn't confirm that then its an illegal act.

What I object to (and I aim this at both sides if the story) is those who work with assumptions as if they were fact, and are happy to present them as such. A lot of nonsense, assumptions and outright propaganda come from both sides, and the media outlets that support them, and a fact based approach to this, is in my opinion, a vital one.

That is simply all I am doing, and will continue to do, call out what I see as opinion and presumption being presented as fact.

Then this might prove educational. In spoilers because of NSFW language.

Spoiler

 

[DK]

Don't even bother quoting me when making a dig, it gets better.

I also have no idea what on earth you are now trying to say?

So lets keep it simple for you, stop with the personal digs and the off-topic noise, as continuing in the manner you are will see you taking a holiday from GTP.

Anything which diverts attention away from any mistakes by "m'God-Emperor", obviously.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So just to be clear a marginal source of information is one that:

You say tomato, I say tomato.

• Is currently the cable news network with the largest audience in the US

• Owns 17 regional terrestrial stations in the US

• Is affiliated with over 185 regional terrestrial stations in the US

• Is broadcast in over 40 countries worldwide.

It is clear now that you have no idea what you are talking about. That is OK, I don't know much about Sky News or the BBC.

Fox News has 0 (zero) terrestrial stations in the US.

Fox News has 0 (zero) affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

I have already posted and sourced Fox News viewership (about 4 million) in comparison with that of the three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS (about 24 million viewers). And yes the three major networks, along with CNN and most of the major newspapers all tow the same line.

ABC has 8 terrestrial stations in the US.

ABC has 238 affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

NBC has 11 terrestrial stations in the US.

NBC has 222 affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

CBS has 16 terrestrial stations in the US.

CBS has 222 affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

That is a total of 717 over the air broadcast television stations. Each network has an evening news program. They each reach 97% of the households in the US.

Fox News is a cable channel, just like MTV, just like BBC America.

 

[DK]

The vote on the Republicare bill has been scrapped.

Whatever happened to the "art of the deal"?

 

[Mike Rotch]

Seeing a crushed Paul Ryan just made my weekend.

 

[samurai8juice]

I suspect that the Comey report, which really didn't confirm any misdeeds on Clinton's part, but merely reported the existence of additional Emails to be investigated, was the final straw in persuading a significant number of Democratic voters, especially Sanders supporters, to sit out the election & not vote for Clinton. Low Democratic voter turn out handed the election win to Trump.

Would you agree that, contrary to popular belief, Bernie was a much more electable candidate than Hillary, and probably would have defeated Trump?

The vote on the Republicare bill has been scrapped.

Whatever happened to the "art of the deal"?

Thank God. All we need is a healthcare system more screwed up than what we have now. At this point, I think there are only two options. Either go back to Pre-Obama healthcare, or Universal health care, similar to Canada.

 

[Touring Mars]

The vote on the Republicare bill has been scrapped.

Whatever happened to the "art of the deal"?

The words "piss-up" and "brewery" spring to mind, and not just because I've been drinking.

 

[DK]

Would you agree that, contrary to popular belief, Bernie was a much more electable candidate than Hillary, and probably would have defeated Trump?

Let me chime in. Bernie was able to win the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries, which were states which Hillary lost in the Presidential election. I think Sanders could have siphoned off blue-collar voters from Trump in the Rust Belt, and that Clinton's supporters would have found Trump repugnant enough to side with Sanders in a Sanders vs Trump presidential election.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You say tomato, I say tomato.

It is clear now that you have no idea what you are talking about. That is OK, I don't know much about Sky News or the BBC.

Fox News has 0 (zero) terrestrial stations in the US.

Fox News has 0 (zero) affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

I have already posted and sourced Fox News viewership (about 4 million) in comparison with that of the three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS (about 24 million viewers). And yes the three major networks, along with CNN and most of the major newspapers all tow the same line.

ABC has 8 terrestrial stations in the US.

ABC has 238 affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

NBC has 11 terrestrial stations in the US.

NBC has 222 affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

CBS has 16 terrestrial stations in the US.

CBS has 222 affiliated terrestrial stations in the US.

That is a total of 717 over the air broadcast television stations. Each network has an evening news program. They each reach 97% of the households in the US.

Fox News is a cable channel, just like MTV, just like BBC America.

@Scaff may have been referring to Fox News' parent company, News Corp, in which case, most of his numbers do make sense.

But I do want to point out that Fox News, Fox Business, Sky News, and the Fox Broadcasting Network are all owned by News Corp. Each has to be treated separately in the US ratings numbers.

 

[andrea]

The vote on the Republicare bill has been scrapped.

Whatever happened to the "art of the deal"?

"The art of no deal"

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Scaff may have been referring to Fox News' parent company, News Corp, in which case, most of his numbers do make sense.

But I do want to point out that Fox News, Fox Business, Sky News, and the Fox Broadcasting Network are all owned by News Corp. Each has to be treated separately in the US ratings numbers.

Oh, I know what he was talking about. But Fox Broadcasting only has one weekly news show, and that airs at 8:00am on Sunday morning.

Unless you want to count Kent Brockman.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Oh, I know what he was talking about. But Fox Broadcasting only has one weekly news show, and that airs at 8:00am on Sunday morning.

Unless you want to count Kent Brockman.

No, he is counting the local news broadcasts as a division of Fox News, which is not true. It is a part of Fox Broadcasting Network.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Whatever happened to the "art of the deal"?

It was ghost-written.

 

[niky]

Spend years demonizing absolutely everything the Democrats do... Then realize, when you get a chance to fix things, that you might actually need to do nearly the exact same things to keep your constituents happy... Which makes the Libertarians unhappy. Which means no consensus.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Spend years demonizing absolutely everything the Democrats do... Then realize, when you get a chance to fix things, that you might actually need to do nearly the exact same things to keep your constituents happy...

I buy my own health insurance. I am not in a group. Before obamacare I paid about $330 a month with a $20 co-pay.

After obamacare, my insurance was no longer legal, and it was canceled. I got a silver obamacare plan it cost about $370 a month with a $3500 deductible.

It has gone up every year.

I currently pay $670 a month with a $3500 deductible.

Before obamacare, if I went to the doctor, it cost me $20 and my insurance paid the rest, now I have to pay for the whole visit. The insurance will only start paying after I have paid $3500.

The Affordable Care Act, my ass.

The Republicans weren't demonizing anything when it comes to health care. They were just telling the truth. obamacare is crap.

 

[Imari]

The Republicans weren't demonizing anything when it comes to health care. They were just telling the truth. obamacare is crap.

For you, perhaps. But it's designed to improve the situation on average for the whole country.

Think about how insurance works. You're the same person before and after, and presumably the insurance company is making handsome profits both before and after. So why the difference in payments?

Presumably, pre-ACA the insurance company only accepted people who it deemed to be low risk. Fortunately for you, you're one of them. It can therefore justify lower costs to customers on the basis that it will also be paying out infrequently.

Post-ACA the insurance company is forced to accept a bunch of people who are higher risk than they would prefer. In order to maintain their profits, they must reduce the amount that they pay out and/or increase the cost of insurance.

You're only seeing your own situation, you're not seeing the millions of people for whom insurance simply wasn't an option pre-ACA. And probably won't be post-ACA.

So, now that you know this you can have an informed opinion taking into account both yourself and the rest of the US. Would you prefer a cheaper insurance for yourself at the expense of making it very expensive or unobtainable for others? Or would you be happy to pay more knowing that it results in an overall system that is less divisive of the "haves" and the "have-nots"?

 

[eran0004]

I buy my own health insurance. I am not in a group. Before obamacare I paid about $330 a month with a $20 co-pay.

After obamacare, my insurance was no longer legal, and it was canceled. I got a silver obamacare plan it cost about $370 a month with a $3500 deductible.

It has gone up every year.

I currently pay $670 a month with a $3500 deductible.

Before obamacare, if I went to the doctor, it cost me $20 and my insurance paid the rest, now I have to pay for the whole visit. The insurance will only start paying after I have paid $3500.

The Affordable Care Act, my ass.

The Republicans weren't demonizing anything when it comes to health care. They were just telling the truth. obamacare is crap.

That is quite steep. How much do you pay in income tax?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The Affordable Care Act, my ass.

The Republicans weren't demonizing anything when it comes to health care. They were just telling the truth. obamacare is crap

Actually, healthcare premiums have been going up worldwide. It's not just you. Part of the problem is that as healthcare has become more readily available, the industry has been price gouging. Take, for example, pacemakers. Over the past ten to fifteen years, they have gotten smaller, more effective and more efficient. It takes money to fuel that development, so there is going to be a natural price increase, but manufacturers have been charging for them at inflated prices. The only way that healthcare providers can keep up with that is by putting up their premiums.

Obamacare was trying to address the problem presented by HMOs. They were run as businesses first, taking money from clients, but then finding reasons to avoid paying out. Obamacare tried to stop the rorting, but it just pushed the rorting to the suppliers, not the insurers. It couldn't stop that rorting because the medical industry lobbies against it.

The irony is that Trump promised to disempower lobbyists, and so could use that to finish what Obama started by curtailing the rorting by suppliers. Instead, he's hell-bent on repealing Obamacare because of his hatred of Obama.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

For you, perhaps. But it's designed to improve the situation on average for the whole country.

Think about how insurance works. You're the same person before and after, and presumably the insurance company is making handsome profits both before and after. So why the difference in payments?

Presumably, pre-ACA the insurance company only accepted people who it deemed to be low risk. Fortunately for you, you're one of them. It can therefore justify lower costs to customers on the basis that it will also be paying out infrequently.

Post-ACA the insurance company is forced to accept a bunch of people who are higher risk than they would prefer. In order to maintain their profits, they must reduce the amount that they pay out and/or increase the cost of insurance.

You're only seeing your own situation, you're not seeing the millions of people for whom insurance simply wasn't an option pre-ACA. And probably won't be post-ACA.

So, now that you know this you can have an informed opinion taking into account both yourself and the rest of the US. Would you prefer a cheaper insurance for yourself at the expense of making it very expensive or unobtainable for others? Or would you be happy to pay more knowing that it results in an overall system that is less divisive of the "haves" and the "have-nots"?

I had a roommate and dear friend. He had AIDS. He got a job at AOL/Time warner. He was a customer rep. He was the guy that answered the phone when you had a problem or a question about your bill.

He got on their health plan, even with his pre-existing condition. He paid the same as everyone else in his group, even though he cost the plan much more than most. His coverage was excellent.


I work in the hospitality industry. There are national, and local groups I could join, if only they were allowed to offer group insurance. Why can't these groups buy and offer group insurance to people like me?

I am also a Costco member, they could also offer group insurance. So could Amazon Prime.

I am stuck in a group all by my self, that is why it costs so much.

The Republicans want associative groups, that is the best way to go. I have heard both Paul Ryan and Rand Paul talk about them.

Instead, he's hell-bent on repealing Obamacare because of his hatred of Obama.

I could say stuff, but I don't want to violate the AUP.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I could say stuff, but I don't want to violate the AUP.

It's pretty obvious that Trump has been going after Obama's policies because they're Obama's policies and not because they're fundamentally broken. Such is the problem with American politics: each side believes that a bad policy that they came up with is preferable to developing a good policy that the other side came up with.

Universal health care works, but the Republicans won't hear about it because it's a "socialist" policy. You complain about your premiums going up from $330/month to $670/month. We have a universal system, and I currently pay $115/month for healthcare which gives me full coverage.

 

[Stotty]

Watching Trump blame the democrats for his inability to get his healthcare bill passed when he has a republican majority...

He's mad as a bucket of frogs.

 

[Liquid]

"I did not say that I would immediately repeal and replace Obamacare."

Really? Really? It's almost like he's a terrible liar or full of 🤬.



Wish I could find the actual videos.

 

[Northstar]

Really? Really? It's almost like he's a terrible liar or full of 🤬.

 

[Dotini]

For you, perhaps. But it's designed to improve the situation on average for the whole country.

Think about how insurance works. You're the same person before and after, and presumably the insurance company is making handsome profits both before and after. So why the difference in payments?

Presumably, pre-ACA the insurance company only accepted people who it deemed to be low risk. Fortunately for you, you're one of them. It can therefore justify lower costs to customers on the basis that it will also be paying out infrequently.

Post-ACA the insurance company is forced to accept a bunch of people who are higher risk than they would prefer. In order to maintain their profits, they must reduce the amount that they pay out and/or increase the cost of insurance.

You're only seeing your own situation, you're not seeing the millions of people for whom insurance simply wasn't an option pre-ACA. And probably won't be post-ACA.

So, now that you know this you can have an informed opinion taking into account both yourself and the rest of the US. Would you prefer a cheaper insurance for yourself at the expense of making it very expensive or unobtainable for others? Or would you be happy to pay more knowing that it results in an overall system that is less divisive of the "haves" and the "have-nots"?

The word "you" is used eleven times in this post, making the post way too long and ill-constructed to take seriously. Surely there must be a more concise way to craft a reply?

 

[Joel]

So. Much. Winning.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Spend years demonizing absolutely everything the Democrats do... Then realize, when you get a chance to fix things, that you might actually need to do nearly the exact same things to keep your constituents happy... Which makes the Libertarians unhappy. Which means no consensus.

Let's be honest here, I don't think that Trump was going to sign the Ryan bill anyway. He pretty much campaigned on repeal only, and Ryan's bill would have been seen as the Establishment plan.

But it's designed to improve the situation on average for the whole country.

Maybe it is that you are on government healthcare that is talking, but let me tell you a perspective as someone who IS on Medicare (who's budget was slashed a half a billion dollars under the ACA). My income is less than a $1000 a month, and I qualify for Extra Help, which helps me avoid the doughnut hole. Over the last five years or so, I pay up to $5 a prescription up to a set amount (around $3700), at which time I would have qualified for the Doughnut Hole, forcing me to pay 40% for brand name drugs and 51% on generics. Extra Help avoids this, thus the government pays for my drugs for the rest of the year.

What would have happened if I don't have that help? I would have been forced to pay nearly half of my income to prescriptions, thus leaving me broke.

I had a roommate and dear friend. He had AIDS. He got a job at AOL/Time warner. He was a customer rep. He was the guy that answered the phone when you had a problem or a question about your bill.

He got on their health plan, even with his pre-existing condition. He paid the same as everyone else in his group, even though he cost the plan much more than most. His coverage was excellent.


I work in the hospitality industry. There are national, and local groups I could join, if only they were allowed to offer group insurance. Why can't these groups buy and offer group insurance to people like me?

I am also a Costco member, they could also offer group insurance. So could Amazon Prime.

I am stuck in a group all by my self, that is why it costs so much.

Agreed. The whole purpose of the ACA is to drive people to Single-Payer, but to people like Bernie Sanders, it simply didn't go fast enough. The outlawing of the ability to buy group insurance, as you so eloquently explained it, is what ultimately drove prices up.