TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
132. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 19.70%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    41 31.06%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    48 36.36%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 3.03%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.85%
Page 479 of 479 FirstFirst ... 229379429434439444449454459464469474475476477478479
Results 11,951 to 11,974 of 11974

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #11951
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    I think Nicker should do a quadruple post next time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    It doesn't matter who got him here, what matters is who is keeping him in power and why. That would be the GOP.
    That's because the GOP is bad!...

  2. #11952
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Geez, guys. Can we not form our own opinions? Are we incapable of believing anything beyond what the Liberal Media tells us to think?

    If we could, I imagine we'd find ourselves agreeing with Vae and his friends far more often, huh?

  3. #11953
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    I'll try, Renz.

    I would like to thank Vae for acknowledging that, at this time, the GOP is fundamentally a force for evil, supporting a direct attack on the USA by a foreign power and enabling the agent of that power to vandalize the Constitution while demonizing those trying to protect the country.
    Last edited by Nicker; 10th Dec 2019 at 09:46.

  4. #11954
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So, the Horowitz Report finally came out and it's now clear why the attorney general had been sitting on it for so long -- it completely vindicates the FBI and finds "no evidence political bias influenced the decision to open the Russia probe." Nobody was spying on Lord Dampnut, contrary to the claims of his personal lawyer Bill Barr, and all the investigations were entirely justified.

    Rick Wilson sums it up as colourful as ever:

    https://gen.medium.com/justice-depar...s-7595d731b85f

    [...]

    Formerly conservative publications now dedicated in varying degrees to serving Trump and trafficking in lurid conspiracy nonsense spent a year breathlessly awaiting this nothingburger. They expected it would be laden with a heavy cargo of ammunition against the hated deep state, full of smoking-gun proof that the targeting of Trumpís associates was a political hit directed from the Oval Office of a certain Kenyan Muslim socialist sleeper-agent president with a suspicious middle name.

    Of course, Trump supporters are moving on to the next showstopper, made-up investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Thatís the real killer. Dunham will finally bring the wrongdoers to justice. Uh-huh.

    The Horowitz report, far from fulfilling the fantasies of the Trump squad, fell flat, showing that the deep state wasnít trying to do Trump in, but rather were merely doing their jobs. Trumpís attacks on the FBI officials turned out to be ó like most of Trumpís attacks ó lies, smears, and distractions.

    The intelligence community, the FBI, the FISA courts, and the DOJ werenít attacking Trump.

    They were protecting us.

  5. #11955
    As I've posted before, Hillary is going to join the race in January.

    Sheís not running for president ó yet ó but Hillary Clinton was the top choice for Democratic voters in the Harvard-Harris national poll released last week.

    Mrs. Clinton drew 21%, followed by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden with 20%, when registered Democrats were asked whom they would support for the 2020 party presidential nod if she and former Secretary of State John Kerry were added to the mix.

    Placing third in the hypothetical race was Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders at 12%, followed by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 9% and ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 7%.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...mocratic-vote/

  6. #11956
    So, the Horowitz Report finally came out and it's now clear why the attorney general had been sitting on it for so long -- it completely vindicates the FBI and finds "no evidence political bias influenced the decision to open the Russia probe." Nobody was spying on Lord Dampnut, contrary to the claims of his personal lawyer Bill Barr, and all the investigations were entirely justified.
    What?

    We're in fucking 1984 territory here. CNN reported that they did spy on the campaign.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/polit...ans/index.html

    I'll try, Renz.

    I would like to thank Vae for acknowledging that, at this time, the GOP is fundamentally a force for evil, supporting a direct attack on the USA by a foreign power and enabling the agent of that power to vandalize the Constitution while demonizing those trying to protect the country.
    We should execute the GOP for treason.

  7. #11957
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Business Insider summarises the main findings of the report:

    https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-...-probe-2019-12

    The Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, on Monday released a report of his investigation into the origins of the FBI's Russia probe.

    It was a sweeping inquiry; according to the report, Horowitz's team examined more than 1 million documents and conducted 170 interviews with more than 100 witnesses.

    Here are the main findings:

    * The FBI had an "authorized purpose" to launch the Russia investigation.

    * The FBI did not use the so-called Steele dossier to start the probe.
    -- The unverified dossier, which was compiled by the former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, has been at the center of Republican allegations about the investigation. Specifically, they accused the FBI of using uncorroborated and anonymously sourced information to justify starting the Russia probe.
    -- Horowitz found that FBI investigators didn't get Steele's dossier until after the investigation had been launched.

    * The bureau's use of confidential informants complied with the rules.

    * There is no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations" into the Trump campaign aides George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort.

    * Manafort was under investigation over allegations of money laundering before the FBI launched the Russia investigation.

    * There were "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application, and FBI agents "failed to meet the basic obligation" to make sure the applications were "scrupulously accurate."
    -- "We do not speculate whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omissions, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome," the report said. "Nevertheless, the department's decision makers and the court should have been given complete and accurate information so that they could meaningfully evaluate probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a US person associated with a presidential campaign."

    * The first Page FISA application had "seven significant inaccuracies and omissions."
    -- The application's omissions included "information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page."
    -- That information included the fact that Page "had been approved as an 'operational contact' for the other agency from 2008 to 2013," and that Page had told the agency about his contacts with "certain Russian intelligence officers."
    -- Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored an email from the other agency by adding the words, "not a source," which led an FBI supervisor to sign off on the third FISA warrant renewal for Page.

    * There is no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page."

    * Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump "ridiculous." In fact, according to the report, Steele said he was "favorably disposed" to the Trump family before he began his research on the dossier "because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and had 'been friendly'" with that person for years.
    -- Steele "described their relationship as 'personal' and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member."
    -- Multiple media outlets reported that the family member described in the report is first daughter Ivanka Trump, whom Steele first met in 2007 in London.

    * The report uncovered several pro-Trump text messages exchanged between two FBI employees on November 9, 2016, the day after Trump won the election.
    -- "Trump!" a handling agent said in a text message to a co-handling agent. "Hahaha. S--- just got real," the co-handling agent replied.
    -- "Yes it did," the first agent said. The second responded, "I saw a lot of scared MFers on ... [my way to work] this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas. Haha."
    [...]
    Last edited by Starker; 10th Dec 2019 at 12:39.

  8. #11958
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Dishonorable mention - On peace in the Middle East... “if Jared Kushner can’t do it, it can’t be done”.
    Don't be too harsh on the First Son-in-law. He has a wall to build, apparently.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0f6_story.html

    President Trump has made his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the de facto project manager for constructing his border wall, frustrated with a lack of progress over one of his top priorities as he heads into a tough reelection campaign, according to current and former administration officials.

    [...]

    The president’s son-in-law and senior adviser is pressing U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite the process of taking over private land needed for the project as the government seeks to meet Trump’s goal of erecting 450 miles of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2020. More than 800 filings to seize private property will need to be made in the coming months if the government is going to succeed, officials said.

    [...]

    The Trump administration has completed 83 miles of new barriers so far, according to the latest CBP figures, but nearly all of that is classified as “replacement wall,” typically swapping out older, smaller structures for a row of steel bars 18 to 30 feet in height.

    Kushner insists the administration remains on target to meet the president’s goal of 450 miles by the end of next year, a pace that will require construction to accelerate at least fourfold, according to government data reviewed by The Washington Post. The president’s son-in-law has set a goal of 30 to 35 miles of new barriers per month by spring, requiring crews to average a new linear mile of fencing every day.

    In recent months, the project has picked up momentum in Western states where crews are able to build on remote desert land already controlled by the government.

    Administration officials acknowledge that building in those areas amounts to the lowest-hanging fruit for the border wall project. In Texas, the project is significantly more complex.

    There, the border runs more than 1,200 miles along the sinuous course of the Rio Grande, and nearly all of the land where the government needs to build is privately owned.

    The Trump administration’s plan includes 166 miles of new barriers in Texas, and nearly all of that will have to be built on private land. For Kushner to meet Trump’s timeline, the government will have to obtain hundreds of privately owned parcels and complete construction in the next 13 months.

    The area presents engineering challenges to the administration, as well as real estate ones, because the Rio Grande flood plain requires much of the structure to be installed along river levees, at a significantly higher cost.
    [...]

  9. #11959
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Well there you go, Jared!! Build a wall between the Israelis and the Palestinians! And make Egypt pay for it.

  10. #11960
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    We should execute the GOP for treason.
    Agreed. Nuke the Republican National Convention from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  11. #11961
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Nuke the Republican National Convention from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
    When we see their bodies flaming, and hear their howls of terror, we will rejoice with glee!...

    ...and then blame it all on Drumpf!...
    Last edited by Vae; 11th Dec 2019 at 03:28.

  12. #11962
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Well, yeah. We wouldn't have to nuke them from orbit if it weren't for him.

  13. #11963
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The Onion The Washington Post has brought us this gem:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...45f_story.html

    When Congress took up a must-pass defense bill earlier this year, President Trump saw it as a rare opportunity to win approval for the Space Force — his proposed sixth branch of the military — ahead of the 2020 election.

    White House advisers, told by the president to make the Space Force the top priority in negotiations, were prepared at times to consider dramatic concessions.

    Negotiators discussed major changes to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba or limits on the White House’s use of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to pursue broad military powers, according to two people familiar with the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal talks.

    Ultimately, Democratic lawmakers and the White House struck a tentative bargain late last week to create the Space Force in exchange for new parental-leave benefits for the federal workforce. If approved, it would be the biggest victory for federal employees in nearly 30 years.

    The agreement must be ratified by negotiators and then passed through Congress. Importantly, it is unclear whether it will have enough support among Republicans to pass the Senate. And support for the idea isn’t unanimous within the Trump administration. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has raised concerns about approving parental-leave benefits because of the cost, three people briefed on the talks said.

    Some Democratic aides say the proposed federal benefits package would cost about $3 billion, though there is disagreement about whether those costs would span five or 10 years. The expansion would give federal employees a rare victory after the Trump administration has sought to cut their benefits for three years. Many of them also endured the longest-ever government shutdown under the current administration about a year ago.

    Congressional Republicans were less determined to get the Space Force approved than the White House because it hadn’t been a GOP priority before Trump took office. They were undercut by the Trump administration, as the president had told advisers he wanted to be able to trumpet the creation of the Space Force as part of his reelection bid.

    [...]

    Trump began pushing his advisers last year to create the Space Force, which would be a branch of the military tasked with protecting U.S. satellites from foreign adversaries, among other things. Trump has described space as a “war-fighting domain,” though he said last year that when he first floated the idea of a Space Force, “he was not really serious.”

    But the concept caught on with supporters, and he has continued to push hard for it. His admirers have worn Space Force shirts and hats.
    [...]
    One can only wonder whether this could be the way forward for the US. Let's say, for example, that Republicans get a yearly military parade with tanks and all the assorted bells and whistles and Democrats in return get universal health care.

    I have to say, though, as someone living in "socialist" Europe, the concept of not giving fresh parents time off with their children sounds completely alien to me.
    Last edited by Starker; 11th Dec 2019 at 14:11.

  14. #11964
    So that Boomer leftist talking about how "Trump is shredding the ConstitutioN!!!"

    He's finally done something that makes me somewhat agree:

    https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...3600537972736?



    TLDR (you need to follow up on the links) is that his executive order redefines any criticism of the state of Israel as "hate speech" and says that college campuses will be defunded unless they actively suppress such criticisms.



    Ever say anything positive about the Palestinian side of the conflict? Congratulations you're now a literal Nazi under this definition.


    One can only wonder whether this could be the way forward for the US. Let's say, for example, that Republicans get a yearly military parade with tanks and all the assorted bells and whistles and Democrats in return get universal health care.
    I'd be all for such a compromise, or at least a public option to prevent the cartel-like behavior we're seeing from the large-cap healthcare firms.

    That said the yearly parade with tanks wouldn't really help Republicans. That old Boomer segment that loved NeoCon policies is losing ground dramatically towards pacifist, isolationist, socially right-wing people like Fuentes. That is happening because they've realized that ideas like "spreading democracy" and "trickle down economics" are bullshit"

    I poke my head into some mostly Gen Z Discord groups from time to time. Make no mistake about it, most of the younger right wingers have political views roughly on par with Nicholas Fuentes. They want an end to all wars, disentanglement from the Middle East (including Israel), some form a restoration of mid 20th century morality legislation, a pause on all immigration, and for the financial system to be re-engineered to cut down Wall Street's control.

    Some of that's great. There's also an undercurrent of anti-semitism. Part of that's inflated because Israeli lobbysts really don't like suggestions that the US cut off foreign aid and limit their lobbying activities in the US (which are both very reasonable POLITICAL positions that a large number of ethnically jewish people agree with) and then you get people who actually are anti-semitic like the one guy who kept accusing me of "trying to stick up for the interests of your tribe" when I pointed out that communism wasn't really a jewish invention and came about more as a joint venture between German and Jewish elites in Europe (Marx was ethnically Jewish and his partner was German).
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 11th Dec 2019 at 11:17.

  15. #11965
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Jerry Nadler's opening speech at the start of the impeachment hearings this week was better than any I've read in quite a while. Too bad he doesn't have the delivery to match.

    https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachm...11a1382d1.html

    "No matter his party or his politics, if the President places his own interests above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office.

    "The President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary all have one important thing in common: we have each taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

    "If the President puts himself before the country, he violates a President’s most basic responsibility. He breaks his oath to the American people.

    "If he puts himself before the country in a manner that threatens our democracy, then our oath—our promise to the American people—requires us to come to the defense of the nation.

    "That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism, even when it might cost us our jobs as members of Congress.

    "And even if the President is unwilling to honor his oath, I am compelled to honor mine.

    "As we heard in our last hearing, the Framers of the Constitution were careful students of history and clear in their vision for our new nation.

    "They knew that threats to democracy can take many forms and that we must protect against them.

    "They warned us against the dangers of would-be monarchs, fake populists, and charismatic demagogues. They knew that the most dangerous threat to our country might come from within, in the form of a corrupt executive who put his private interests above the interests of the nation.

    "They also knew that they could not anticipate every threat a President might someday pose, so they adopted the phrase “treason, bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” to capture the full spectrum of possible Presidential misconduct.

    "George Mason, who proposed this standard, said that it was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the Constitution.

    "The debates around the Framing make clear that the most serious such offenses include abuse of power, betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements, and corruption of public office.

    "Any one of these violations of the public trust would compel the members of this Committee to take action.

    "When combined in a single course of conduct, they state the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office.

    "President Trump put himself before country.

    "Despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, I believe that there is common ground around some of these ideas—common ground in this hearing room, and common ground across the country at large.

    "We agree, for example, that impeachment is a solemn, serious undertaking.

    "We agree that it is meant to address serious threats to democratic institutions like our free and fair elections.

    "We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat.

    "We surely agree that no public official—including and especially the President of the United States—should use his public office for private gain.

    "And we agree that no President may put himself before the country. The Constitution and his oath of office—his promise to America’s citizens—require the President to put the country first.

    "If we could drop our blinders for just one moment, I think we would agree on a common set of facts as well.

    "On July 25, President Trump called President Zelensky of Ukraine and asked him for a favor.

    "That call was part of a concerted effort by President Trump to compel the government of Ukraine to announce an investigation—not an investigation of corruption writ large, but an investigation of President Trump’s political rivals, and only his political rivals.

    "President Trump put himself before country.

    "The record shows that President Trump withheld military aid, allocated by the United States Congress, from Ukraine. It also shows that he withheld a White House meeting from President Zelensky.

    "Multiple witnesses—including respected diplomats, national security professionals, and decorated war veterans—all testified to the same basic fact: President Trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order to pressure a foreign government to do him that favor.

    "President Trump put himself before country.

    "And when the President got caught—when Congress discovered that the aid had been withheld from Ukraine—the President took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal evidence from Congress and from the American people.

    "These facts are not in dispute. In fact, most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point.

    "As we review the evidence today, I expect we will hear much about the whistleblower who brought his concerns about the July 25 call to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

    "Let me be clear: every fact alleged by the whistleblower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses, again and again, each of whom has been questioned extensively by Democrats and Republicans alike. The allegations also match up with the President’s own words, as released by the White House—words that he still says were perfect.

    "I also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo—as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all.

    "The record on this point is also clear: multiple officials testified that the President’s demand for an investigation into his rivals was a part of his personal, political agenda, and not related to the foreign policy objectives of the United States.

    "Multiple officials testified that the President intended to withhold the aid until Ukraine announced the investigations.

    "And, yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the President’s personal, political benefit.

    "President Trump put himself before country.

    "The President’s supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair.

    "The record before us is clear on this point as well: we invited the President to participate in this hearing, to question witnesses, and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him. President Trump chose not to show.

    "He may not have much to say in his own defense, but he cannot claim that he did not have an opportunity to be heard.

    "Finally, as we proceed today, we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the House is addressing the President’s actions.

    "To the members of this Committee, to the members of the House, and to my fellow citizens, I want to be absolutely clear: the integrity of our next election is at stake. Nothing could be more urgent.

    "The President welcomed foreign interference in our elections in 2016. He demanded it for 2020. Then he got caught.

    "If you do not believe that he will do it again, let me remind you that the President’s personal lawyer spent last week back in Ukraine, meeting with government officials in an apparent attempt to gin up the same so-called “favors” that brought us here today and forced Congress to consider the impeachment of a sitting President.

    "This pattern of conduct represents a continuing risk to the country.

    "The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States, has put himself before his country.

    "He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath. I will honor mine. If you would honor yours, then I urge you to your duty.

    "Let us review the record here, in full view of the American people, and then let us move swiftly to defend our country. We promised that we would."

  16. #11966
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Thanks for that, Starker, I've not managed to listen to any of this hearing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I have to say, though, as someone living in "socialist" Europe, the concept of not giving fresh parents time off with their children sounds completely alien to me.
    That is painful. Reference this, item 3, which is Brits' view on how parental leave should be divided. That whole article rather restores my faith in my fellow countrypeople.

    I watched a short video the other day of the British guessing the cost of US healthcare. The concept of paying $40 for skin on skin contact with your new baby after a C-section feels criminal to me. That is a fundamental part of bonding which gives both a better start, and the US makes you pay for it.

    True cost of US healthcare shocks the British public.

    I did hear/read that the US doesn't give paid sick leave either. Is that true?

  17. #11967
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It's not a statutory requirement here, but most companies do offer paid sick leave.

  18. #11968
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night

  19. #11969
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by nickie View Post
    Thanks for that, Starker, I've not managed to listen to any of this hearing.

    That is painful. Reference this, item 3, which is Brits' view on how parental leave should be divided. That whole article rather restores my faith in my fellow countrypeople.

    I watched a short video the other day of the British guessing the cost of US healthcare. The concept of paying $40 for skin on skin contact with your new baby after a C-section feels criminal to me. That is a fundamental part of bonding which gives both a better start, and the US makes you pay for it.

    True cost of US healthcare shocks the British public.
    A lot of people in the US are finally getting shocked as well, now that they've been forced into high deductible plans, they are seeing the inflated and nonsense charges from opportunistic providers. It wasn't that long ago that most Americans were two levels removed from provider billing. The provider billed the insurance company, and they negotiated charges, and the insurance company billed the employer. The patient maybe had to maybe make a small co-payment for routine care, or a deductible if it was something bigger. But the patient was usually unaffected by whatever the provider wanted to charge, either because the insurance company and the provider had a pre-existing agreement, or the insurance company would negotiate the provider down.

    Now, with high deductible plans, the insurance company usually isn't going to bother negotiating charges on your behalf if the provider's bill is under your deductible. So now we have to do what we rarely used to, which is negotiate directly with our health care providers. Easier said than done. Most of us aren't used to negotiating itemized charges when we're in the middle of undergoing some care, and we're in a weak position to negotiate after the fact. The providers seem to have figured out that they can mostly get away with ridiculous charges when they're billing individuals, that they can't get away with when billing insurers.

    I did hear/read that the US doesn't give paid sick leave either. Is that true?
    I've worked for companies who:
    - Didn't give paid sick leave, you have to take sick days out of your paid time off
    - Did offer some number of paid sick days per year
    - Offered a number of paid sick days per year, and also let you roll over some unused sick days from year to year
    - Offered paid sick leave and didn't put any hard limit on the number of days

    Also, most companies also offer a free (or at least subsidized) short term disability plan. Some plans won't help you unless you're going to be out for at least a month. On the other hand, I know a friend who got on disability for just a couple weeks to get through a case of mono.

    Like everything else related to health care in the US, it's all over the map. That sure makes changing jobs a pain, since we're so wedded to concept of employer-provided health care over here.

  20. #11970
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Seems to me most companies moved to a unified Paid Time Off system that treated sick days and vacation days the same. 10-20 years ago? Now the big thing is "unlimited PTO" which IMO basically means "limited PTO in which we don't tell you what the limit is".

  21. #11971
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Someone took upon themselves to thoroughly take apart some outright lies in the Republican impeachment report. A few snippets:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/67658/s...n-impeachment/

    1. “Although the security assistance was paused in July, it is not unusual for U.S. foreign assistance to become delayed.” (Minority at 32)

    The minority report dismisses the hold on the security assistance to Ukraine as a routine quirk in the way government operates – “not unusual,” and nothing more than “a bureaucratic issue that would be resolved.” (Minority at 32)

    This is a lie. The hold was not routine – nothing like it had ever happened before. (e.g., Cooper at 98; Sandy at 88) The hold was not bureaucratic – it was ordered directly by President Trump himself. (e.g., Hale at 180) And the hold was not due to any sort of interagency conflict – because “the unanimous view of all the agencies [involved in Ukraine and apportionment policy] was that the hold should be lifted and the aid should flow to Ukraine.” (Williams at 115)

    In fact, witness testimony showed that, in the entirety of the U.S. government, there is exactly one person who is known to have been in favor of the hold on security assistance to Ukraine. And that is President Trump himself. Witnesses unanimously testified that the agencies were given no explanation for the hold (see Part II), or for the eventual decision to restore the aid.

    What’s perhaps most devastating to the Minority’s argument is that the White House actually exceeded the deadline for all of the security assistance to be spent—despite the Pentagon’s warning this would occur (Cooper). It took a new act of Congress to restore the full aid, which occurred in September.

    [...]

    2. “The President’s initial hesitation [ ] to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent.” (Minority at ii)

    The hold on the security assistance to Ukraine could have been neither “thoughtful” nor “prudent,” as the minority report alleges, because it was devoid of any policy purpose whatsoever. As the witnesses unanimously testified, in announcing the hold, President Trump made no attempt to explain what policy purpose it was intended to serve:

    [...]

    At the time the hold was announced, the only known person to have knowledge as to why the hold was being implement was, once again, President Trump himself. Not a single other government official was able to offer an explanation as to why he had done this.

    For weeks after the hold was announced, officials in the affected agencies sought an explanation for the hold, because without knowing why President Trump had done this, no one could figure out what needed to be done to change his mind. Efforts to persuade President Trump to reverse course were all failures. At one point, after Ambassador Bolton tried and failed to change President Trump’s mind during a one-on-one meeting to discuss the issue, the only explanation offered was that President Trump “was not yet ready” to release the assistance. (Morrison at 267-268.)

    Eventually, in the face of sustained questioning by both Cabinet Secretaries and members of Congress, the Trump administration would come to offer two explanations for why the hold had been placed: (1) that President Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and (2) that President Trump was concerned about Europe not contributing enough to Ukraine. Neither of these after-the-fact justifications for Trump’s actions find support in the record.
    [...]

  22. #11972
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I don't have headphones here and it looks like he's only saying one sentence or so. Is it possible for someone to just quote this for me?

  23. #11973
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    "Donald Trump is an enormous douche. Again, a lot of people agree with that."

  24. #11974
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Thanks, that's something I can look up. He's quoting a transcription to make the argument that the Inspector General should be disqualified for bias for having that opinion. It's an interesting paradox, that argument. It seems many of the people most horrified of Trump's behavior are his own staff that are trying to work around him to protect the country's interests. So when they or officials have opinions like that, it's not really bias in the classic sense. I think they legitimately believe he's not mentally fit and what are they supposed to do? Lie and say there's nothing wrong with this man?

    Just on its own zing merits, it's a legit funny thing to get Graham on camera saying (even if it is out of context).

Page 479 of 479 FirstFirst ... 229379429434439444449454459464469474475476477478479

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •