ChrisWeigant.com

Counting The Votes

[ Posted Tuesday, March 21st, 2017 – 17:08 UTC ]

What are the chances that the Ryancare bill will pass Congress? We are now two days from its first test, and the answer is as unclear as ever. Whatever happens is going to take the measure of the relative political strength of Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. If the Tea Partiers win this struggle, it could doom any chances for actual governance from the Republican Congress for the next few years. If the Tea Partiers lose, there may be a frenzy of primary challenges for sitting Republicans in Congress in 2018. Either way, the next two days could be definitive.

Personally, I have no strong prediction for what's going to happen. There are so many ways it could go, and it's hard to assess each for relative probability. Beyond the Thursday vote (if it even happens, that is), the chances Ryancare will make it all the way to Donald Trump's desk are even harder to figure, at this point. But first, let's take a look at what's going on in the House Republican caucus.

Thursday is an important day for Republicans, because of the symbolism in passing Ryancare on the same day that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, back in 2010. Killing Obamacare on the same calendar day is somehow important to Paul Ryan. Perhaps he's just using this as a goad to accelerate the normal legislative schedule, since he's been trying to hustle this bill through the House as fast as he can. He figures (quite correctly) that the more the public has a chance to understand what Ryancare would mean, the less chance it'll pass, to put it another way.

Ryan's problem is that there are two distinct groups of Republicans who oppose his pet bill. The first are the ones that actually can see what the impact of Ryancare would be on their own constituents, and are afraid that the resulting political backlash could lose them their House seats. They're pressuring Ryan to dial back the bits of the bill Draco himself would have approved of, in the hopes of lessening this anticipated political backlash. Ryan is reportedly trying to shoehorn in a budgetary asterisk to gain these votes, by adding back 80-plus billion dollars to further help older Americans afford health insurance. But he's not saying how this money will be spent (hence the asterisk), he's just instructing the Senate to do something with the money, that's all (Ryan is a big fan of budgetary trickery such as this, when it comes to removing his own fingerprints from pieces of the budget that just don't add up).

Then there's the Tea Party faction, for whom Ryancare is nowhere near Draconian enough. They have reportedly convinced Ryan to add in allowing states to force Medicaid recipients to prove they're working. This seems to me to be the literal definition of "adding insult to injury," but that's no problem for the Tea Partiers, of course. But what they're really upset about is the fact that Ryancare gives anybody any help at all to buy health insurance. They are of the Horatio Alger school, where every good American is supposed to pull him- or herself up by the bootstraps and create their own rags-to-riches story. Anyone failing to meet this grade obviously just isn't trying hard enough -- and thus deserves no help whatsoever from society at large. Their philosophy can be summed up as: "If you're poor, it's your own fault." Don't have enough to buy health insurance on the open market? Tough beans, pal! Please have the decency to crawl off into the woods before you die, so your bodies won't litter the streets for the rest of us.

These two groups are diametrically opposed, which is what makes Ryan's job so tough (and what keeps John Boehner laughing on the sidelines). Any movement towards one group is necessarily a movement away from the other. But what is their relative strength, comparatively? That is precisely what we're all about to find out.

The moderates might be more persuadable. They also appear less cohesive (the Tea Partiers have the "Freedom Caucus" which serves as a bond the other side doesn't appear to have). Both Ryan and Trump have been making a large push to get their votes, it must be admitted. So far, Ryan seems to be less effective than Nancy Pelosi was at corralling her caucus, but Trump -- even at this very early stage -- seems to be a whole lot more effective than Barack Obama ever was at this sort of thing. Obama had a very hands-off approach to shepherding legislation through Congress, and his agenda suffered for it. Trump is already showing that he's going to take a much more active role.

However, the sales job Ryan and Trump are attempting is different for each. Trump is making a purely political argument to House Republicans. Ryan's the one who has to hammer out the details. Trump is invested in the bill's success for his own political reasons, but he has shown little (if any) interest in what is actually in the bill. He doesn't seem to care that Ryancare will break just about every campaign promise on healthcare that Trump ever made, in other words, because passage of any bill that can be called "the repeal and replacement of Obamacare" is all he really wants. He's making the political argument (in no uncertain terms) that if Ryancare passes, Republicans can then run on "we killed Obamacare" and get re-elected. If Ryancare fails to pass, then Republican voters are going to feel betrayed by House Republicans who have been promising to kill Obamacare for years, now. Trump has used language like "a bloodbath" to describe the electoral consequences of not passing Ryancare. Trump, however, does not make any argument which addresses either group's real concerns -- the moderates aren't afraid of voters kicking them out because they failed to pass Ryancare, they're afraid the voters will kick them out because Ryancare would be so harsh. The Tea Partiers aren't afraid of voters kicking them out because they failed to pass Ryancare, they're arguing that all the Republicans who vote for Ryancare will be the ones who will be facing very angry GOP voters, because Ryancare is not actually a full repeal of Obamacare. Trump's argument is more generic -- if House Republicans can't make good on their promise to kill Obamacare, they'll get voted out, period.

Ryan, on the other hand, is much more personally tied to the details of the bill. It's his baby, in other words, which is why I still call it Ryancare (rather than "Trumpcare," as some Democrats are already using). Ryan's always been a hardcore ideologue, and ideologues care about legislative purity. For instance, in Ryancare people get tax credits to help pay for health insurance. Under Obamacare, people get subsidies that are paid directly to the insurance company. For some unfathomable reason, conservatives love tax credits but hate subsidies. Both are money flowing out from the federal government, but conservatives want that money to arrive after the tax year is over, when people fill out their income tax forms. I have no idea why subsidies are frowned upon by rightwingers, since they are obviously a more efficient way of getting the money where it is supposed to go, but there it is.

So while Ryan is making a similar political argument about Ryancare to what Trump's saying, he has to go beyond just "pass this bill or you're not going to be here in two years." On one side, he has to defend against the charge that this is "Obamacare Lite" and on the other side he's got to convince moderates that the effects of his bill are somehow not going to mean older voters will be paying thousands of dollars more each year to get health insurance. Ryan's always had a problem when it comes time to add the numbers up on any of his ideological plans, in fact -- this is just the latest example, really.

This all sets up the next few days of horsetrading. Although few have noticed it, a "Knickerbocker Kickback" has already been added to the bill, to specifically sweeten things for Republicans who represent upstate New York. Sooner or later the other 49 states are going to figure this out and shame the leadership into removing it (much like the original Cornhusker Kickback on the Democratic side, during the Obamacare debates). Ryan didn't want to do this sort of thing -- he much preferred forcing the House to vote on his original plan, unamended, but that soon became impossible. He's tossed the work requirement into the mix as well as the extra money for seniors to lessen the impact of how much more they'll have to pay under Ryancare than they are currently paying under Obamacare. This backroom dealing is going to hit a fever pitch in the next 48 hours.

Will it be enough? That's hard to say. If Ryan can't convince 216 Republicans to vote for his bill, then he very likely won't even bring it up for a vote on Thursday. Slipping this schedule is going to be a big defeat for Ryan, even if he eventually does manage to get his bill passed by the House. He really set himself up for this one by picking the symbolic date, because his opponents know how badly he wants it passed on Thursday, so they'll likely hold out until the very last minute, while Ryan gets increasingly more desperate to gain their votes.

It's also worth noting that the date Ryan is shooting for pretty much guarantees two things. First, whatever bill will be voted on will not have the required 72 hours of public viewing before the vote. This used to be a favorite political bludgeon for Republicans to use against Democrats, and they're about to be hoisted on their own petard. Second, if Ryan continues to make last-minute deals, the Congressional Budget Office is simply not going to have the time to "score" the resulting bill. So Ryan is going to force the House to vote on a bill without any estimates of cost or coverage. Nobody will know the effects of his amended bill until after the House vote. Democrats are surely going to be pointing this out to the public at large.

As of this writing, there are several amateur whip counts out there which show that Ryancare doesn't currently have enough Republican support to pass. Twenty-one defections is all it will take to kill the bill (since no Democrat in their right mind is going to vote for this legislative abomination). But those numbers shift constantly, so who knows where they'll be on Thursday? While it's easy enough for a Tea Partier to proudly claim that voting against Ryancare is staying true to their principles (because it isn't a clean repeal of Obamacare), they also know that if they do vote against it they're going to be calling down the wrath of not just the Republican Party apparatus, but of Donald Trump himself -- who will be loudly telling the Tea Partier's constituents: "We could have killed Obamacare, but this guy you elected prevented us from doing so!" That's got to strike at least a little bit of fear into the hearts of even the staunchest Tea Partier, one would assume.

Will Ryancare be passed by the House on Thursday? I have no real idea. Will it pass but miss the Thursday symbolic date? Again, it's hard to tell. Even if it does, it faces three more big hurdles before it arrives on Trump's desk. The Senate has to pass their version, and they've got a much smaller margin of error to do so (only three GOP senators have to bail to kill it). Then a conference committee has to hash out the differences between the two versions -- which may not be politically possible for either the House or the Senate. Then the compromise bill has to pass both chambers in identical form. So even if Ryancare does make it out of the House, there's no guarantee it'll make it all the way to Trump's desk. Far from it.

Both Trump and Ryan have a lot to lose, that's about the only thing you can say for certain. If Ryancare passes the House on time (or even a few weeks late), it will bolster the political capital of both Trump and Ryan. This is the first major legislation that has appeared since Trump took office, after all. It's the first big piece of his agenda. Which means if it fails to pass the House -- either becoming so bogged down that it never even makes it to the floor for a vote, or (even worse, politically) if it does come to the floor and then gets defeated -- then Trump and Ryan are both going to pay a heavy political price. Trump has always seen himself as a dealmaker, so if he can't personally close this deal even people who voted for him are going to begin to doubt all of his legendary dealmaking bluster. Trump, however, will take precisely zero of the blame for the failure, heaping it all instead on the Republicans who voted against it and Paul Ryan himself. Ryan's got more to lose politically than Trump, that's for sure. Not only is the bill his baby, but failure to pass it means he will prove himself incapable of herding the Republican cats, once again. Since that's supposed to be his job as Speaker Ryan, he's going to have a much harder time trying to get any legislation (such as the budget bills) passed, later in the year. Which is why the next two days are going to be so definitional for both Trump's legacy and for the Republican Congress. If the bill passes, then both Trump and Ryan will move on to the next agenda item. But if it fails, there's going to be so much bickering and bad blood among House Republicans that getting much of anything done may be close to impossible for the remainder of the year. Which is why everyone in Washington will be obsessing over counting up the votes for the next two days. No matter what happens on Thursday, it is going to have consequences.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

89 Comments on “Counting The Votes”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    I would like to be wrong, but my prediction is the bill will pass the House on party lines.

    It will pass because Republicans are, more than anything else, cowards and liars. They will be afraid of everyone -- their constituents, Trump, each other. But Trump is doing his dominance-politics schtick, and Repubs (especially male) secretly long to be whipped into line :-)

    I despise Tea Partiers but will have more grudging respect for them if they hold out rather than cave. The rest will cave. They've caved over and over already, so what's one more cave? They'll figure they can just lie about it and blame the Dems or Obama or anybody but their weaselly little selves and some of them will be right. They can avoid their constituents anyway; 2018 is a long way away, yada. yada, yada.

    If the Tea Partiers cave, well, so much for their "toughness". That WILL be telling. That will mean the GOP agenda will have an easier time being shoveled through. It will also mean the GOP will own all of it.

    The public WILL respond and it won't be pretty but I think it's inevitable. There is no way the country will get out of this mess with the help of Republicans, unless they are forced, kicking and screaming, into decency. That will happen, I think, only if the press keeps after Trump's cons and crimes and continues to dish up the evidence to the point it can no longer be ignored or explained away. That can happen. And is far more likely to happen than any Republican "doing the right thing" because it is right.

    I would like to be wrong on this. If some Republicans who have had Town Halls and have heard from constituents, actually listen that would be terrific. That would be huge.

    If Tea Partiers balk just because they hate Ryan, that would be less meaningful but handy nonetheless. Or because the don't think the bill is Draconian enough. That would mean they are still swine but useful swine in this case.

    But up until now Repubs have ALWAYS caved. So if they don't, that will be huge too.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What if Ryan and Trump pay a heavy political price whether the bill is defeated or enacted.

    Because, isn't that the reality of the situation?

    Of course, the big losers, either way, are the American people who are alive today.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump is invested in the bill's success for his own political reasons, but he has shown little (if any) interest in what is actually in the bill. He doesn't seem to care that Ryancare will break just about every campaign promise on healthcare that Trump ever made, in other words, because passage of any bill that can be called "the repeal and replacement of Obamacare" is all he really wants.

    Exactly right. Trump couldn't care less what he promised voters; he'll just tell them how great it's going to be without even knowing what's in it... a bill that will have life-and-death consequences for people. No matter to Trump, just whatever it takes to get the bill passed, he'll gladly throw them under the bus for his own political gain.

    He's making the political argument (in no uncertain terms) that if Ryancare passes, Republicans can then run on "we killed Obamacare" and get re-elected.

    With nary a thought to "we killed Americans." Although, perhaps this is exactly what Trump meant when he said, "We'll win so much you're gonna get sick of winning."

    If Trump wins this one, people really are going to get sick because this bill targets the most vulnerable of Americans.

  4. [4] 
    michale wrote:

    It will pass because Republicans are, more than anything else, cowards and liars. They will be afraid of everyone -- their constituents, Trump, each other. But Trump is doing his dominance-politics schtick, and Repubs (especially male) secretly long to be whipped into line :-)

    Yea... NO political bigotry there... :^/

    Remember, Weigantians.. Silence gives assent.. :D

    I would like to be wrong on this. If some Republicans who have had Town Halls and have heard from constituents, actually listen that would be terrific. That would be huge.

    And if Democrats had actually LISTENED when they were formulating CrapCare, then we would be in this mess in the first place...

  5. [5] 
    michale wrote:

    If Trump wins this one, people really are going to get sick because this bill targets the most vulnerable of Americans.

    Yea, it has Death Panels!!!! :D

    The hysteria remains the same. Only the PARTYs change.. :D

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Freudian Slip??? :D

    And if Democrats had actually LISTENED when they were formulating CrapCare, then we would be in this mess in the first place...

    ... then we WOULDN'T be in this mess in the first place.. :D

    My bust...

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Remind me again how awesome and fantastic CrapCare was??

    Instead of solving these problems, Obamacare only entrenched them. While Democrats portray repeal of the Affordable Care Act as an assault on baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet, Republicans ought to be reminding voters how Obamacare played out in real life: reminding them, for instance, that it hurt more families than it helped. That it saddled insurers with losses so massive they were forced to pull out of many state exchanges. That it forced millions of Americans off their existing health care plans. That it fueled double-digit annual increases in premiums. That it added billions to the national debt.
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2017/03/18/ditch-obamacare-and-don-stop-that/lgoerIhuR7TjXtq8yngkLO/story.html

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary.... :^/

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    The White House event put a face on people who are miserable because of the Obama health care plan. Kim Sertich of Arizona had her own business for 25 years, and she always bought an individual policy -- until this year. Her monthly premium jumped from $365 a month to $809 a month with a $6,800 deductible, and "it just didn't seem like a good use of my money."

    Colorado cattle rancher Carrie Couey said her family couldn't afford equipment because her rates are three times higher than they were when Obamacare began.

    Gina Sell, a Wisconsin nurse and mother, said that she had to stop working part time and switch to a full-time schedule to pay the$1,200 premium for a high-deductible health care plan. Obamacare has cost her time with her children that she never will get back. She said she sent a daughter with a fever to school for three days because she had to go to her full-time job to pay for health care.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/21/trump_counters_media_narrative_with_victims_of_obamacare_133381.html

    Yea.. CrapCare is sooooo awesome... :^/

    But those people don't matter. They are just racist deplorables, right??

    They are just Trumpers who DESERVE all the misery they get...

    :^/

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz - 2 "Of course, the big losers, either way, are the American people who are alive today."

    ...and the saddest losers are the lower income Trump supporters who will slide down the actuarial tables because their Messiah lied to them about "Something Terrific."

    So many lies.

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    ...and the saddest losers are the lower income Trump supporters who will slide down the actuarial tables because their Messiah lied to them about "Something Terrific."

    Yea, that's what ya'all keep saying..

    But facts and reality ALWAYS seems to intrude on ya'all's PTDS....

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Even the Wall Street Journal (aka the Fairy Tale Times) is moaning about Trump's lies.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-presidents-credibility-1490138920?emailToken=JRryd/98

  12. [12] 
    John M wrote:

    Paula wrote:

    "I would like to be wrong, but my prediction is the bill will pass the House on party lines."

    I am not so sure. From what I have read and the figures I have seen, there are about 27 tea party members who oppose the bill as is and will definitely vote against it, along with another anywhere from 10 to 18 more who are leaning against it.

    If any amendments are allowed enough to gain their votes, they would be substantive enough of an amendment to then require at least 60 votes in the Senate to pass the entire package instead of just a simple majority.

    I just don't see, unless I am totally wrong, how Republicans are going to be able to square this particular circle and actually govern in the long run.

  13. [13] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Remind me again how awesome and fantastic CrapCare was??"

    It IS AWESOME. Here you go Michale. For every example you can cite, I can show you dozens more from people who benefited from the ACA and who would not be alive without it today.

    "On Thursday evening, Jeff Jeans of Sedona, Arizona asked Speaker of the House Paul Ryan a question during a CNN townhall. He said he had voted for Presidents Reagan and George Bush, and that he had originally opposed Obamacare. “When it was passed,” he said, “I told my wife we would close our business before I complied with this law.” He was then diagnosed with a “very curable type of cancer” at 49 and told he had six weeks to live. He said he was denied treatment because he didn’t have insurance, even though he offered to pay three times the cost. “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I’m standing here today, alive,” he explained. “Being both a small businessperson and a person with pre-existing conditions, I rely on the Affordable Care Act to be able to purchase my own insurance.” He finally added, “I want to thank President Obama from the bottom of my heart because I would be dead if it weren’t for him.”

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    It IS AWESOME. Here you go Michale. For every example you can cite, I can show you dozens more from people who benefited from the ACA and who would not be alive without it today.

    So, we each have examples..

    And we each are convinced that our examples prove our cases...

    But, I am the only one who acknowledges that I could be wrong... :D

    Irregardless of all that, there is one undeniable fact... At least, undeniable to one not enslaved by Party ideology...

    CrapCare is NOT viable... It is in a death spiral as more and more insurance companies bail...

    So, regardless of what you or I think about CrapCare, the simple fact is, it cannot survive..

    So, SOMETHING has to replace it..

    And, since DimCrats haven't come up with a SINGLE idea to save it, it's up to President Trump and the GOP...

    Q E D

    Any deaths that result from the replacement is blood on the hands of the Democrats for making CrapCare crap in the first place and not stepping up to fix their crap in the second place....

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Any deaths that result from the replacement is blood on the hands of the Democrats for making CrapCare crap in the first place and not stepping up to fix their crap in the second place....

    Democrats would rather see tens of thousands of Americans (ya'all's figures) die SOLELY due to Party loyalty....

    How is that any different than what ya'all accuse the GOP of???

  16. [16] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "CrapCare is NOT viable... It is in a death spiral as more and more insurance companies bail..."

    NOT everyone agrees on THAT either. According to:

    Molina, the CEO of Molina Healthcare: (The company covers more than 4 million people scattered across 13 states ? including California, where it’s headquartered, as well as Florida, Michigan, New York and Texas. That makes it the 10th-largest health insurance company in the U.S., according to a 2015 government survey.)

    As for the state of the Affordable Care Act overall, Molina acknowledges some problems with the private insurance markets. But he thinks they are largely isolated to states such as Arizona and Tennessee ? and amenable to minor fixes rather than an overhaul. “You can think of it almost like a patchwork quilt,” Molina said, noting that states like California and Michigan have stable marketplaces. “In some states it’s working well and in other states it’s not.”

  17. [17] 
    Paula wrote:

    [12] John M: To clarify, I meant I think the bill will pass in the House. I'm not prepared to predict what the Senate will do yet.

    If it passes it won't be because it makes sense or has been "fixed" (circle squared) -- it will still be a mess. It will pass because Republicans will make the craven decision to vote for it anyway.

    And I hope I'm wrong.

  18. [18] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/former-colorado-gop-chairman-steven-curtis-charged-with-voter-fraud

    WELD COUNTY, Colo. – The former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party is charged with forgery and voter fraud for allegedly forging his wife’s mail-in ballot from last year’s election, according to court records and sources.

    Republicans.

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/22/1645983/-Finally-Kurt-Eichenwald-s-Twitter-Assailant-Indicted-For-Assault-With-Deadly-Weapon-And-Hate-Crime

    I didn't realize the tweet actually succeeded in causing Eichenwald to have a serious seizure. It did. Perp's charge "carries a hate crime enhancement."

    A hate-crime enhancement was added to the charge because of Rivello's "bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, ancestry, or religion, namely: persons of Jewish faith or descent," the indictment says.,

    Trumpers.

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    NOT everyone agrees on THAT either. According to:

    Anyone who DOESN'T agree is simply a Party slave that chooses to ignore the facts and reality...

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/22/1645983/-Finally-Kurt-Eichenwald-s-Twitter-Assailant-Indicted-For-Assault-With-Deadly-Weapon-And-Hate-Crime

    I didn't realize the tweet actually succeeded in causing Eichenwald to have a serious seizure. It did. Perp's charge "carries a hate crime enhancement."

    A hate-crime enhancement was added to the charge because of Rivello's "bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, ancestry, or religion, namely: persons of Jewish faith or descent," the indictment says.,

    Trumpers.

    Suspected gang rape of Chicago teen streamed on Facebook Live
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/21/chicago-gang-rape-teen-streamed-facebook-live/99447884/

    Democrats....

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/former-colorado-gop-chairman-steven-curtis-charged-with-voter-fraud

    WELD COUNTY, Colo. – The former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party is charged with forgery and voter fraud for allegedly forging his wife’s mail-in ballot from last year’s election, according to court records and sources.

    Republicans.

    The 17-year-old and 18-year-old charged in this case were in the country illegally and this was a major point of contention Tuesday night. There was also concern about the fact that these two were attending Rockville High School as freshmen. At one point during the meeting, Dr. Smith said this is not a conversation about immigration, but about a horrible event, which received some applause and some jeers. One person was seen visibly upset and ended up leaving the meeting.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/22/rockville-high-school-parents-demand-answers-in-rape-case.html

    Democrats.....

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Did little Tyshawn’s murder at the hands of a black gangster–an all too common occurrence in Chicago–not warrant wall-to-wall news coverage or Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson-style calls for “justice”?

    Black people...

    CNN host Jake Tapper called on Laura for an audience question about sanctuary cities. Laura shared how her son had been "tortured," "tied up like an animal," and set on fire by an illegal immigrant in 2010.

    "I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day because there are no laws enforcing the border," Laura said. "How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?"

    Illegal immigrants

    DEVELOPING – At least two people, including a London police officer who was stabbed, were killed during a terror incident that saw as many as a dozen people run over outside London's Parliament building on Wednesday.

    Police said a vehicle mowed down pedestrians on London's Westminster Bridge, leaving more than a dozen with injuries described as catastrophic.

    Around the same time Wednesday, a knife-wielding attacker stabbed a police officer and was shot on the grounds outside Britain's Parliament, sending the compound into lockdown.

    Muslims...

    The man accused of kidnapping a 15-year-old Tennessee high school student scoured the internet for information on “teen marriage,” Tennessee Bureau of Investigation officials said Tuesday.

    Tad Cummins, 50, searched the internet for teen marriage on March 5, more than a week before he skipped town with Elizabeth Thomas, officials said. He would also search for information about what features a Nissan Rogue has which could allow police to track him, The Tennessean reported.

    White People...

    Father: No warning before officers fired on car, killing son

    Cops.....

    Paula, each and every one of those blurbs are as bigoted as your blurbs trying to tie the actions of a single person to an entire group of people...

    It's bigotry, pure and simple... Something you castigate in Republicans but don't seem to have a problem wallowing in it yourself..

    That's text book hypocrisy....

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [14]

    Irregardless of all that, there is one undeniable fact... At least, undeniable to one not enslaved by Party ideology...

    CrapCare is NOT viable... It is in a death spiral as more and more insurance companies bail...

    FYI #1: It's a piss-poor argument to insist you're "not enslaved by Party ideology" regarding the issue of health insurance and then in the next sentence to use the term "death spiral."

    FYI #2: The term "death spiral" was made by Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and latched onto by Republicans like it was gospel.

    The real reason Aetna bailed on Obamacare was because the Department of Justice blocked a merger between Aetna and Humana. Around that time, the DOJ also blocked a merger between Anthem and Cigna on the grounds that consolidating the industry would lead to lower competition and higher costs for consumers.

    "If the big five were to become the big three, not only would the bank accounts of the American people suffer, but the American people themselves," Lynch said.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/aetna-humana-merger-reason-for-leaving-obamacare-2016-8

    Several of the big health insurance companies were trying to make moves that gave consumers less choices and therefore allow them to limit competition and run up the cost of health insurance premiums. What is to stop the health insurers from making this same move in the future? The Department of Justice of the Trump administration. Anyone want to argue that fewer choices equals lower insurance premiums? At least that is something on which both parties agree. :)

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    "Anyone want to argue that less choices equals lower premiums?"
    Sure. Why not?
    Back when Obamacare was being created the conservatives argued that having a public option would cause higher premiums because too many people would select (they never used the word choose) the public option shrinking the market for insurance companies. They said this would put some companies out of business. The solution was eliminating the public option to help preserve more choices leading to lower premiums through competition.
    So the only way you could be right is if the conservatives were wrong. When has that ever happened?
    A public option would lead to less choices, but it would also lead to lower premiums with more benefits for the people that would select that choice. That is why they would choose it.
    For those that want to choose the insurance companies for whatever reason they would still be free to make that choice, but would have to pay more for it if it costs them more.
    Too bad there isn't a real opposition party that would actually solve the problem by providing a public option rather than provide another band-aid to our health insurance/care system that was in a death spiral long before Obamacare was a glint in Obama's eye.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don [25]

    "Anyone want to argue that less choices equals lower premiums?"

    Sure. Why not?

    LOL! Okay, Don... point taken.

    I know you knew by reading my question in context that I meant less choices of health care insurers because the large health insurance companies wanted to merge and reduce competition.

    So the only way you could be right is if the conservatives were wrong. When has that ever happened?

    Who knew health care could be so complicated?

    Have I said lately that this all ends with single payer? Because it does, Don... it actually does! It's not a question of "if" but "when." :)

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    FYI #1: It's a piss-poor argument to insist you're "not enslaved by Party ideology" regarding the issue of health insurance and then in the next sentence to use the term "death spiral."

    It's an industry term...

    FYI #2: The term "death spiral" was made by Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and latched onto by Republicans like it was gospel.

    Like I said.. An industry term..

    The real reason Aetna bailed on Obamacare was because the Department of Justice blocked a merger between Aetna and Humana. Around that time, the DOJ also blocked a merger between Anthem and Cigna on the grounds that consolidating the industry would lead to lower competition and higher costs for consumers.

    I am sure that is your opinion...

    Because it absolves the Democrat Party of any culpability..

    Isn't it remarkable how that always is the case?? :D

    Democrats are blameless.. It's ALWAYS the fault of the evil racist deplorable Republicans and Trumpers... :^/

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Congratulations to Devin Nunes. I think there is an award in Devin's future since Devin just dropped some more change into the conspiracy theory parking meter.

    Here's your sign Devin: IGNORANT TOOL

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    It's a piss-poor argument to insist you're "not enslaved by Party ideology"

    My NPA status is well-documented and not subject to question... :D

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/28/program-note-53/#comment-65775

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Congratulations to Devin Nunes. I think there is an award in Devin's future since Devin just dropped some more change into the conspiracy theory parking meter.

    And yet, Nunes was just paraded around as THE AUTHORITY on Odumbo's wiretapping of Trump Tower...

    Of course, that was back when Nunes was saying what ya'all wanted to hear... :D

    Face the facts, sheeple.. Odumbo scooed the pooch and is going down.. :D

    Perp walk city!! :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/325298-schiff-i-have-grave-concerns-over-nunes-surveillance-claims

    Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Yer guy Obama got caught and now yer whining because you didn't get the 411......

    Life's a bitch, whiner.... Welcome to the bigs.. :D

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My NPA status is well-documented and not subject to question... :D

    just because you're not a member of the republican party doesn't necessarily absolve you of entanglement in - i find your use of the term "enslavement" here to be tone-deaf and offensive - their ideology. two concrete examples of your entanglement in republican ideology are your refusal to accept the fact of human-influenced global warming and your insistence that the effects of obamacare are 100% negative. these are factually false positions that your ideology seemingly won't permit you to let go.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [27]

    The real reason Aetna bailed on Obamacare was because the Department of Justice blocked a merger between Aetna and Humana. Around that time, the DOJ also blocked a merger between Anthem and Cigna on the grounds that consolidating the industry would lead to lower competition and higher costs for consumers.

    I am sure that is your opinion...

    I am sure that if you keep insisting you know others' opinions that you really don't mind being seen as a barking mad fool. :)

    That was the opinion of U.S. District Judge John Bates who concluded that Aetna's real motivation for dropping Obamacare coverage in several states was "specifically to evade judicial scrutiny" over its merger with Humana.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/investing/aetna-obamacare-humana-merger/

    Aetna pulled out of Obamacare exchanges in 11 states last August, including 17 counties in Florida, Georgia and Missouri where the Department of Justice argued the merger would wipe out competition.

    That decision to retreat from Obamacare came just a month after the Department of Justice blocked Aetna's $34 billion merger with Humana on antitrust grounds.

    But Bates said this week the DOJ presented "persuasive support" -- including internal Aetna emails -- for the conclusion that Aetna (AET) withdrew from the Obamacare exchanges in those counties "to improve its litigation position."

    "The Court does not credit the minimal efforts of Aetna executives to claim otherwise," Bates wrote in a ruling following a trial over the merger.

    He added that Aetna's decision regarding participation in the 2017 exchanges in these counties was "in fact manipulated."

    Aetna had warned the government it may need to dump then-President Obama's signature healthcare law if the U.S. scuttled its deal with Humana (HUM).

    "It is very likely that we would need to leave the public exchange business entirely...should our deal ultimately be blocked," Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini wrote in a letter to the DOJ last July that was obtained by the Huffington Post.

    However, Bates said it's clear that "Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchange for favorable treatment" from regulators.

    The judge said there is "persuasive evidence" that when Aetna later withdrew from the 17 counties in question, "it did not do so for business reasons, but instead to follow through on the threat that it made earlier."

    This critique was buried in a 158-page ruling issued by Bates on Monday [January 2017], in which he blocked Aetna's merger with Humana due to anti-competitive concerns.

    The ruling deals a big blow to both companies at a time of great uncertainty in the health care industry now that President Donald Trump has talked about rolling back several key provisions of Obamacare.

    Aetna-Humana isn't the only big health care merger in doubt. The DOJ also sued to block the takeover of Cigna (CI) by Blue Cross Blue Shield leader Anthem (ANTX) for anti-competitive reasons.

    Aetna declined to comment on specifics of the opinion, including the criticism from Bates, because it's still "reviewing the details."

    Last summer, Aetna explained its decision to withdraw from most Obamacare exchanges by saying its individual policies business had lost $430 million since the exchanges opened in January 2014.

    However, the judge noted that Aetna kept its support for exchanges in money-losing states like Delaware, Iowa and Virginia -- but dumped Florida, even though that big state was projected to be profitable in 2016.

    The ruling quoted an email from Christopher Ciano, president of Aetna's Florida market, to Jonathan Mayhew, head of Aetna's exchange business, showing how stunned he was by the decision to leave Florida.

    "I just can't make sense out of the Florida decision. Never thought we would pull the plug all together," Ciano wrote, adding that Aetna was "making money from the on-exchange business."

    Mayhew responded by requesting to discuss by phone "instead of email."

    Bates said the response from the senior Aetna exec was an example of Aetna's "repeated efforts to conceal a paper trail about this decision-making."

    Aetna informed the DOJ that if the DOJ did not approve their merger with Humana that they'd leave the markets.

    Because it absolves the Democrat Party of any culpability..

    I don't think the judge cared about that in his decision. He was a Bush appointee just reviewing the facts of the case before him. Please call Judge Bates a Party bigot and make yourself look even more foolish.

    Isn't it remarkable how that always is the case?? :D

    Democrats are blameless.. It's ALWAYS the fault of the evil racist deplorable Republicans and Trumpers... :^/

    Well, if you want to refer to Judge Bates in those terms, you are certainly free to do so. :)

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [30]

    Of course, that was back when Nunes was saying what ya'all wanted to hear... :D

    I can't speak for everyone like you insist on doing, but Nunes has always been a "TOOL" in my book. Now he has graduated to "IGNORANT TOOL."

    Does Nunes aspire to higher status? I'd say the answer depends on whether or not he keeps allowing himself to be a tool for Trump. :)

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [23]

    Not a one of those blurbs was "bigoted" in any way. The only place where bigotry can be found is in the words you added after them. Take your words out, and the bigotry disappears. Funny how often that is the case around here!

  36. [36] 
    Paula wrote:

    [35] Listen: Yep!

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    [35] Listen: Me three! :)

  38. [38] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Anyone who DOESN'T agree is simply a Party slave that chooses to ignore the facts and reality..."

    And yet, you Michale keep conveniently and cavalierly dismissing both facts and reality that contradicts your preconceived world view regarding Obamacare. How nice it must be for you to be able to so easily do that, while the rest of us must struggle with logical arguments.

    The party slave whose opinions you are talking about is the CEO and head of a major American health insurance company who doesn't happen to agree with your opinion. And in fact, no where does it state his political party affiliation!

    Hey, but whatever helps YOU sleep at night, right???

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    just because you're not a member of the republican party doesn't necessarily absolve you of entanglement in -

    It's not just not being a member of the Republican Party that establishes my bona-fides as an NPA.

    It's the fact that I regularly castigate the GOP and even Trump when they scroo the pooch...

    i find your use of the term "enslavement" here to be tone-deaf and offensive

    It's not meant to be. It is simply acknowledgement of the facts..

    The incessant calling out of the Right's "lies" and ignoring the Left's lies is but one example...

    two concrete examples of your entanglement in republican ideology are your refusal to accept the fact of human-influenced global warming

    Because when one looks at ALL the science, not just the cherry picked ideologically supporting science, it's clear that other factors are in play..

    THAT is also an example of being enslaved by Party ideology..

    Until ya'all can acknowledge ALL the science and not just the science that supports the ideology, ya'all will never have a leg to stand on..

    and your insistence that the effects of obamacare are 100% negative.

    Simply not factual..

    I have acknowledged on countless occasions that there IS some good things about CrapCare.. Getting rid of the pre-existing conditions, for one..

    But the facts clearly show that the program, in it's entirety, is NOT viable...

    Pretending that it is, is another example of enslavement to Party ideology...

    these are factually false positions that your ideology seemingly won't permit you to let go.

    That's because they are not factually false, as I have aptly proven beyond any doubt..

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    I can't speak for everyone like you insist on doing, but Nunes has always been a "TOOL" in my book. Now he has graduated to "IGNORANT TOOL."

    And yet, when a Lefty was espousing on Nunes "authority" in this issue, you said nothing..

    You ONLY come out in opposition of Nunes when he said something you didn't like or didn't agree with...

    Why is that??

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Not a one of those blurbs was "bigoted" in any way. The only place where bigotry can be found is in the words you added after them. Take your words out, and the bigotry disappears.

    No shit, Sherlock.

    And Paula's blurbs are not bigoted either. In and of themselves..

    It's only the words she adds afterwards that makes her comment bigoted..

    Take her words out and the bigotry disappears..

    That was kinda my point... :D

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    And yet, you Michale keep conveniently and cavalierly dismissing both facts and reality that contradicts your preconceived world view regarding Obamacare. How nice it must be for you to be able to so easily do that, while the rest of us must struggle with logical arguments.

    If ya'all's WERE logical arguments then there would be a struggle..

    But your arguments are NOT logical.. They are based solely and completely on Party ideology..

    Why didn't Democrats take the lead and put forth fixes to CrapCare, as Liz has advocated for time and time again??

    Because their enslavement to Party ideology didn't ALLOW them to concede that there were problems...

    The party slave whose opinions you are talking about is the CEO and head of a major American health insurance company who doesn't happen to agree with your opinion. And in fact, no where does it state his political party affiliation!

    The fact that he claims CrapCare is viable fully and completely indicates his Party affiliation...

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Until ya'all can acknowledge ALL the science and not just the science that supports the ideology, ya'all will never have a leg to stand on..

    i can't speak for "y'all" (your usual dodge when you can't make a claim about an individual), but i in particular have addressed the claims of the infinitesimal minority of scientists who doubt the human influence on global warming. JM and neil have addressed the claims coming from those few states where the obamacare exchanges are proving untenable.

    your unwillingness to acknowledge compelling evidence on the vastly stronger side of the argument is evidence that your ideology overrules your adherence to fact. regardless of whether or not you wish to call it partisan, your ideology comes from the paleo-conservative side of the spectrum, and you adhere to it in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary.

    JL

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Not a one of those blurbs was "bigoted" in any way. The only place where bigotry can be found is in the words you added after them. Take your words out, and the bigotry disappears.

    Would you agree that taking the actions of a single individual and trying to paint an entire group with the brush of that single individual's actions is bigotry in it's purest textbook form??

    It's a simple question...

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Example:

    A ‘SICK and depraved’ terrorist killed three people and injured 29 in a rampage on Parliament that knifed Britain in the heart.

    Theresa May condemned the maniac who mowed down pedestrians in London “at 70 mph” on Westminster Bridge before storming Parliament and stabbing a police officer to death.
    -thesun.co.uk/news/3151786/london-terror-attack-parliament-car-pedestrians-westminster/amp

    That right there by itself is not bigotry..

    But, if I were to add the descriptor:

    Muslims.....

    ... to it, that would be bigotry...

    So it is with Paula and her blurbs..

    newsweek.com/kurt-eichenwald-twitter-seizure-arrest-john-rivello-569813

    Sent strobe tweets to induce epileptic seizures.

    Trumpers.
    -http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/16/my-take-on-trumps-tax-return/#comment-96949

    THAT is a claim borne solely and completely of bigotry...

    The *ONLY* difference between my example and Paula's comment is that my example is simply to prove a point. I don't believe for a second that all muslims are terrorists..

    Paula DOES believe that all Trump supporters are exactly like that depraved moron in her posted article...

    That's the difference that makes all the difference...

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    i can't speak for "y'all" (your usual dodge when you can't make a claim about an individual)

    Actually, it's not a dodge..

    I just don't like singling out individuals for criticism unless it's nakedly warranted..

    I figure those who the "ya'all" doesn't apply to know who they are...

    :D

    but i in particular have addressed the claims of the infinitesimal minority of scientists

    tens of thousands of scientists (and more every day) is hardly "infinitesimal".. The fact that you believe it is is indicative of the problem..

    who doubt the human influence on global warming.

    You have??

    Where???

    your unwillingness to acknowledge compelling evidence on the vastly stronger side of the argument is evidence that your ideology overrules your adherence to fact.

    I have acknowledged the compelling evidence on the other side of the issue..

    I have readily stated on more than one occasion that I could very well be wrong on the whole human caused global warming issue..

    But ya'all (don't want to pick on you.. :D) refuse to concede that I could be RIGHT...

    regardless of whether or not you wish to call it partisan, your ideology comes from the paleo-conservative side of the spectrum, and you adhere to it in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary.

    When surrounded by a bunch of Lefties, yes... It DOES appear that my "ideology" is Right Wing..

    Just as, if you were to drop me in a pool of Righties (as rabidly Right as ya'all are Left) then it would appear that my "ideology" is Left Wing...

    It's all about perception.. :D

    You view me from the Left, so naturally I look like a Righty...

    Someone viewing me from the Right would naturally assume I am a Lefty....

    Remember CB?? To her, I was a flaming Lefty... :D

    It's all relative... :D

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But ya'all (don't want to pick on you.. :D) refuse to concede that I could be RIGHT...

    about global warming? pick on me all you want, the dramatic increase in overall heat is an objectively measurable fact. the 3% of scientists who are anti-consensus have fairly narrow doubts about specific impacts on climate. this is understandable, since climate doesn't change all at once, and doesn't change in all places at once. however, the more generally one asks the question of whether we're contributing to the rise in overall heat energy, the closer dissent gets to zero. nothing short of ideological religion could make you insist upon that minority being granted the same weight as the over 97% who form the scientific consensus.

    JL

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    about global warming? pick on me all you want, the dramatic increase in overall heat is an objectively measurable fact.

    No, it's not..

    That "dramatic" increase you are talking about ONLY came about after the NOAA fudged with the numbers..

    An NOAA whistleblower proved that beyond any doubt..

    Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’
    Former federal climatologist John Bates blasts 2015 NOAA study as other scientists defend its conclusions

    washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

    You see, that's my point. You discard all the facts and information that doesn't conform to the ideologically based theory..

    could make you insist upon that minority being granted the same weight as the over 97% who form the scientific consensus.

    That 97% figure has ALSO been debunked as total BS..

    '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
    forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#16d107693f9f

    Once again, you prove my point..

    You buy into the 97% BS because it supports your ideological beliefs... You don't question the claim... And you disregard ANY facts that calls that claim into question...

    Human caused global warming is a POLITICAL issue.

    It is NOT an issue of science...

    The SCIENCE tells us that we simply do not KNOW whether humans are having an impact on the climate and, if they are, to what extent that impact is...

    THAT's the ONLY scientific conclusion possible...

    Humans can't control the weather and the ideological "scientists" want you to believe we can control the CLIMATE!???

    How utterly ridiculous...

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    "What the heck r they spraying over us?! It's been happening for years but only this extreme for the past few months."
    -Hayden Panettiere, talking about con-trails from high flying jets..

    THAT is Democrats idea of "science"...

    Cherry picked "science" is no science at all...

    It's activism...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [40]

    And yet, when a Lefty was espousing on Nunes "authority" in this issue, you said nothing..

    You ONLY come out in opposition of Nunes when he said something you didn't like or didn't agree with...

    Why is that??

    Easy 3-part answer:

    1. "This issue" happened yesterday so there's no way anyone could have said anything about it before because it hadn't actually taken place.

    2. I didn't "come out in opposition of Nunes." I said congratulations to him for putting some more change into the conspiracy theory parking meter. I'm all in favor of what Nunes did... boneheaded though I think it was to have done it after spending hours and hours droning on and on about "leaks."

    3. This may come as a shock to you, but one can actually agree with some people some of the time without having to agree with some people all of the time. I've agreed with you before so I've already proven I can agree with someone I think is acting like an "IGNORANT TOOL."

    Next. :p

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    The point is, is that science, REAL science is *NEVER* "settled"..

    Even the science of evolution which is as accepted as science is possible to get isn't "settled"..

    We're finding out new and different things about evolution that has scientists, REAL scientists, always refining and re-defining what evolution truly is..

    It's POLITICS to claim that science is "settled"...

    Pure unadulterated and unequivocal POLITICS...

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    1. "This issue" happened yesterday so there's no way anyone could have said anything about it before because it hadn't actually taken place.

    WRONG...

    Neil brought up Nunes as an "authority" on the issue over a week ago.. I even responded to it at the time..

    You claimed before that you "read everything", so you must have read that..

    The fact that you didn't offer any objection to Nunes' authority is indicative that you accepted that authority...

    2. I didn't "come out in opposition of Nunes." I said congratulations to him for putting some more change into the conspiracy theory parking meter. I'm all in favor of what Nunes did... boneheaded though I think it was to have done it after spending hours and hours droning on and on about "leaks."

    We are not talking about what Nunes DID.. We are talking about what he SAID...

    Once again, you change the subject when you can't address it...

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [45]

    So it is with Paula and her blurbs..

    newsweek.com/kurt-eichenwald-twitter-seizure-arrest-john-rivello-569813

    Sent strobe tweets to induce epileptic seizures.

    Trumpers.

    Paula DOES believe that all Trump supporters are exactly like that depraved moron in her posted article...

    That's the difference that makes all the difference...

    I will use your argument and say that if Paula said "all Trumpers," then you'd have a point... BUT she didn't say "all Trumpers" so you don't. It would serve you well to admit you're simply reading something into it that Paula didn't actually say. :)

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    I will use your argument and say that if Paula said "all Trumpers," then you'd have a point... BUT she didn't say "all Trumpers" so you don't.

    So, if I post a blurb about a black man who commits a crime and then post "Black people", you would think I wasn't talking about ALL black people??

    Com'on, Kick.. That's a semantical reach, even for you.. :D

    It would serve you well to admit you're simply reading something into it that Paula didn't actually say. :)

    No, I was reading into EXACTLY what Paula said..

    But hay.. I am a fair guy.. If Paula wants to go on record and state that she doesn't believe ALL Trump supporters are bad, that SOME Trump supporters are good, honest and fair Americans, she can do so... And I will retract accordingly... :D

    Until such time as she does and, given Paula's past bigotry, my position stands as factual..

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    I will use your argument and say

    But I am sincerely flattered that you would want to be like Mike :D

    "I'm fatter... er.. FLATTERED.."
    -Eddie Murphy, THE NUTTY PROFESSOR

    :D

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Vehicles Becoming Favored Terrorist Attack Weapon

    Third such assault in Europe in less than a year; Islamic State has specifically called on sympathizers to use vehicles to kill
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/vehicles-becoming-favored-terrorist-attack-weapon-1490215358

    Ulp....

    Democrats better pick up the mantle to ban cars!!!

    Especially {gasp} ASSAULT cars!!!!!

    :D

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [52]

    WRONG...

    Neil brought up Nunes as an "authority" on the issue over a week ago.. I even responded to it at the time..

    I made a post yesterday congratulating Nunes for what he did yesterday so it had nothing whatsoever to do with Neil's issue last week because it hadn't even happened yet until yesterday. It was my post so what kind of IGNORANT TOOL would it take to presume to tell me what my post was about? I was congratulating Devin Nunes for what he did by putting some more change into the conspiracy theory parking meter. It ain't rocket science!

    You claimed before that you "read everything", so you must have read that..

    The fact that you didn't offer any objection to Nunes' authority is indicative that you accepted that authority...

    My post wasn't about "Nunes' authority;" I have no problem at all with Nunes' authority.

    N-U-N-E-S
    Nunes is the bigliest
    Go Nunes!

    We are not talking about what Nunes DID.. We are talking about what he SAID...

    I'm talking about what Nunes' did. Perhaps a lesson in remedial reading would serve you well?

    Once again, you change the subject when you can't address it...

    It was my post and my subject, and I was talking about what Nunes DID yesterday. Anyone who answered my post and then insisted I was talking about something I wasn't talking about would be like the textbook definition of IGNORANT TOOL. :)

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    I made a post yesterday congratulating Nunes for what he did yesterday so it had nothing whatsoever to do with Neil's issue last week because it hadn't even happened yet until yesterday.

    Neil's issue last week DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL YESTERDAY!!!????

    Hokay, I'll let THAT little slate of illogic stand on it's own.. :D

    I'm talking about what Nunes' did. Perhaps a lesson in remedial reading would serve you well?

    Since I started the conversation, I was talking about what Nunes SAID...

    So, perhaps the remedial reading and comprehension suggestion should be directed towards you.. :D

    It was my post and my subject, and I was talking about what Nunes DID yesterday.

    Actually, it was my post and my subject..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/20/the-life-cycle-of-a-trump-conspiracy-theory/#comment-97030

    And, since you read everything, you had to have known that...

    So, the question is still in need of an answer...

    Why did you accept (by omission) Neil's declaration of Nunes' as an authority on the issue of President Trump's surveillance claim, but then NOT accept that authority when Nunes' provided facts that support President Trump's surveillance claim??

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [54]

    So, if I post a blurb about a black man who commits a crime and then post "Black people", you would think I wasn't talking about ALL black people??

    Com'on, Kick.. That's a semantical reach, even for you.. :D

    Like I said, I was using your argument. You posted a blurb about "the Trump supporters" and then insisted I was wrong because I assumed you meant all Trump supporters. NOW maybe you see how stupid that sounds?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/20/the-life-cycle-of-a-trump-conspiracy-theory/#comment-97062

    Hoisted by your own petard. :p

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That 97% figure has ALSO been debunked as total BS..

    from the article you cited:

    If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible.

    that is a clarification, nothing remotely resembling the "debunked as total BS" claim that you made.

    the article's clarification is sensible - rational individuals can differ as to how the four major sources of data are interpreted. your interpretation on the other hand is ideological and absolute. you're proving my point for me.

    JL

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the second half of that article attacks the methodology of one of the many studies that found over 95% consensus. it's far from the only study the yielded those results; that's why replication matters. again, you can criticize methodology and nitpick a few percentage points, but that doesn't in any way justify the ideological claim that the consensus is BS or debunked.

    JL

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [58]

    I made a post yesterday congratulating Nunes for what he did yesterday so it had nothing whatsoever to do with Neil's issue last week because it hadn't even happened yet until yesterday.

    Neil's issue last week DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL YESTERDAY!!!????

    No. What Devin Nunes did yesterday was the subject of my post that you answered. Duh!

    Hokay, I'll let THAT little slate of illogic stand on it's own.. :D

    You changed my words to make them illogical. That's not my problem with logic; that's your problem.

    Since I started the conversation, I was talking about what Nunes SAID...

    Everything is not about you, Michale. Other people can make posts that have nothing to do with your posts. When I'm talking about you or to you, I'll generally quote your post. Can you conceive of the possibility that I was posting about something that had nothing to do with what you posted? Because I was. I was posting about what Devin Nunes did yesterday that actually had nothing to do with what you posted. You weren't required to answer it, and you sure as hell weren't required to tell me what the subject of my post was. Again, everything is not about you, Michale.

    So, perhaps the remedial reading and comprehension suggestion should be directed towards you.. :D

    Perhaps you cannot conceive that someone could make a post that wasn't about you... because not everything is about you or your posts?

    Actually, it was my post and my subject..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/20/the-life-cycle-of-a-trump-conspiracy-theory/#comment-97030

    Actually, thanks for the link. My post was not about what you were talking about in that link. It was an original post talking about something else that had nothing to do with you because everything is not about you, Michale.

    And, since you read everything, you had to have known that...

    So, the question is still in need of an answer...

    No, Michale. I made an original post talking about what Devin Nunes did. I'm sorry if you insist it was about your post to Neil that is posted on a completely different page, but it wasn't about you Michale and wasn't about your post to Neil.

    Please keep trying to drag me into your post to Neil on a different page that has nothing whatsoever to do with me or my post on this page because you seem to think everything is about you. The fact that you're making yourself look stupid is a real time saver for the rest of us.

    I have no problem with Nunes' authority, and I'm so proud he dropped some more coins into the conspiracy theory meter... IGNORANT TOOL though he was to do it. That's what I'm talking about!

    Why did you accept (by omission) Neil's declaration of Nunes' as an authority on the issue of President Trump's surveillance claim, but then NOT accept that authority when Nunes' provided facts that support President Trump's surveillance claim??

    Why can't you accept that I don't give a shit about what Nunes actually said? I don't care what he said, Michale. He could have said his shit didn't stink, and he'd get no argument from me. I don't care! I only care that he did what he did. :)

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Actually, thanks for the link. My post was not about what you were talking about in that link. It was an original post talking about something else that had nothing to do with you because everything is not about you, Michale.

    One would NEVER know that by how ya'all try so hard to make everything about me, personally.. :D

    Why can't you accept that I don't give a shit about what Nunes actually said? I don't care what he said, Michale. He could have said his shit didn't stink, and he'd get no argument from me. I don't care! I only care that he did what he did. :)

    AFTER I pointed out that Neil had already declared Nunes the "authority" on the issue in question.. :D

    And THAT was my whole point.. :D

    You changed my words to make them illogical. That's not my problem with logic; that's your problem.

    I used your exact words...

    Don't blame me because they were hysterically illogical and irrational.. :D

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    that is a clarification, nothing remotely resembling the "debunked as total BS" claim that you made.

    And, if you pull it out of context, as you have done, then one would conclude that the claim is valid..

    But the author wasn't stating the claim is valid.. The author was merely clarifying exactly what the claim is..

    The author THEN goes on to explain why the claim is false..

    From Page 2 which you obviously didn't read:

    Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

    One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

    Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

    This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

    But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

    Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

    The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

    “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
    —Dr. Richard Tol

    “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . .”
    —Dr. Craig Idso

    “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
    —Dr. Nir Shaviv

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
    —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

    Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

    It’s time to revoke that license.

    That right there totally decimates the strawman argument that 97% of scientists agree...

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    the second half of that article attacks the methodology of one of the many studies that found over 95% consensus. it's far from the only study the yielded those results; that's why replication matters. again, you can criticize methodology and nitpick a few percentage points, but that doesn't in any way justify the ideological claim that the consensus is BS or debunked.

    Fine.. Pick another study and I'll provide the facts that decimate THAT study...

    You see, that's the whole point..

    For every "fact" you claim, I can find a corresponding but opposite FACT that is just as valid and just as factual...

    The *ONLY* way that someone can believe one side over the other is if there is an ideological agenda at play..

    For someone who is ideologically non-aligned, the *ONLY* correct position is, We don't know enough to know what we know or don't know.

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    To re-iterate:

    The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

    “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
    —Dr. Richard Tol

    “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . .”
    —Dr. Craig Idso

    “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
    —Dr. Nir Shaviv

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
    —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

    Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

    It’s time to revoke that license.

    That right there totally decimates the strawman argument that 97% of scientists agree...

    Consider the 97% of scientists agree meme debunked...

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Like I said, I was using your argument. You posted a blurb about "the Trump supporters" and then insisted I was wrong because I assumed you meant all Trump supporters. NOW maybe you see how stupid that sounds?

    Yes, we agree..

    Your argument is stoopid.. :D

    Your claim that Paula is not consumed with hatred and bigotry is also a stoopid argument, as the facts clearly show she is...

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

    The Washington Post's Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges for unmasking the names of Trump transition team members from surveillance of foreign officials.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said earlier that he had briefed Trump on new information, unrelated to an investigation into Russian activities, that suggested that several members of Trump's transition team and perhaps Trump himself had their identities "unmasked" after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials.

    The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain "masked" if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/woodward-obama-officials-possibly-facing-criminal-charges/article/2618185

    PERP WALK FOR CAMP OBAMA!!!! :D

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    “First, I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.

    Second, details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.

    Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.

    Fourth and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team.”
    -House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes

    Democrats are going ta jail... :D

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Consider the 97% of scientists agree meme debunked...

    four quotes taken out of context. those don't constitute evidence even that those particular four researchers disagreed, much less a thorough statistical sample. again you're substituting anecdote for data, and doing nothing to "debunk" or in any other way discredit cook's study.

    For every "fact" you claim, I can find a corresponding but opposite FACT that is just as valid and just as factual...

    the thing about science is it has no respect for my opinion or yours. four distinct data sets all indicate increases in heat globally, and every objective measurement ever done upholds the hypothesis that humans significantly contributed to that increase. as in many cases, and on many topics, only your ideology prevents you from accepting that fact.

    JL

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/dc-science-march-organizers-racked-by-infighting-over-diversity/

    Exactly why Left Winger's view of "science" is so frak'ed....

    It includes considerations have absolutely NOTHING to do with science...

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    four quotes taken out of context.

    Four quotes perfectly IN context.. ANd there are dozens of quotes from authors who stated for the record that Cook's interpretation of their work was biased and innaccurate...

    the thing about science is it has no respect for my opinion or yours.

    And if we were talking about opinions, then that would be relevant..

    But we're talking about FACTS...

    four distinct data sets all indicate increases in heat globally, and every objective measurement ever done upholds the hypothesis that humans significantly contributed to that increase.

    You are talking about data sets that have been PROVEN to be manipulated to produce the politically desired outcome...

    This is well documented.. The NOAA whistleblower of the 2015 report is but the latest example..

    But you choose to ignore those facts in THIS particular
    issue because they are ideologically inconvenient..

    Basically, the human caused global warming proponents are the Flat Earthers who refuse to accept the FACTS that their theory is flawed...,

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    The idea that humans cannot control the weather let alone the control the climate is NOT a Right Wingery issue.

    It's pure unadulterated and unequivocally a common sense issue....

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You are talking about data sets that have been PROVEN to be manipulated to produce the politically desired outcome...

    that's a conspiracy theory with no basis whatsoever in fact. for someone so preoccupied with facts you have very little grasp of what one actually is.

    JL

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [63]

    One would NEVER know that by how ya'all try so hard to make everything about me, personally.. :D

    No one has to "try so hard" to make anything about you because you've got that covered all by yourself. For whatever reason buried into your thought processes, you're insisting on reading my post about Nunes as if it was posted in response to you... even after I've told you multiple times that it's not. Again, I made an original post, and it was you who came along and insisted it was about your post to Neil on a completely different page... that was your handiwork, and it's really very telling and extremely pathetic that you're that bleeding needy that you insist my post had anything to do with your post on another page. It wasn't about you; it was about Devin Nunes and what Devin Nunes did yesterday. Again, I don't care what Devin Nunes said. That's your hangup, Michale, NOT MINE.

    AFTER I pointed out that Neil had already declared Nunes the "authority" on the issue in question.. :D

    On another page you were talking about Nunes with Neil. So what? So no one is allowed to post anything about Nunes unless they bring forward your post from another page and discuss that too? And you're seriously still insisting that the subject of my post was your post to Neil on another damn page? For the last time for the seriously deranged and slow learners:

    M-Y... P-O-S-T... W-A-S... N-O-T... A-B-O-U-T...
    Y-O-U-R... P-O-S-T... T-O... N-E-I-L.

    My comment at [28] wasn't about you, Michale, and no one is forcing you to act like a troll by hijacking posts and trying to make them about yourself. Your creepy peevish neediness is again duly noted. :)

    [28] Kick wrote:
    Congratulations to Devin Nunes. I think there is an award in Devin's future since Devin just dropped some more change into the conspiracy theory parking meter.

    Here's your sign Devin: IGNORANT TOOL

    ^^^^^ ! The above post is not about Michale ! ^^^^^
    ^^^^^ ! nor any of his other posts anywhere.! ^^^^^

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/brexit-climate-change-al-gore-says-global-warming-syria-war-helped-leave-vote-a7645866.html

    You see, JL..

    That is why it's impossible for normal rational thinking people to take the human caused global warming fanatics seriuosly....

    They allow nutballs like Al Gore to be the spokesperson...

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    and no one is forcing you to act like a troll by hijacking posts and trying to make them about yourself. Your creepy peevish neediness is again duly noted. :)

    Once again, Victoria..

    You make EVERYTHING about me....

    :D

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [77]

    Once again, M-i-c-h-a-e-l, I wasn't the one who answered your post and insisted you respond to another post I made to someone else on another page. The post I made at [28] had nothing to do with you, and your attempts to make it about you is all your own handiwork. :)

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    They allow nutballs like Al Gore to be the spokesperson...

    ad hominem fallacy. the spokesperson could be bobo the clown, and the planet would still be gaining heat, and human production would still be a major contributing factor to that gain. again, for someone preoccupied with facts you don't seem very interested in allowing any that challenge your ideology.

    JL

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    ad hominem fallacy. the spokesperson could be bobo the clown, and the planet would still be gaining heat,

    The planet has ALWAYS gained heat.. And then it's lost it..

    And then it gained it again..

    This has happened since time began..

    But NOW it's the fault of humans???

    Do you see the logical fallacy of your argument???

    and human production would still be a major contributing factor to that gain

    That's the theory... Still unproven...

    again, for someone preoccupied with facts you don't seem very interested in allowing any that challenge your ideology.

    I am interested in ALL the facts.. Not just the ones that support a specific ideology

    You still haven't pointed out where ANYONE here has addressed the FACTS of Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen or any one of tens of thousands of REAL scientists who's research disputes your ideologically based theory...

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Human caused global warming is a POLITICAL issue, not a scientific one..

    This has been proven time and time again by countless whistleblowers and exposed emails.

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's the theory... Still unproven...

    it's been proven nine ways to sunday that humans have contributed to global warming. the only reasonable question is how much. 25%, 50%, 75%, that's where we're not sure. however, to assert that the billions of pounds of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases our industry produces have made no contribution whatsoever is just head in the sand silliness.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

    JL

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    it's been proven nine ways to sunday that humans have contributed to global warming.

    No, it's been THEORIZED..

    Never proven...

    And there are PLENTY of scientists that disagree and have the data to back it up..

    Peer reviewed data that DOESN'T have to be "tweaked" to obtain the desired outcome..

    however, to assert that the billions of pounds of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases our industry produces have made no contribution whatsoever is just head in the sand silliness.

    ANd what caused the warming BEFORE there was industry??

    You haven't addressed that..

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    NewScientist is as Left Wing as Mother Jones, Daily Krap and HuffPoop...

    It's like me posting a Rush Limbaugh link and calling it proof...

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NewScientist is as Left Wing as Mother Jones, Daily Krap and HuffPoop... It's like me posting a Rush Limbaugh link and calling it proof...

    that's an ad hominem fallacy. if limbaugh says something that's factually true, does the fact that he was the one who said it make it less true? does the global climate conspiracy include the EPA as well? are their data fictional?

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

    between agriculture, energy, transportation, industry and everything else we do, humans produce about a hundred trillion pounds of greenhouse gases annually, including CO2, methane, nitrous and fluorinated gases. that's objective fact, no matter who says it.

    those gases prevent heat from exiting into space, not in dispute by anyone. the only criticisms anyone levels are political, with the goal of promoting more nonrenewable energy. none of these criticisms are based in scientific research. it's a lot easier to try to deconstruct someone else's explanation than to come up with a better one. as yet, nobody has. the earth is gaining heat, and no one is directly denying that humans are partially responsible.

    the fact that you've spent so much energy trying to poke holes in those two basic facts, which are at the end of the day still undisputed, speaks more to your ideology than any criticism you might level toward the dems or the GOP. you've got an ideology, and it's less flexible even than many partisans.

    JL

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    that's an ad hominem fallacy. if limbaugh says something that's factually true, does the fact that he was the one who said it make it less true?

    That's the general gist amongst the Left Wingery...

    Remember ya'all's attacks on Fox News, et al...

    that's an ad hominem fallacy. if limbaugh says something that's factually true, does the fact that he was the one who said it make it less true? does the global climate conspiracy include the EPA as well? are their data fictional?

    Not fictional.. Just tweaked to produce the desired ideological outcome..

    Let's talk about the EPA once they have cleaned house and got rid of Obama sycophants...

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not fictional.. Just tweaked to produce the desired ideological outcome..

    facts are either true or they aren't. that's what makes them facts.

    JL

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    facts are either true or they aren't. that's what makes them facts.

    And yet, EVERY report that has ever been issued regarding global temps have had the FACTS, the RAW facts "tweaked"...

    Why??

    Because the raw FACTS do not paint the ideologically desired picture...

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you know what the true mark of REAL science is???

    That ALL data and methodology be publicly released so that other scientists can reproduce the experiments and confirm the results..

    But human caused global warming (so-called) scientists keep their data hidden and their methodology secret. They do this because they KNOW they are dirty... They KNOW that they "hide the decline"...

    If there is not unequivocal and total transparency, then it ain't science...

    It's political activism...

Comments for this article are closed.