Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
either that... or there is a theory that he was in cahoots with his pal P u t I n and the whole thing was staged... since Russia is tired of pumping money in there anyway... besides there was no damage done... the airfield still works....they say planes damaged... but that is still questionable and what 4 people killed.... probably by accident... since every one was warned we were going to do it... all staged to take the heat off his Russian ties!
thank you for pointing all that out!
unless you are trying to pull more right wing bullshit and say Hillary was behind this also.... and that wouldn't surprise me... with all the lies trump puts out and all the fake news you post!
Last edited:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
A few questions NOT being answered.
1. Why is the chemical weapons make up only found in a hand full of countries, two are Syria and Russia. The US nor the West have it in their weapons arsenal in such a combination. (Sarin and Chlorine combination)
2. How was it that Syria and its allies stated they had no aircraft flying. Yet on RT and sputnik news stated they had attacked targets that day?
3. How is it that Syria and its allies claimed Syria had handed in all its WMD and chemical warheads yet the UN's inspection teams found Sain and Ricine in over 12 UNDISCLOSED LOCATIONS UNDER ASSAD leadership?.
4. Why did Russia NOT notify the UN of this decrepency as they knew the numbers didnt tally with what was declared and what was delivered in?
5. How was it that RT news made the attack statement blaming the rebels WHEN NO ONE ELSE KNEW ABOUT THE ATTACK.
6. Why has NO chemical or weapons factory been found at the attack site? This despite the numourous claims by Syria and its allies they had proof.
7. Why has Russia denied a independent investigation by the UN? Vetoing the motion NOT ONCE, or TWICE but FOUR TIMES!
8. Why are Syria and its allies not trusted by anyone after they both made claims to the destruction of the stockpiles only for the UN to find alterations in the documentation delivered to the UN?
9. Why dispite numourous claims by Syria and its allies that the target was a weapons depot has only MEDICAL, HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT, BEDS, FIles and NORMAL HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT BEEN FOUND?
10. Assad claims its a false attack. How it it then that he isn't showing the so called TOTAL PROOF and video's that it was a rebel Weapons factory? But now claims the video is false yet himself cannot offer anything in the way to disprove anything?
Also.
11. How is that Assad claims its a propaganda video aimed at the US when the original WASN'T DELIVERED to the WEST BUT TO ARAB NETWORKS and news agencies, and first shown on ARAB TV ETC INCLUDING ASSADS OWN COUNTRIES NEWS AGENCIES...And then shown to the West?
12. Why are there intercepts of Assads forces discussing the USE of the WMD's?
1. Why is the chemical weapons make up only found in a hand full of countries, two are Syria and Russia. The US nor the West have it in their weapons arsenal in such a combination. (Sarin and Chlorine combination)
2. How was it that Syria and its allies stated they had no aircraft flying. Yet on RT and sputnik news stated they had attacked targets that day?
3. How is it that Syria and its allies claimed Syria had handed in all its WMD and chemical warheads yet the UN's inspection teams found Sain and Ricine in over 12 UNDISCLOSED LOCATIONS UNDER ASSAD leadership?.
4. Why did Russia NOT notify the UN of this decrepency as they knew the numbers didnt tally with what was declared and what was delivered in?
5. How was it that RT news made the attack statement blaming the rebels WHEN NO ONE ELSE KNEW ABOUT THE ATTACK.
6. Why has NO chemical or weapons factory been found at the attack site? This despite the numourous claims by Syria and its allies they had proof.
7. Why has Russia denied a independent investigation by the UN? Vetoing the motion NOT ONCE, or TWICE but FOUR TIMES!
8. Why are Syria and its allies not trusted by anyone after they both made claims to the destruction of the stockpiles only for the UN to find alterations in the documentation delivered to the UN?
9. Why dispite numourous claims by Syria and its allies that the target was a weapons depot has only MEDICAL, HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT, BEDS, FIles and NORMAL HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT BEEN FOUND?
10. Assad claims its a false attack. How it it then that he isn't showing the so called TOTAL PROOF and video's that it was a rebel Weapons factory? But now claims the video is false yet himself cannot offer anything in the way to disprove anything?
Also.
11. How is that Assad claims its a propaganda video aimed at the US when the original WASN'T DELIVERED to the WEST BUT TO ARAB NETWORKS and news agencies, and first shown on ARAB TV ETC INCLUDING ASSADS OWN COUNTRIES NEWS AGENCIES...And then shown to the West?
12. Why are there intercepts of Assads forces discussing the USE of the WMD's?
D
Deleted125623
Guest
UN: 'Impossible to Deny' Syria Used Chemical Weapons After Obama's Failed 'Red Line'
Wednesday, 24 Aug 2016 07:23 PM
Inspectors working in Syria have detected the presence of previously undeclared chemical warfare agents, suggesting President Bashar al-Assad hasn’t given up his capabilities to wield such weapons and casting a shadow over an achievement claimed by the Obama administration.
Samples collected by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at multiple sites in Syria revealed chemical agents that Syria never declared after it agreed in 2013 to turn over all its stockpiles for destruction and join the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to a two-page summary of a confidential OPCW report that was given to the United Nations Security Council.
“The Secretariat considers that many of the explanations provided by the Syrian Arab Republic are not scientifically or technically plausible,” OPCW Director General Ahmet Uzumcu said in the report. “At present, Syria has not yet adequately explained the presence of indicators of four chemical warfare agents.”
The report’s findings add to concerns that Syria lied about the size and extent of its chemical weapons program after the 2013 agreement. That would pose a liability for President Barack Obama, who touted the deal, worked out with Russia’s help, as justification for his decision to back away from military action to enforce a “red line” he proclaimed after Assad used chemical weapons in his country’s civil war.
For a QuickTake explaining efforts to ban chemical weapons, click here.
In January of this year, the OPCW announced that it had verified the destruction of all the chemical stockpiles that Syria had declared as part of the U.S.-Russia deal. The new report from the group, which was founded in 1997 to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention, raises questions about the completeness of that declaration.
“We’ve been pleased that the Assad regime’s declared weapons stockpile has
been rounded up and destroyed," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday. However, the situation in Syria “has been murky for quite some time,” he said.
The report is the result of work done by the OPCW’s Declaration Assessment Team, which was sent to Syria to verify its submissions as part of its accession to the convention and its claim that it abandoned its stockpiles. The new information “does not resolve outstanding issues,” according to the report, which said questions about Syria’s chemical weapons have “increased steadily over time.” The findings were reported earlier by Foreign Policy magazine.
The report describes a pattern of incomplete or contradictory accounts and a lack of access to high-level officials. As a result, it said, the OPCW team “cannot fully verify” that Syria is meeting its commitments under the chemical weapons convention.
Syria’s Refusal
While the report’s contents hadn’t previously been announced, officials from the U.S. and other countries who received it have discussed parts of it publicly. In a statement to an OPCW meeting on July 12, Kenneth Ward, the U.S. ambassador to the organization, said the report indicated “Syria has never truly accepted the obligations or the ideals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
“The only constant in this process has been Syria’s refusal to be open and transparent about the full extent of its chemical weapons program,” Ward said. “Syria has engaged in a calculated campaign of intransigence and obfuscation, of deception, and of defiance.”
Syria has faced repeated accusations that it used chemical weapons in violation of the treaty.
Chlorine Gas
An OPCW team also has produced a report on its investigation into Syria’s alleged use of chlorine against its own people. While chlorine is a common chemical that isn’t banned, its use as a weapon is prohibited under the convention.
Citing findings from that report, Ned Price, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, said Wednesday in a statement, “It is now impossible to deny that the Syrian regime has repeatedly used industrial chlorine as a weapon against its own people.”
“The United States will work with our international partners to seek accountability through appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, including through the United Nations Security Council and the OPCW,” he said. “We urge all UN member states and parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, including Russia and Iran, to participate in this effort.”
He said the OPCW also confirmed that Islamic State used mustard gas against civilians in Syria, underscoring the priority of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the terrorist group on targeting its “chemical weapons capabilities.”
Wednesday, 24 Aug 2016 07:23 PM
Inspectors working in Syria have detected the presence of previously undeclared chemical warfare agents, suggesting President Bashar al-Assad hasn’t given up his capabilities to wield such weapons and casting a shadow over an achievement claimed by the Obama administration.
Samples collected by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at multiple sites in Syria revealed chemical agents that Syria never declared after it agreed in 2013 to turn over all its stockpiles for destruction and join the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to a two-page summary of a confidential OPCW report that was given to the United Nations Security Council.
“The Secretariat considers that many of the explanations provided by the Syrian Arab Republic are not scientifically or technically plausible,” OPCW Director General Ahmet Uzumcu said in the report. “At present, Syria has not yet adequately explained the presence of indicators of four chemical warfare agents.”
The report’s findings add to concerns that Syria lied about the size and extent of its chemical weapons program after the 2013 agreement. That would pose a liability for President Barack Obama, who touted the deal, worked out with Russia’s help, as justification for his decision to back away from military action to enforce a “red line” he proclaimed after Assad used chemical weapons in his country’s civil war.
For a QuickTake explaining efforts to ban chemical weapons, click here.
In January of this year, the OPCW announced that it had verified the destruction of all the chemical stockpiles that Syria had declared as part of the U.S.-Russia deal. The new report from the group, which was founded in 1997 to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention, raises questions about the completeness of that declaration.
“We’ve been pleased that the Assad regime’s declared weapons stockpile has
been rounded up and destroyed," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday. However, the situation in Syria “has been murky for quite some time,” he said.
The report is the result of work done by the OPCW’s Declaration Assessment Team, which was sent to Syria to verify its submissions as part of its accession to the convention and its claim that it abandoned its stockpiles. The new information “does not resolve outstanding issues,” according to the report, which said questions about Syria’s chemical weapons have “increased steadily over time.” The findings were reported earlier by Foreign Policy magazine.
The report describes a pattern of incomplete or contradictory accounts and a lack of access to high-level officials. As a result, it said, the OPCW team “cannot fully verify” that Syria is meeting its commitments under the chemical weapons convention.
Syria’s Refusal
While the report’s contents hadn’t previously been announced, officials from the U.S. and other countries who received it have discussed parts of it publicly. In a statement to an OPCW meeting on July 12, Kenneth Ward, the U.S. ambassador to the organization, said the report indicated “Syria has never truly accepted the obligations or the ideals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
“The only constant in this process has been Syria’s refusal to be open and transparent about the full extent of its chemical weapons program,” Ward said. “Syria has engaged in a calculated campaign of intransigence and obfuscation, of deception, and of defiance.”
Syria has faced repeated accusations that it used chemical weapons in violation of the treaty.
Chlorine Gas
An OPCW team also has produced a report on its investigation into Syria’s alleged use of chlorine against its own people. While chlorine is a common chemical that isn’t banned, its use as a weapon is prohibited under the convention.
Citing findings from that report, Ned Price, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, said Wednesday in a statement, “It is now impossible to deny that the Syrian regime has repeatedly used industrial chlorine as a weapon against its own people.”
“The United States will work with our international partners to seek accountability through appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, including through the United Nations Security Council and the OPCW,” he said. “We urge all UN member states and parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, including Russia and Iran, to participate in this effort.”
He said the OPCW also confirmed that Islamic State used mustard gas against civilians in Syria, underscoring the priority of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the terrorist group on targeting its “chemical weapons capabilities.”
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Weapons inspectors find evidence Syria retains chemical weapons program
By NICK WADHAMS | Bloomberg | Published: August 24, 2016
WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — Inspectors working in Syria have detected the presence of previously undeclared chemical warfare agents, suggesting President Bashar Assad hasn’t given up his capabilities to wield such weapons and casting a shadow over an achievement claimed by the Obama administration.
Samples collected by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at multiple sites in Syria revealed chemical agents that Syria never declared after it agreed in 2013 to turn over all its stockpiles for destruction and join the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to a two-page summary of a confidential OPCW report that was given to the United Nations Security Council.
“The Secretariat considers that many of the explanations provided by the Syrian Arab Republic are not scientifically or technically plausible,” OPCW Director General Ahmet Uzumcu said in the report. “At present, Syria has not yet adequately explained the presence of indicators of four chemical warfare agents.”
The report’s findings add to concerns that Syria lied about the size and extent of its chemical weapons program after the 2013 agreement. That would pose a liability for President Barack Obama, who touted the deal, worked out with Russia’s help, as justification for his decision to back away from military action to enforce a “red line” he proclaimed after Assad used chemical weapons in his country’s civil war.
DESMOND PARKS/U.S. NAVY
In January of this year, the OPCW announced that it had verified the destruction of all the chemical stockpiles that Syria had declared as part of the U.S.-Russia deal. The new report from the group, which was founded in 1997 to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention, raises questions about the completeness of that declaration.
“We’ve been pleased that the Assad regime’s declared weapons stockpile has been rounded up” and destroyed, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday. However, the situation in Syria “has been murky for some time,” he said.
The report is the result of work done by the OPCW’s Declaration Assessment Team, which was sent to Syria to verify its submissions as part of its accession to the convention and its claim that it abandoned its stockpiles. The new information “does not resolve outstanding issues,” according to the report, which said questions about Syria’s chemical weapons have “increased steadily over time.” The findings were reported earlier by Foreign Policy magazine.
The report describes a pattern of incomplete or contradictory accounts and a lack of access to high-level officials. As a result, it said, the OPCW team “cannot fully verify” that Syria is meeting its commitments under the chemical weapons convention.
By NICK WADHAMS | Bloomberg | Published: August 24, 2016
WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — Inspectors working in Syria have detected the presence of previously undeclared chemical warfare agents, suggesting President Bashar Assad hasn’t given up his capabilities to wield such weapons and casting a shadow over an achievement claimed by the Obama administration.
Samples collected by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at multiple sites in Syria revealed chemical agents that Syria never declared after it agreed in 2013 to turn over all its stockpiles for destruction and join the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to a two-page summary of a confidential OPCW report that was given to the United Nations Security Council.
“The Secretariat considers that many of the explanations provided by the Syrian Arab Republic are not scientifically or technically plausible,” OPCW Director General Ahmet Uzumcu said in the report. “At present, Syria has not yet adequately explained the presence of indicators of four chemical warfare agents.”
The report’s findings add to concerns that Syria lied about the size and extent of its chemical weapons program after the 2013 agreement. That would pose a liability for President Barack Obama, who touted the deal, worked out with Russia’s help, as justification for his decision to back away from military action to enforce a “red line” he proclaimed after Assad used chemical weapons in his country’s civil war.
DESMOND PARKS/U.S. NAVY
In January of this year, the OPCW announced that it had verified the destruction of all the chemical stockpiles that Syria had declared as part of the U.S.-Russia deal. The new report from the group, which was founded in 1997 to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention, raises questions about the completeness of that declaration.
“We’ve been pleased that the Assad regime’s declared weapons stockpile has been rounded up” and destroyed, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday. However, the situation in Syria “has been murky for some time,” he said.
The report is the result of work done by the OPCW’s Declaration Assessment Team, which was sent to Syria to verify its submissions as part of its accession to the convention and its claim that it abandoned its stockpiles. The new information “does not resolve outstanding issues,” according to the report, which said questions about Syria’s chemical weapons have “increased steadily over time.” The findings were reported earlier by Foreign Policy magazine.
The report describes a pattern of incomplete or contradictory accounts and a lack of access to high-level officials. As a result, it said, the OPCW team “cannot fully verify” that Syria is meeting its commitments under the chemical weapons convention.
the whole thing is kind of "fishy"... to say the least
we know we can't trust Russia... nor Assad.... and this air strike we did was?????????
lots of questions.... with no answers
we know we can't trust Russia... nor Assad.... and this air strike we did was?????????
lots of questions.... with no answers
IBT:
A leading weapons academic has claimed that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was responsible.
Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), issued a series of three reports in response to the White House’s finding that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad perpetrated the attack on 4 April.
Postol said: “I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.
“In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.
“This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”
The image Postol refers to is that of a crater containing a shell inside, which is said to have contained the sarin gas.
His analysis of the shell suggests that it could not have been dropped from an airplane as the damage of the casing is inconsistent from an aerial explosion. Instead, Postol said it was more likely that an explosive charge was laid upon the shell containing sarin, before being detonated.
…
Postol, formerly a scientific advisor at the Department of Defense (DoD), has previously outlined similar inconsistencies with US intelligence reports. Following the 2013 chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta, Postol again said the evidence did not suggest Assad was responsible.
A later United Nations report did not find Assad responsible also, however it did not rule him out either – as it could not apportion blame based on the evidence. Reporting by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books documented that US officials whitewashed findings to blame Assad when their intelligence showed that anti-Assad militants were the most likely perpetrators.
In his latest reports, Postol hit out at what he says is a “politicisation” of intelligence findings.
Postol said: “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.
Bannon was totally against bombing Syria, saying that an investigation should happen before any action taken.
But it looks like Trump listened to chickenhawk Kushner over a season public opinion data guy.
A leading weapons academic has claimed that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was responsible.
Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), issued a series of three reports in response to the White House’s finding that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad perpetrated the attack on 4 April.
Postol said: “I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.
“In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.
“This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”
The image Postol refers to is that of a crater containing a shell inside, which is said to have contained the sarin gas.
His analysis of the shell suggests that it could not have been dropped from an airplane as the damage of the casing is inconsistent from an aerial explosion. Instead, Postol said it was more likely that an explosive charge was laid upon the shell containing sarin, before being detonated.
…
Postol, formerly a scientific advisor at the Department of Defense (DoD), has previously outlined similar inconsistencies with US intelligence reports. Following the 2013 chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta, Postol again said the evidence did not suggest Assad was responsible.
A later United Nations report did not find Assad responsible also, however it did not rule him out either – as it could not apportion blame based on the evidence. Reporting by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books documented that US officials whitewashed findings to blame Assad when their intelligence showed that anti-Assad militants were the most likely perpetrators.
In his latest reports, Postol hit out at what he says is a “politicisation” of intelligence findings.
Postol said: “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.
Bannon was totally against bombing Syria, saying that an investigation should happen before any action taken.
But it looks like Trump listened to chickenhawk Kushner over a season public opinion data guy.
have no answer?.... nor anymore fake news?
so just repost your same statement.... thinking it will sound more real the second time around?
you trump commies are so blind....
so just repost your same statement.... thinking it will sound more real the second time around?
you trump commies are so blind....
this guy taking a lot of heat for refusing to investigate Trump... and like the saying goes if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen
House Oversight Chairman Chaffetz Says He Won't Seek Re-Election
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/house-oversight-chairman-chaffetz-says-151306939.html
Chaffetz may not finish term in House
Washington (CNN)Chairman of the powerful House oversight committee Jason Chaffetz may not finish out his term in Congress, he said Thursday, a departure that would invite jockeying for his high-profile position. Chaffetz on Wednesday surprisingly announced he would not run for reelection, and the following day he told CNN that he may resign early. "My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven't ruled out the possibility of leaving early," Chaffetz told CNN in a text message. "In the meantime I still have a job to do and I have no plans to take my foot off the gas." News that Chaffetz might step down before the end of his term was first reported by KSL radio. Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ad70525d-a885-3813-8e91-dc6784971e5b/chaffetz-may-not-finish-term.html
House Oversight Chairman Chaffetz Says He Won't Seek Re-Election
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/house-oversight-chairman-chaffetz-says-151306939.html
Chaffetz may not finish term in House
Washington (CNN)Chairman of the powerful House oversight committee Jason Chaffetz may not finish out his term in Congress, he said Thursday, a departure that would invite jockeying for his high-profile position. Chaffetz on Wednesday surprisingly announced he would not run for reelection, and the following day he told CNN that he may resign early. "My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven't ruled out the possibility of leaving early," Chaffetz told CNN in a text message. "In the meantime I still have a job to do and I have no plans to take my foot off the gas." News that Chaffetz might step down before the end of his term was first reported by KSL radio. Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ad70525d-a885-3813-8e91-dc6784971e5b/chaffetz-may-not-finish-term.html
House Republicans Have a New Plan to Make Your Healthcare Worse
WASHINGTON—Desperation and futility walk hand-in-hand around this city. Around noon, word began to leak out that the House of Representatives was close to cobbling together a "compromise" on a new healthcare bill that had a better-than-even chance of getting a floor vote. As to the nature of the "compromise," the whole thing apparently has been constructed in order to get 20-odd votes from the House's Freedom Caucus, the wingiest wingnuts in elected office. As you can imagine, the "compromise" makes the previous dead fish even deader. Against considerable odds, the House is putting together a bill that makes healthcare even worse for even more people.
Of course, in the interim, out in the country, the Affordable Care Act never has been more popular. Republican legislators are being run out of their own local town halls because of this issue. If a response consisting of, "We're going to give more of what has you spitting at us now," makes sense to you, start filling out those nomination papers. The House Republican caucus wants you.
The latest "compromise" allows states to opt out of what is called the community rating provision, which at the moment forbids insurers from jacking up rates on people with pre-existing conditions. (Let us pause here to recall that the prohibition against doing so is the most popular element of the ACA and it's not even close.) Hang on, now. Here comes the "compromise" part. If a state gets the waiver, then it must participate in a federal high-risk pool. (Ed. Note: High-risk pools do not work.) The deal also would bring back the Essential Health Benefits, a part of the ACA that was eliminated during the negotiations of the recent dead fish.
But, as HuffPo points out, there is a loophole in this provision through which you could sail the Vinson attack group—assuming, of course, that you know where it is.
In exchange for that conservative concession, the amendment would reinstate the Essential Health Benefits that were already taken out of the bill ― though, again, states could waive those provisions as well if they were able to show that doing so would lower premiums, increase the number of people insured, or "advance another benefit to the public interest in the state."
Gee, I wonder what, say, Scott Walker or Rick Scott will make of that.
In short, in order to pass a bill that failed because it was too harsh and people hated it, the House is proposing a bill that is even harsher and that more people will hate even more. But, once again, to treat this proposal as an actual healthcare proposal is to make the same mistake all over again.
The previous dead fish was actually a tax-cut bill. This one is designed to give the president* something—anything!—he can call a "win." It doesn't matter that this latest attempt has no chance of becoming law; there is no chance of its ever passing the Senate. Give the president* a win. Give him something he can call a win. Give him something that they will call a win on his favorite television programs. Thus is the entire business of the American republic reduced to the late Kim Jong-il's golf score.
The next general congressional recess is right around Memorial Day. Start lining up for those town halls today. Avoid the rush.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54652/house-republicans-healthcare-compromise/
WASHINGTON—Desperation and futility walk hand-in-hand around this city. Around noon, word began to leak out that the House of Representatives was close to cobbling together a "compromise" on a new healthcare bill that had a better-than-even chance of getting a floor vote. As to the nature of the "compromise," the whole thing apparently has been constructed in order to get 20-odd votes from the House's Freedom Caucus, the wingiest wingnuts in elected office. As you can imagine, the "compromise" makes the previous dead fish even deader. Against considerable odds, the House is putting together a bill that makes healthcare even worse for even more people.
Of course, in the interim, out in the country, the Affordable Care Act never has been more popular. Republican legislators are being run out of their own local town halls because of this issue. If a response consisting of, "We're going to give more of what has you spitting at us now," makes sense to you, start filling out those nomination papers. The House Republican caucus wants you.
The latest "compromise" allows states to opt out of what is called the community rating provision, which at the moment forbids insurers from jacking up rates on people with pre-existing conditions. (Let us pause here to recall that the prohibition against doing so is the most popular element of the ACA and it's not even close.) Hang on, now. Here comes the "compromise" part. If a state gets the waiver, then it must participate in a federal high-risk pool. (Ed. Note: High-risk pools do not work.) The deal also would bring back the Essential Health Benefits, a part of the ACA that was eliminated during the negotiations of the recent dead fish.
But, as HuffPo points out, there is a loophole in this provision through which you could sail the Vinson attack group—assuming, of course, that you know where it is.
In exchange for that conservative concession, the amendment would reinstate the Essential Health Benefits that were already taken out of the bill ― though, again, states could waive those provisions as well if they were able to show that doing so would lower premiums, increase the number of people insured, or "advance another benefit to the public interest in the state."
Gee, I wonder what, say, Scott Walker or Rick Scott will make of that.
In short, in order to pass a bill that failed because it was too harsh and people hated it, the House is proposing a bill that is even harsher and that more people will hate even more. But, once again, to treat this proposal as an actual healthcare proposal is to make the same mistake all over again.
The previous dead fish was actually a tax-cut bill. This one is designed to give the president* something—anything!—he can call a "win." It doesn't matter that this latest attempt has no chance of becoming law; there is no chance of its ever passing the Senate. Give the president* a win. Give him something he can call a win. Give him something that they will call a win on his favorite television programs. Thus is the entire business of the American republic reduced to the late Kim Jong-il's golf score.
The next general congressional recess is right around Memorial Day. Start lining up for those town halls today. Avoid the rush.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54652/house-republicans-healthcare-compromise/
The White House ups the odds of a government shutdown by demanding Democrats fund Trump's border wall
Calm and quiet negotiations aren't everyone's cup of tea. Congress has until April 28 to pass a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, and Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees have been working with Republican leaders to negotiate a spending package. Any spending bill will need the support of at least eight Democrats in the Senate to pass. On Thursday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said the spending bill has to include some initial funding for President Trump's border wall with Mexico, and Democrats have to play ball. "We have our list of priorities," Mulvaney said Thursday. "We want more money for defense. We want to build a border ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5f4c7469-b9bb-3eba-970e-335217c71086/the-white-house-ups-the-odds.html
Calm and quiet negotiations aren't everyone's cup of tea. Congress has until April 28 to pass a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, and Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees have been working with Republican leaders to negotiate a spending package. Any spending bill will need the support of at least eight Democrats in the Senate to pass. On Thursday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said the spending bill has to include some initial funding for President Trump's border wall with Mexico, and Democrats have to play ball. "We have our list of priorities," Mulvaney said Thursday. "We want more money for defense. We want to build a border ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5f4c7469-b9bb-3eba-970e-335217c71086/the-white-house-ups-the-odds.html
those republicans always have a way of taking care of the vote don't they!
The Georgia law that could suppress Democratic turnout in Jon Ossoff’s special election
Naomi Shavin,Vox.com 5 hours ago
A new lawsuit alleges that a Georgia voter registration law violates federal law. Georgia won’t permit newly registered voters to participate in the June 20 runoff election for the state’s Sixth Congressional District — a restriction that a new lawsuit argues is illegal. For the June 20 special election, in other words, the registration window effectively closed March 20. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8cbc0c0c-adce-3aba-91c4-3bf5994ff5e4/the-georgia-law-that-could.html
The Georgia law that could suppress Democratic turnout in Jon Ossoff’s special election
Naomi Shavin,Vox.com 5 hours ago
A new lawsuit alleges that a Georgia voter registration law violates federal law. Georgia won’t permit newly registered voters to participate in the June 20 runoff election for the state’s Sixth Congressional District — a restriction that a new lawsuit argues is illegal. For the June 20 special election, in other words, the registration window effectively closed March 20. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8cbc0c0c-adce-3aba-91c4-3bf5994ff5e4/the-georgia-law-that-could.html
and the right always screams voter fraud and the need for more restrictions.....?????
Now we finally know how bad voter fraud is in North Carolina
At last, we know how badly photo voter ID is needed in North Carolina.
For years, Republicans in North Carolina have alleged that in-person fraudulent voting is widespread while Democrats have said it is non-existent. But no one knew for sure, leaving the two sides talking past each other on voter ID.
On Friday, the State Board of Elections released the results of an extensive, objective audit of the 2016 election. It found that 4,769,640 votes were cast in November and that one (1) would probably have been avoided with a voter ID law. One out of nearly 4.8 million.
When a federal appeals court threw out North Carolina’s restrictive voting law last summer, saying it targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision,” Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore panned the judges and questioned their motives.
“We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election,” they said.
The election proceeded without the law’s many discriminatory provisions. Did the judges’ decision reopen the door for voter fraud? Yes, to one person in 4.8 million. Not quite enough for Clinton or Cooper to steal the election.
That said, all North Carolinians should value the integrity of our elections. The legislature and the Board of Elections must walk a fine line, doing nothing to discourage legitimate voters while doing their best to eliminate ineligible voting.
The Board’s investigation is helpful toward that end. It found 508 ineligible votes cast. About 87 percent of those (441) were felons who voted. State law prohibits felons from voting until their sentence is fully served, including probation and parole. It is believed that many of the felons who voted did not realize they could not vote while on probation.
The probe found 41 non-citizens, from 28 countries, voted. All were here legally, but were not eligible to vote. The audit also found 24 cases of double-voting and two cases of voter impersonation (one by mail and one in person).
Board of Elections announced it is taking steps to address these problems. In the case of felons and non-citizens, the primary cause appears to be a lack of understanding about the law. One option would be to let felons vote once they have been released from custody and still on probation, as many other states do.
Absent that, elections officials will work with the court system to better ensure that felons are informed of the law governing voting. They will also work harder to make sure a felon who is taken off the voter rolls in one county doesn’t re-register in another, and will update software to better check for felon status at the time of registration.
So the audit will produce helpful changes. It also gives a clear-eyed look at the extent of voter fraud in North Carolina. After the off-base outcry from then-Gov. Pat McCrory and Republicans, it is heartening that an independent investigation finds the state’s elections are sound and virtually fraud-free.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html
Now we finally know how bad voter fraud is in North Carolina
At last, we know how badly photo voter ID is needed in North Carolina.
For years, Republicans in North Carolina have alleged that in-person fraudulent voting is widespread while Democrats have said it is non-existent. But no one knew for sure, leaving the two sides talking past each other on voter ID.
On Friday, the State Board of Elections released the results of an extensive, objective audit of the 2016 election. It found that 4,769,640 votes were cast in November and that one (1) would probably have been avoided with a voter ID law. One out of nearly 4.8 million.
When a federal appeals court threw out North Carolina’s restrictive voting law last summer, saying it targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision,” Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore panned the judges and questioned their motives.
“We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election,” they said.
The election proceeded without the law’s many discriminatory provisions. Did the judges’ decision reopen the door for voter fraud? Yes, to one person in 4.8 million. Not quite enough for Clinton or Cooper to steal the election.
That said, all North Carolinians should value the integrity of our elections. The legislature and the Board of Elections must walk a fine line, doing nothing to discourage legitimate voters while doing their best to eliminate ineligible voting.
The Board’s investigation is helpful toward that end. It found 508 ineligible votes cast. About 87 percent of those (441) were felons who voted. State law prohibits felons from voting until their sentence is fully served, including probation and parole. It is believed that many of the felons who voted did not realize they could not vote while on probation.
The probe found 41 non-citizens, from 28 countries, voted. All were here legally, but were not eligible to vote. The audit also found 24 cases of double-voting and two cases of voter impersonation (one by mail and one in person).
Board of Elections announced it is taking steps to address these problems. In the case of felons and non-citizens, the primary cause appears to be a lack of understanding about the law. One option would be to let felons vote once they have been released from custody and still on probation, as many other states do.
Absent that, elections officials will work with the court system to better ensure that felons are informed of the law governing voting. They will also work harder to make sure a felon who is taken off the voter rolls in one county doesn’t re-register in another, and will update software to better check for felon status at the time of registration.
So the audit will produce helpful changes. It also gives a clear-eyed look at the extent of voter fraud in North Carolina. After the off-base outcry from then-Gov. Pat McCrory and Republicans, it is heartening that an independent investigation finds the state’s elections are sound and virtually fraud-free.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html
Then it was:
"We're gonna build that wall, and we're gonna make Mexico pay for it, every bit of it" ......
Now its:
"We're initially gonna pay for the wall, but, Mexico is going to pay every bit of it back, believe you me!"
So, how can WE trust a President that lies with every breath he takes? .... Republicans are trying to figure out HOW we can avoid paying for that $38 billion "unbudgeted" wall, and they have come up with a plan.
....
"We're gonna build that wall, and we're gonna make Mexico pay for it, every bit of it" ......
Now its:
"We're initially gonna pay for the wall, but, Mexico is going to pay every bit of it back, believe you me!"
So, how can WE trust a President that lies with every breath he takes? .... Republicans are trying to figure out HOW we can avoid paying for that $38 billion "unbudgeted" wall, and they have come up with a plan.
.... Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Party identification is 'starting to shift'
Washington (CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday responded to a poll showing the majority felt the Democratic Party was out of touch by saying party identification is shifting -- and everyday people can see the US political system as a "rigged game."
The ABC News/Washington Post poll released Sunday showed 67% of respondents said the Democratic Party was out of touch, ahead of 62% who said the same for the GOP and 58% for President Donald Trump.
"I think the whole notion of parties and party identification is actually starting to shift," Warren said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper."
She said "the real energy" is not in the upper echelons of the parties, but instead in the grassroots, which she said contain a sizable amount of progressive outrage.
"It's saying, 'Look, we get it,'" Warren said. "'The game is rigged. It's rigged in favor of those at the top and rigged against the rest of us. And we want some accountability on that. We want to see a government that works for the rest of us.'"
Focusing largely on liberal economic positions and railing against major financial institutions, Warren has come to represent a wing of the Democratic Party that also aligns with the viewpoint of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sanders' move from relative obscurity as an independent to the center of Democratic politics, without changing his status as an independent, alongside Trump's historic move from outsider to President, has shaken the notion of party identification following years of people increasingly declining to identify as either Democrats or Republicans.
In the wake of Trump's victory, Sanders has taken a larger role within party politics and called for the Democratic Party to focus on the grassroots and small donors. He engendered some controversy when he appeared in Omaha, Nebraska, last week to stump for a Democratic mayoral candidate who was opposed to abortion.
Asked about the matter, Warren touted her bonafides in support of abortion access, but said the party could include people who didn't feel the same way.
"Not all my colleagues agree with me," Warren said. "And not everybody who's a Democrat agrees with me. And that's OK with me."
She also stressed liberal economic positions in favor of the working class.
"We've got to be in the fight," Warren said. "I am in the fight on choice. I am in the fight on economics because I think this is the heart of where we are as a party."
The ABC News/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,004 adults from April 17-20 and had a margin of error of about 3.5%.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/elizabeth-warren-democratic-party/
Washington (CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday responded to a poll showing the majority felt the Democratic Party was out of touch by saying party identification is shifting -- and everyday people can see the US political system as a "rigged game."
The ABC News/Washington Post poll released Sunday showed 67% of respondents said the Democratic Party was out of touch, ahead of 62% who said the same for the GOP and 58% for President Donald Trump.
"I think the whole notion of parties and party identification is actually starting to shift," Warren said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper."
She said "the real energy" is not in the upper echelons of the parties, but instead in the grassroots, which she said contain a sizable amount of progressive outrage.
"It's saying, 'Look, we get it,'" Warren said. "'The game is rigged. It's rigged in favor of those at the top and rigged against the rest of us. And we want some accountability on that. We want to see a government that works for the rest of us.'"
Focusing largely on liberal economic positions and railing against major financial institutions, Warren has come to represent a wing of the Democratic Party that also aligns with the viewpoint of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sanders' move from relative obscurity as an independent to the center of Democratic politics, without changing his status as an independent, alongside Trump's historic move from outsider to President, has shaken the notion of party identification following years of people increasingly declining to identify as either Democrats or Republicans.
In the wake of Trump's victory, Sanders has taken a larger role within party politics and called for the Democratic Party to focus on the grassroots and small donors. He engendered some controversy when he appeared in Omaha, Nebraska, last week to stump for a Democratic mayoral candidate who was opposed to abortion.
Asked about the matter, Warren touted her bonafides in support of abortion access, but said the party could include people who didn't feel the same way.
"Not all my colleagues agree with me," Warren said. "And not everybody who's a Democrat agrees with me. And that's OK with me."
She also stressed liberal economic positions in favor of the working class.
"We've got to be in the fight," Warren said. "I am in the fight on choice. I am in the fight on economics because I think this is the heart of where we are as a party."
The ABC News/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,004 adults from April 17-20 and had a margin of error of about 3.5%.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/elizabeth-warren-democratic-party/
Similar threads
