|
Is it really a first amendment issue if Trump bans a reporter from his press conferences? Like does the press have a right to be there? Did Obama have to let in reporters from Breitbart or Infowars or whatever?
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure its turned out that smokers are actually 'good' for per capita healthcare costs because of the fact that they don't live to become elderly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:I'm all for three of those things, but it really depends on what's in the vape. Does that make me a centrist 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:37
|
|
?
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Is it really a first amendment issue if Trump bans a reporter from his press conferences? Like does the press have a right to be there? Did Obama have to let in reporters from Breitbart or Infowars or whatever? Good questions: yes; yes; maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Is it really a first amendment issue if Trump bans a reporter from his press conferences? Like does the press have a right to be there? Did Obama have to let in reporters from Breitbart or Infowars or whatever? Motive matters. Actions the government is legally allowed to take in a vacuum can be illegal if done for the express purpose of penalizing people for their first amendment rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I'm pretty sure its turned out that smokers are actually 'good' for per capita healthcare costs because of the fact that they don't live to become elderly. yeah, basically they don't reach that old age period where we spend a ton of money just keeping you alive and comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
So it's increasingly clear a bunch of white conservatives ARE trying to take out Pelosi and they've cynically decided that Fudge is the most-center non-white-guy they can get https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1063123384710651904 eke out fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1063111419158245376 I love the subtext in the subsequent tweet: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1063112336666492930 "We're used to getting ridiculous requests from the White House, so we thought this was another one of those"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
eke out posted:So it's increasingly clear a bunch of white conservatives ARE trying to take out Pelosi and they've cynically decided that Fudge is the most-center non-white-guy they can get so they are trying to dethrone her because they don't want to use their super majority because they are cowardly centrists(at best), gently caress these guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Hey Willa and other posters, I think the healthcare chat is interesting but it's dense and technical-oriented and it would probably be better if you kept discussing it in the healthcare thread. I've enjoyed reading it but it's gone on for pages without any change in positions really. Thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
quote:When she first raised the possibility of running for speaker in an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, it was quickly pointed out that Fudge is one of two House Democrats who has refused to co-sponsor the Equality Act, which would extend civil rights protections to people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. this seems like a nonsense argument to me, given that there's not really such thing as "opening up" a bill in a way that others could exploit, and the Civil Rights Act is the simplest vehicle for gay workplace protections because workplace protections exist in it already for race and sex and you only need to add a few words additionally, it sends a clear message that we are treating gay rights as equal to other core civil rights protections
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:So is this in spite of, or as a result of ACA? The ACA normalized extremely high out-of-pocket costs for insurance "coverage" as necessary "skin in the game" so yes, the ACA and the Democratic Party have everything to do with it. It's wonderful for those who qualify for the single-payer component (expanded Medicaid) and for those who were medically underwritten prior to the ACA's passage, but it pretty much sucks for everyone else--especially those who can't afford the new normal of stratospheric out-of-pocket costs. Tell those women who've been diagnosed with breast cancer, but can't afford treatment, what lucky duckies they are to now have insurance they can't use, rather than no insurance at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
eke out posted:this seems like a nonsense argument to me, given that there's not really such thing as "opening up" a bill in a way that others could exploit, and the Civil Rights Act is the simplest vehicle for gay workplace protections because workplace protections exist in it already for race and sex and you only need to add a few words It seems like a nonsense argument, because it is a nonsense argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:So is this in spite of, or as a result of ACA? A huge portion of the ACA was dedicated to general health care reforms, such as changing how medicare reimbursements worked and what things medicare would/would not penalize or reward hospitals for, that was explicitly intended to reform the incentives in the market to slow the growth of health care costs. Willa Rodgers knows this, and is lying about it. It basically packed in every idea anyone had about structural reforms that would help with the growth of health care costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hey Willa and other posters, I think the healthcare chat is interesting but it's dense and technical-oriented and it would probably be better if you kept discussing it in the healthcare thread. I've enjoyed reading it but it's gone on for pages without any change in positions really. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3812639
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Republican gun lovers are losing their goddamn minds over this. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1140-AA52 The DOJ just issued a ruling proposal(not approved yet): quote:The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that would interpret the statutory definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that definition. quote:
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
eke out posted:this seems like a nonsense argument to me, given that there's not really such thing as "opening up" a bill in a way that others could exploit, and the Civil Rights Act is the simplest vehicle for gay workplace protections because workplace protections exist in it already for race and sex and you only need to add a few words Yeah, this is a post-hoc rationalization and it's not believable in the least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there are significant issues with high-deductible plans but the cost curve "bent" with all plans The cost curve "bent" because people have spurned care because of high out-of-pocket costs, not due to slowing the rate of increase in unregulated provider, pharma or insurance pricing. That's the most significant issue with high-deductible plans: People can't afford to use them, even when they're seriously ill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
eke out posted:this seems like a nonsense argument to me, given that there's not really such thing as "opening up" a bill in a way that others could exploit, and the Civil Rights Act is the simplest vehicle for gay workplace protections because workplace protections exist in it already for race and sex and you only need to add a few words Let me translate: "I believe that ladder would look much better up here where I am."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Skex posted:I'm saying that the source of the assertion that such an agreement exists is a person who is employed by the industry opposed to the implementation of any government controls on the industry and has a vested financial interest in pushing a narrative that undermines the people wanting that government control. So I think one of the fundamental sources of disagreement in this thread (and similar discussions) is related to whether it makes sense to default to an assumption of good intentions/goals on the part of Democrats (and require absolute hard proof otherwise), or whether the reverse should be the case (requiring proof of good intentions/goals). My argument is that the (very recent) history of the Democratic Party absolutely does not warrant assuming that they are making genuine attempts to pass left-wing legislation. You need only go back as far as the Clinton administration to see some very explicitly bad stuff (like welfare reform or the crime bill), and later you can also see things like Democrats voting for the Iraq War, not supporting gay marriage, Obama's open desire to achieve the "Grand Bargain," etc. It is incredibly naive to act like it's somehow being overly cynical to assume that maybe - just maybe - most of these people are not secretly super progressive. It would be one thing if the history of the Democratic Party warranted assuming good will until proven otherwise, but it just doesn't. These are clearly people who we should demand prove that they actually share our goals and intentions. Skex posted:Most Dems aren't bad, they are just human and are thus imperfect stupid apes barely out of the agrarian age. Some of them are bad others are naive or just think that different things will work. And most are well intentioned but various of stupid. It is dumb to blindly assuming good intentions on the part of people with power. Democratic politicians are mostly very wealthy people; they do not need you to protect them. And that's not even getting into the fact that a very significant percent are directly responsible for war crimes through voting for the Iraq War (or other similarly harmful things, like supporting/funding other violence abroad, supporting Israel, etc). Someone who is old enough to remember that stuff as basic as "supporting gay marriage" is only a very recent change doesn't really have any excuse for having this level of blind positivism towards the party. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hey Willa and other posters, I think the healthcare chat is interesting but it's dense and technical-oriented and it would probably be better if you kept discussing it in the healthcare thread. I've enjoyed reading it but it's gone on for pages without any change in positions really. Got it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Got it! Thank you, Willa. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Republican gun lovers are losing their goddamn minds over this. This seems significant, is this another thing Sessions was blocking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
eke out posted:So it's increasingly clear a bunch of white conservatives ARE trying to take out Pelosi and they've cynically decided that Fudge is the most-center non-white-guy they can get So a bunch of blue dogs are trying to drag the caucus right. I guess there was always a chance of it happening since they dont seem to mind conservative dems. What are the chances it works?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Let me translate: "I believe that ladder would look much better up here where I am." yeah, I just wanted to explain a little for people less informed on this why that argument she clearly invented to sound reasonable is Actually loving Bullshit i'll admit I know very little about Fudge but making up some bullshit to explain why you won't support gay rights makes me immediately assume she's not even close to progressive. and that's reinforced by the regressives that support her
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ec_schneider/status/1063121259674902528 Chalk another one up for the D's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This seems significant, is this another thing Sessions was blocking? It's something that some conservative was trying to slow-walk, but I don't know if it was Sessions. Trump demanded it after the Vegas shooting, because it turns out that there's not actually a constituency that supports legalized machine guns through a loophole, but there's a hidden trick here. Trump - and Republicans - demanded that the DOJ issue this regulation because it's not actually clear that this regulation is a defensible interpretation of the underlying statutes. Congress could trivially pass such a law that would withstand a legal attack. It is unclear that this regulation will survive a legal attack - thus allowing republicans to claim they did something, without actually pissing off the NRA because they chose the way that would fail and that didn't require them to vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is unclear that this regulation will survive a legal attack - thus allowing republicans to claim they did something, without actually pissing off the NRA because they chose the way that would fail and that didn't require them to vote. Ah. That seems... surprisingly clever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Meatball posted:So a bunch of blue dogs are trying to drag the caucus right. I guess there was always a chance of it happening since they dont seem to mind conservative dems. They are very unlikely to get their actual candidate to have the support of a majority of the Dem caucus. But they don't really care, their goal is toppling Pelosi because they've bought into the Republican propaganda about her and/or because they think their constituents have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's something that some conservative was trying to slow-walk, but I don't know if it was Sessions. Trump demanded it after the Vegas shooting, because it turns out that there's not actually a constituency that supports legalized machine guns through a loophole, but there's a hidden trick here. Trump - and Republicans - demanded that the DOJ issue this regulation because it's not actually clear that this regulation is a defensible interpretation of the underlying statutes. Congress could trivially pass such a law that would withstand a legal attack. It is unclear that this regulation will survive a legal attack - thus allowing republicans to claim they did something, without actually pissing off the NRA because they chose the way that would fail and that didn't require them to vote. yeah i think the textualist argument against just saying the two Acts inherently include bump stocks when they define machine guns is pretty obvious, too. I can even imagine a ruling that they deserve no deference because there's no ambiguity there. this should be done via legislation
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Ah. That seems... surprisingly clever? Yeah. Republicans are bad people, but they're very good at being bad people in politically adventageous ways. If I had to guess, the triggering event for this regulation finally getting released was that gun control was helpful for Democrats in the midterms, and the Trump Administration figured that they'd better get this regulation released to have a talking point for 2020, while giving as much time for the regulation to be stayed or struck down so the NRA gun nuts don't take out their (current) rage on Republicans that someone touched their murder toys, because the courts took those hands back off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's something that some conservative was trying to slow-walk, but I don't know if it was Sessions. Trump demanded it after the Vegas shooting, because it turns out that there's not actually a constituency that supports legalized machine guns through a loophole, but there's a hidden trick here. Trump - and Republicans - demanded that the DOJ issue this regulation because it's not actually clear that this regulation is a defensible interpretation of the underlying statutes. Congress could trivially pass such a law that would withstand a legal attack. It is unclear that this regulation will survive a legal attack - thus allowing republicans to claim they did something, without actually pissing off the NRA because they chose the way that would fail and that didn't require them to vote. yeah, but isn't the NRA dying off hard. i know the GOP is lovely/evil but wouldnt it be smarter to say gently caress it and allow for a bunch of common sense gun laws and then let the NRA scream it out. i mean the NRA assholes blame nerd poo poo and abortion for school shootings. they don't have poo poo to stand on and they arn't worth saving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenSasse/status/1063026418500681728?s=19 gently caress off, Mr Ben's rear end, it's gross as hell out there
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Almost to the day https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41947451
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Depends how you define "pull of the trigger," correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:https://twitter.com/BenSasse/status/1063026418500681728?s=19 i am in PA and we already have a couple inches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Depends how you define "pull of the trigger," correct? yeah does a bump stock really make a weapon "shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger"? it seems like mechanically it's not a single function of the trigger at all that makes it shoot multiple rounds quickly, but the combination of recoil/the stock/etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:https://twitter.com/BenSasse/status/1063026418500681728?s=19 Ben's rear end saying "some dude" is a very "how do you do fellow kids" vibe for me gently caress off rear end-Man, you are in your late 40s Also he realizes it doesn't snow very often in those states right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah does a bump stock really make a weapon "shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger"? it seems like mechanically it's not a single function of the trigger at all that makes it shoot multiple rounds quickly, but the combination of recoil/the stock/etc Oh I think it definitely does. The trigger is being depressed multiple times. The issue is that that's a federal criminal provision with heavy penalties so change the rules a lot of rich white folks are suddenly gun felons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i am in PA and we already have a couple inches. Yeah it's loving ugly outside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I'm pretty sure its turned out that smokers are actually 'good' for per capita healthcare costs because of the fact that they don't live to become elderly. Pension plans love smokers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:09
|
|
