Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

11 Jun 2018 20:27

SEATTLE (AP) — Seattle city leaders say they'll work to repeal a tax passed just last month on businesses such as Amazon and Starbucks designed to help pay for homeless services and affordable housing.

Amazon and other businesses had sharply criticized the levy, and the online retail giant even temporarily halted construction planning on a new high-rise building near its Seattle headquarters in protest.

Mayor Jenny Durkan and seven of the nine City Councilmembers said in a statement Monday that an expected November referendum challenge to the tax would be "a prolonged, expensive political fight" and that the council will this week consider legislation to rescind the tax.

The City Council unanimously passed a plan in May that taxed businesses making at least $20 million in gross revenues about $275 per full-time worker each year. It would have raised roughly $48 million a year for housing and homeless services.


Well, well, well.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,982
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

11 Jun 2018 21:39

Scott SoCal wrote:
Your lack of curiosity is disappointing. Dig in to it a little. I urge you to start here;

https://youtu.be/KrGKfollEd0


You seem to be the one who isn’t doing any digging. The title of that video is Direct Primary Care. I’m all for approaches that can reduce costs, but my original point stands: primary care is basically a drop in the bucket, comprising maybe 10-15% of all health care costs:

https://www.milbank.org/2017/07/getting-primary-care-oriented-measuring-primary-care-spending/

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/CSI-PCPCH/Documents/SB-231-Report-2018-FINAL.PDF

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1709538

Most health care costs are for the middle-aged or elderly: about 80% for those > 40, and 50% for those over 65:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

People age 65 or older pay on average 4 times as much per year for health care than those age 40. People age 80 or older pay 6.5 times as much. Most of these costs are not for primary care, e.g., about 45% just for hospital or other institution stays. Worse, about half of all health care costs go to just 5% of all patients, who have serious diseases:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/fixing-the-5-percent/532077/

I’m familiar with this because I've spent a lot of money to help people in their 30s or 40s whose health care costs are literally dozens of times more than my own, though I’m well into old age. These are people who literally would have died without my help, because without health insurance there is no way they could pay for the very expensive treatment needed.

Never said it had any effect on my health. I said it was garbage and it is.


If ACA has not had any adverse effect on you and it has helped tens of millions of others, how can you say it’s garbage? If it has a positive effect for some, and no effect on others, why is that such a bad thing?

ACA is a mandatory, one size fits all, comprehensive insurance policy. An insurance policy is not health care. Average family of four paying $1200 a month for their Silver plan before subsidy and with a max out of pocket of $12,000 per year. That's not healthcare. That's garbage.


I only wish the people I’ve helped had to pay a maximum of $12,000 per year.

Not old enough and I'm not bashing it... but realize - in FY 2019 - it's cost is more than $1 Trillion.


I believe it costs less than $700 billion:

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html

Whatever, we live in an aging population, and as I noted above, as people age, health care costs become very expensive, e.g., about $10,000 per year for those over 65. Those expenses are not going to be cut much by changes in primary care. Maybe medical advances will help, but usually it goes in the other direction—new advances make it possible to treat previously untreatable conditions, which both increases the cost of the elderly as well as increases their numbers. This is the biggest problem confronting the health care system, and short of instituting those famous death panels, I don’t see how these people can be helped without massive amounts of money that someone has to pay.

You don't like ACA, because it raises the cost of insurance for the young to what you consider garbage levels. Fine, but then you have to propose some other way to pay those bills. Reducing the cost of primary care is not a major solution. Neither is another approach commonly proposed by conservatives, opening up markets across state lines. These may nibble at the edges--increasing primary care may also help reduce the incidence or severity of some serious illnesses--but they don't address the elephant in the room.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,608
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

11 Jun 2018 22:15

Merckx index wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Your lack of curiosity is disappointing. Dig in to it a little. I urge you to start here;

https://youtu.be/KrGKfollEd0


You seem to be the one who isn’t doing any digging. The title of that video is Direct Primary Care. I’m all for approaches that can reduce costs, but my original point stands: primary care is basically a drop in the bucket, comprising maybe 10-15% of all health care costs:

https://www.milbank.org/2017/07/getting-primary-care-oriented-measuring-primary-care-spending/

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/CSI-PCPCH/Documents/SB-231-Report-2018-FINAL.PDF

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1709538

Most health care costs are for the middle-aged or elderly: about 80% for those > 40, and 50% for those over 65:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

People age 65 or older pay on average 4 times as much per year for health care than those age 40. People age 80 or older pay 6.5 times as much. Most of these costs are not for primary care, e.g., about 45% just for hospital or other institution stays. Worse, about half of all health care costs go to just 5% of all patients, who have serious diseases:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/fixing-the-5-percent/532077/

I’m familiar with this because I've spent a lot of money to help people in their 30s or 40s whose health care costs are literally dozens of times more than my own, though I’m well into old age. These are people who literally would have died without my help, because without health insurance there is no way they could pay for the very expensive treatment needed.

Never said it had any effect on my health. I said it was garbage and it is.


If ACA has not had any adverse effect on you and it has helped tens of millions of others, how can you say it’s garbage? If it has a positive effect for some, and no effect on others, why is that such a bad thing?

ACA is a mandatory, one size fits all, comprehensive insurance policy. An insurance policy is not health care. Average family of four paying $1200 a month for their Silver plan before subsidy and with a max out of pocket of $12,000 per year. That's not healthcare. That's garbage.


I only wish the people I’ve helped had to pay a maximum of $12,000 per year.

Not old enough and I'm not bashing it... but realize - in FY 2019 - it's cost is more than $1 Trillion.


We live in an aging population, and as I noted above, as people age, health care costs become very expensive, e.g., about $10,000 per year for those over 65. Those expenses are not going to be cut much by changes in primary care. Maybe medical advances will help, but usually it goes in the other direction—new advances make it possible to treat previously untreatable conditions, which both increases the cost of the elderly as well as increases their numbers. This is the biggest problem confronting the health care system, and short of instituting those famous death panels, I don’t see how these people can be helped without massive amounts of money that someone has to pay.

You don't like ACA, because it raises the cost of insurance for the young to what you consider garbage levels. Fine, but then you have to propose some other way to pay those bills. Reducing the cost of primary care is not a major solution. I'm all for it, and it may have a significant effect in preventing or alleviating some of the really serious conditions, but it will take far more than that.


You seem to be the one who isn’t doing any digging.


The concept is to provide Umbehr's style of direct care with very tailored health insurance for catastrophic health conditions.

There's no reason direct care couldn't replace Medi B & D.

Yes, end of life care is where all the cost is. Having the young pay for it doesn't make ACA a better deal.

People age 65 or older pay on average 4 times as much per year for health care than those age 40. People age 80 or older pay 6.5 times as much. Most of these costs are not for primary care, e.g., about 45% just for hospital or other institution stays. Worse, about half of all health care costs go to just 5% of all patients, who have serious diseases:


I'm not disputing any of this.

I’m familiar with this because I've spent a lot of money to help people in their 30s or 40s whose health care costs are literally dozens of times more than my own, though I’m well into old age. These are people who literally would have died without my help, because without health insurance there is no way they could pay for the very expensive treatment needed.


Umbehr's simple analogy is to have auto insurance pay for the accident, not the oil change. Right now health insurance pays for tires, brakes, maintenance and gasoline. It's a stupid approach.

If ACA has not had any adverse effect on you and it has helped tens of millions of others, how can you say it’s garbage? If it has a positive effect for some, and no effect on others, why is that such a bad thing?


About the only group that's truly been helped by ACA is those who would have been underwritten out. That's the part of the law that’s been helpful.... even though it’s also part of the problem with skyrocketing premiums. It could have been done a more effective way, but I'll concede, this is a positive.

Beyond that, health insurance has been available. If ACA has helped tens of millions then please explain how? By forcing them to buy health insurance they otherwise would have chosen not to? Better coverage? What?

I only wish the people I’ve helped had to pay a maximum of $12,000 per year.


You are talking in terms of catastrophic occurrences. Yes, that's a low bar.

Non-catastrophic occurrences happen far more frequently and $12,000 is a large max out of pocket.... combined with the premium and it's $20,000 a year for a heath insurance policy for families beyond the subsidy threshold. Some deal.

Those expenses are not going to be cut much by changes in primary care. Maybe medical advances will help, but usually it goes in the other direction—new advances make it possible to treat previously untreatable conditions, which both increases the cost of the elderly as well as increases their numbers. This is the biggest problem confronting the health care system, and short of instituting those famous death panels, I don’t see how these people can be helped without massive amounts of money that someone has to pay.


I think direct care can help brig costs down dramatically. Just look at how the drug costs are lowered 300 - 400% in some cases.

You don't like ACA, because it raises the cost of insurance for the young to what you consider garbage levels. Fine, but then you have to propose some other way to pay those bills. Reducing the cost of primary care is not a major solution. I'm all for it, and it may have a significant effect in preventing or alleviating some of the really serious conditions, but it will take far more than that.


First off, insurance is funding of care mechanism. It needs to be there but only - only - for the big stuff. I don't like ACA because it it spreads all sorts of risk among people that shouldn't be paying for it. Old to young is only one part. I don't need maternity care. I'm a dude and will never be pregnant. I don't like ACA because it didn't fix (clearly) what's wrong (really wrong) with our system and for the benefits provided it had a chilling economic effect (40 employees at 30 hours versus 30 employees at 40 hours as one example).
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,982
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 02:02

Scott SoCal wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Why not both?


Sure. Why not Medicare from the time anyone is born until they die... can you think of a reason not to?


No
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,793
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

12 Jun 2018 03:13

Scott is right about most of this stuff..just like the congressman who questioned why a man should be paying for obgyn visits for a woman? Why pool different groups when you can have a young group get one rate..
If your young and have any health issue you are excluded.. women are in another group because they need an expensive smeer..middle age.. Hold on..old and healthy you can have insurance.. But unhealthy


Sorry it's a market system.. You will have to die..sorry basic economic theory
Unchained
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Sep 2016 00:24

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 03:24

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Why not both?


Sure. Why not Medicare from the time anyone is born until they die... can you think of a reason not to?


No


Ya, what the cost to print a few trillion? Probably not that much.

Full steam ahead.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,982
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re:

12 Jun 2018 03:28

Unchained wrote:Scott is right about most of this stuff..just like the congressman who questioned why a man should be paying for obgyn visits for a woman? Why pool different groups when you can have a young group get one rate..
If your young and have any health issue you are excluded.. women are in another group because they need an expensive smeer..middle age.. Hold on..old and healthy you can have insurance.. But unhealthy


Sorry it's a market system.. You will have to die..sorry basic economic theory


Passive aggressive is lame. Sorry. Just say what you mean. I can take it.

If, as a society, we deem it appropriate to subsidize maternity then do it via tax law. If we deem it appropriate to provide care for those who can’t be underwritten (which I favor) then do it via tax law.

Don’t go super regressive and make 25 year olds pay for it. That is all.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,982
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 03:54

Scott SoCal wrote:


The concept is to provide Umbehr's style of direct care with very tailored health insurance for catastrophic health conditions.

There's no reason direct care couldn't replace Medi B & D.

Yes, end of life care is where all the cost is. Having the young pay for it doesn't make ACA a better deal.


We'll see about drug prices, part D. Trump wants companies to reduce them voluntarily, rather than having Medicare negotiate prices. That doesn't sound to me that it's going to lower prices much, but it's too soon to tell.

Umbehr's simple analogy is to have auto insurance pay for the accident, not the oil change. Right now health insurance pays for tires, brakes, maintenance and gasoline. It's a stupid approach.


It may be stupid, but it's not actually that expensive. He emphasized in the video that it was easy to get rid of these costs because they're just "nickling and diming" the consumer. Nickles and dimes aren't the problem. There probably would be a substantial reduction in costs for relatively healthy people, who only need or mostly need just primary care, but again, the problem of paying for people with serious illnesses and the elderly in general remains.

Beyond that, health insurance has been available. If ACA has helped tens of millions then please explain how? By forcing them to buy health insurance they otherwise would have chosen not to? Better coverage? What?


How many would have chosen not to? Some, yes, but of those who are still uninsured, only 2% cite as the reason for this that they don't need insurance:

https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/

I think direct care can help brig costs down dramatically. Just look at how the drug costs are lowered 300 - 400% in some cases.


Not in most cases. I certainly encourage any approach that lowers drug prices, but the reality is that the pharmaceutical industry is going to resist this tooth and nail.

I don't like ACA because it didn't fix (clearly) what's wrong (really wrong) with our system and for the benefits provided it had a chilling economic effect (40 employees at 30 hours versus 30 employees at 40 hours as one example).


The economy has grown steadily since the ACA was passed. I'm not saying that's cause and effect, but obviously it didn't have such a chilling effect.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,608
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 04:07

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Why not both?


Sure. Why not Medicare from the time anyone is born until they die... can you think of a reason not to?


No


Ya, what the cost to print a few trillion? Probably not that much.

Full steam ahead.


If it weren't for the absolute fact that countless industrialized nations pull it off, you'd have a point...but poor people deserve to die because they're poor, so 'Merica!
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,793
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

12 Jun 2018 05:59

I bet Stormy Daniels had a similar reaction to what the world's reaction will be to Trump's North Korea "historic" document...He did say that he learned that Jong-un was "very talented." I wonder if he's talking about the same talents Stormy has?

Wanna' bet that what he just signed was as empty and symbolic as his wedding vows.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,793
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re:

12 Jun 2018 08:16

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:the world's reaction will be to Trump's North Korea "historic" document....

they ended the face-to-face talks an hour ago and trump will be giving a presser in an hour...

you are correct, the 'world' reaction is wow, particularly in the west since only outward and superficial signs are concerning the talking heads.

in reality, if i can summarize the chinese cgtn comments - the only outlet i found paying any attention to the substance as opposed to how many minutes they shook hands - trump achieved NOTHING. the document they signed did not contain the words pompeo boasted about. no denuclearization of north korea ONLY, but the korean peninsula. no unilateral declarations about 'complete and verifiable' etc

i am glad that you are one of not that many americans who are still paying attention to substance.

btw, virtually NO western source i read mentioned that kim flew to singapore from............china on a chinese plane with a security provided by china. guess where kim was briefed before impressing trump ?
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,750
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 10:30

python wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:the world's reaction will be to Trump's North Korea "historic" document....

they ended the face-to-face talks an hour ago and trump will be giving a presser in an hour...

you are correct, the 'world' reaction is wow, particularly in the west since only outward and superficial signs are concerning the talking heads.

in reality, if i can summarize the chinese cgtn comments - the only outlet i found paying any attention to the substance as opposed to how many minutes they shook hands - trump achieved NOTHING. the document they signed did not contain the words pompeo boasted about. no denuclearization of north korea ONLY, but the korean peninsula. no unilateral declarations about 'complete and verifiable' etc

i am glad that you are one of not that many americans who are still paying attention to substance.

btw, virtually NO western source i read mentioned that kim flew to singapore from............china on a chinese plane with a security provided by china. guess where kim was briefed before impressing trump ?


I live in the region. Interesting how the Chinese play their cards. Xi be weavin a long game plan. Will.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:36

Alpe73 wrote:
python wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:the world's reaction will be to Trump's North Korea "historic" document....

they ended the face-to-face talks an hour ago and trump will be giving a presser in an hour...

you are correct, the 'world' reaction is wow, particularly in the west since only outward and superficial signs are concerning the talking heads.

in reality, if i can summarize the chinese cgtn comments - the only outlet i found paying any attention to the substance as opposed to how many minutes they shook hands - trump achieved NOTHING. the document they signed did not contain the words pompeo boasted about. no denuclearization of north korea ONLY, but the korean peninsula. no unilateral declarations about 'complete and verifiable' etc

i am glad that you are one of not that many americans who are still paying attention to substance.

btw, virtually NO western source i read mentioned that kim flew to singapore from............china on a chinese plane with a security provided by china. guess where kim was briefed before impressing trump ?


I live in the region. Interesting how the Chinese play their cards. Xi be weavin a long game plan. Will.

agreed. dont know if you are an american living abroad, but it seems your perspective is more incisive than the one i encounter from my american friends...i had posted in the world politics that imo it is not just a consultative role but a direct proxy that china plays. and they do it their own wise, patient and discrete way.

the bombastic trump is such an amateur by comparison !
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,750
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: U.S. Politics

12 Jun 2018 11:49

donnie,
Trump vows to 'end war games'

Once again("we'll be getting out of Syria soon"), donnie shoots his mouth off w/o talking to his own DoD or South Korea. Also said, 'we'll be bringing our troops home', from South Korea..maybe he ought to talk to the people that understand things like the savings when using forward deployment. trump certainly doesn't understand it.

vlad is very happy..I wonder what vlad has on donnie..otherwise donnie is just being a patsy or a dumm-ass..probably both.
For a specter is haunting Europe—the specter of populist nationalism. Ideologically indeterminate, it manifests across the Continent in the form of France’s right-wing National Front, the post-communist German Left party and the Italian Five Star Movement, which defies any traditional political label. While these parties, and the intellectual currents to which they give voice, may not align on everything, they are invariably anti-establishment, opposed to the European Union, and hostile to America. They are also all supported—either materially or through other, less tangible instruments—by Russia.


donnie's little tantrum with the G6 is a great example.

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-plot-against-the-west-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-europe/
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,678
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:52

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Why not both?


Sure. Why not Medicare from the time anyone is born until they die... can you think of a reason not to?


No


Ya, what the cost to print a few trillion? Probably not that much.

Full steam ahead.

Nice sound bite, the trumpistas and insurance wonks are very proud BUT
How much would all this cost? Nearly $1.4 trillion a year.
To pay for it
, all Americans and employers would see a tax hike. Sanders called for a new 2.2% income tax on all Americans and a 6.2% levy on employers. He would also increase taxes on the wealthy.

But, he argues, people would save money since they would no longer have to pay monthly premiums or deductibles. A family of four earning $50,000 would save more than $5,800 each year.

"As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card," his campaign proposal said.

Businesses, meanwhile, would save more than $9,400 annually since they would no longer have to pick up their share of workers' health insurance premiums.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,678
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 11:57

Alpe73 wrote:
python wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:the world's reaction will be to Trump's North Korea "historic" document....

they ended the face-to-face talks an hour ago and trump will be giving a presser in an hour...

you are correct, the 'world' reaction is wow, particularly in the west since only outward and superficial signs are concerning the talking heads.

in reality, if i can summarize the chinese cgtn comments - the only outlet i found paying any attention to the substance as opposed to how many minutes they shook hands - trump achieved NOTHING. the document they signed did not contain the words pompeo boasted about. no denuclearization of north korea ONLY, but the korean peninsula. no unilateral declarations about 'complete and verifiable' etc

i am glad that you are one of not that many americans who are still paying attention to substance.

btw, virtually NO western source i read mentioned that kim flew to singapore from............china on a chinese plane with a security provided by china. [b]guess where kim was briefed before impressing trump ?[/b]


I live in the region. Interesting how the Chinese play their cards. Xi be weavin a long game plan. Will.


Of course. In spite of what scott said about China 'abandoning NK', China is calling NK's shots and China has trump the dummy right where they want him..'the troops will be coming home'..gee, ya think China likes the idea that US troops will be leaving China's doorstep? trump needs to see some cartoons about the $ and time savings of forward deployment.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,678
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:12

Bustedknuckle wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Why not both?


Sure. Why not Medicare from the time anyone is born until they die... can you think of a reason not to?


No


Ya, what the cost to print a few trillion? Probably not that much.

Full steam ahead.

Nice sound bite, the trumpistas and insurance wonks are very proud BUT
How much would all this cost? Nearly $1.4 trillion a year.
To pay for it
, all Americans and employers would see a tax hike. Sanders called for a new 2.2% income tax on all Americans and a 6.2% levy on employers. He would also increase taxes on the wealthy.

But, he argues, people would save money since they would no longer have to pay monthly premiums or deductibles. A family of four earning $50,000 would save more than $5,800 each year.

"As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card," his campaign proposal said.

Businesses, meanwhile, would save more than $9,400 annually since they would no longer have to pick up their share of workers' health insurance premiums.


All Americans will see a tax hike? How monumentally unfair to the millions paying nothing now.

My guess is the Bernie plan, or some version of it, happens. My guess, too, is it will become a monsterous entitlement that will be exceptionally clumsy and inefficient. Whatever the cost is thought to be, $1.4 Trillion, won’t be even close. What’s the famous excuse for every government plan not working the way it should? That’s right, not enough money.

There’s a better way. But we won’t go that direction because it makes too much sense and doesn’t provide even more social engineering power to DC bureaucrats.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,982
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:20

Beech Mtn wrote:@Busted,

I predict that somewhere along the way (maybe not even too far off), you're going to end up liking Trump on some level. It looks like there a lot of things going down (domestically and internationally) that aren't being reported in the same old corporate sources.

Not trolling you, either. Really think you're going to change your tune one day. Could be wrong, but that's my prediction.


As long as trump continues to demonstrate stupidity, boorishness, rudeness, ignorance, arrogance, sexism and racism, I will dislike him a LOT. Words matter, being polite and statesmanlike does NOT equal weakness. I've said many times before, we all want good economy, security, a rear fix to immigration, etc..things that we all agree on but trump should just STFU and stop being such a pri&k. His clown car act at the G6 is a perfect example. I am really tired of this 'trump being trump' BS. We are a laughing stock of most places in the world. The guy doesn't have to be an arsewhole surrounded by hingenecks and other arsewholes. guilianai comes to mind, pruitt, sessions, huckabee, the idiots at faux news, donnie's propaganda machine.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,678
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:24

Scott SoCal wrote:
Unchained wrote:I guess you gotta ask.. Trump took some self imposed abbreviated version of the agreed schedule at G7... so with the shorter time frame he decided to go off script and ask if Putin could be part of the next pick up game?
You gotta wonder is Trump getting paid to rep for Russia? Or is he doing it with my tax money because he would think I would give him an approving fist pump for pushing for Vlad's re entry?


You gotta wonder is Trump getting paid to rep for Russia?


Yea, that’s probably it.


Might be closer to the truth than scott believes
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-plot-against-the-west-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-europe/
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,678
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2018 12:25

Bustedknuckle wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:
python wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:the world's reaction will be to Trump's North Korea "historic" document....

they ended the face-to-face talks an hour ago and trump will be giving a presser in an hour...

you are correct, the 'world' reaction is wow, particularly in the west since only outward and superficial signs are concerning the talking heads.

in reality, if i can summarize the chinese cgtn comments - the only outlet i found paying any attention to the substance as opposed to how many minutes they shook hands - trump achieved NOTHING. the document they signed did not contain the words pompeo boasted about. no denuclearization of north korea ONLY, but the korean peninsula. no unilateral declarations about 'complete and verifiable' etc

i am glad that you are one of not that many americans who are still paying attention to substance.

btw, virtually NO western source i read mentioned that kim flew to singapore from............china on a chinese plane with a security provided by china. [b]guess where kim was briefed before impressing trump ?[/b]


I live in the region. Interesting how the Chinese play their cards. Xi be weavin a long game plan. Will.


Of course. In spite of what scott said about China 'abandoning NK', China is calling NK's shots and China has trump the dummy right where they want him..'the troops will be coming home'..gee, ya think China likes the idea that US troops will be leaving China's doorstep? trump needs to see some cartoons about the $ and time savings of forward deployment.


I think even Xi was freaked when Kim was lobbing missiles over Japan. Xi realizes a tactical nuke exchange is bad for business and got on board with the enforcing sanctions.

Xi has China in a pretty good position. What’s going to F up their forward momentum? Yep, you guessed it. Xi realizes a big China gain with NK in the world community... my guess anyways.

And to those who thought this meeting was anything other than a jumping off point... be as critical as you like. Personally I like this posture a bit more than a couple of test ICBM’s a month. I’m not convinced anybody is expecting a miracle and this is a place to start. It could all crumble and that’s probably up to Xi.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,982
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Back to top