[awm]

nige1, on 2017-February-11, 21:40, said:

We seem paranoid about Putin and Russia. The US has supported revolution all over the world (South America, Afghanistan, Chechnya, The Balkans). For instance, the US spent billions, replacing the elected government of the Ukraine and plunging the country into civil war. Europe (and to a lesser extent Russia) suffers from economic sanctions that we imposed on Russia. Currently, we are fighting another terrifying proxy-war in the Middle-East, supporting Al Qaeda against Syria (our former ally, to whom we sent suspects for "rendition") and Russia.

In this surreal maelstrom, we should welcome any tentative step-back towards world-peace -- especially peace with Russia. Instead, Intelligence services claim that Russia influenced the US Presidential Election. Admittedly, Russia would have been mad not to try, since Hilary Clinton seemed set on starting WWIII. Russia was accused of acting as a whistle-blower -- by leaking evidence that Hilary was breaking her party's rules, disenfranchising a rival candidate, and undermining a fair election. Putin might not be a good guy but, If that allegation is true, then he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, rather than vilification

This post is so insane that it's hard for me to know where to start. Russia has invaded Ukraine, has supported revolutionaries there, and is the cause of the current issues in that country. Our European allies are very unhappy with Russia's actions and are generally supportive of the sanctions. We are specifically not supporting Al Qaeda in Syria; we are primarily running air strikes against Isis, while also running operations against Al Qaeda (which is not even a significant player in Syria) in various other middle eastern countries. The sending of suspects for rendition (a horrifying betrayal of American laws and values) was based on which countries were most lawless with respect to their treatment of prisoners, and while Syria might qualify this would hardly make them an "ally."

We are not at war with Russia. The question is whether we allow them to prop up dictators (like in Syria), invade independent nations (like Ukraine), and manipulate elections (like in US and Western Europe)... or whether we use sanctions to condemn these actions. Capitulating to a bully is not the "path to peace" -- this has basically never worked in any situation.

In any case, the most troubling part of the situation with our election is not so much that Russia would try to influence the results -- we have every right to be unhappy about that, but Russia is not bound by US law and they are known to be a "bad actor" in any case. The troubling part is that we had a presidential candidate who was openly accepting and encouraging Russian interference (which is a clear violation of US election law) and was acting as their proxy in a host of ways... and somehow both our intelligence services (who had evidence that this was the case) and our news media (who also had access to part of the evidence) and the members of his party (who knew about this and claim to put "country first") did not see fit to make a big deal out of it, and our populace elected him anyway.

By the way, Hillary did not do any of the things you've accused her of, and she is not the candidate who openly advocated discarding a peace agreement with Iran and instead using nuclear weapons.

[nige1]

awm, on 2017-February-11, 23:24, said:

This post is so insane that it's hard for me to know where to start. Russia has invaded Ukraine, has supported revolutionaries there, and is the cause of the current issues in that country. Our European allies are very unhappy with Russia's actions and are generally supportive of the sanctions. We are specifically not supporting Al Qaeda in Syria; we are primarily running air strikes against Isis, while also running operations against Al Qaeda (which is not even a significant player in Syria) in various other middle eastern countries. The sending of suspects for rendition (a horrifying betrayal of American laws and values) was based on which countries were most lawless with respect to their treatment of prisoners, and while Syria might qualify this would hardly make them an "ally."

We are not at war with Russia. The question is whether we allow them to prop up dictators (like in Syria), invade independent nations (like Ukraine), and manipulate elections (like in US and Western Europe)... or whether we use sanctions to condemn these actions. Capitulating to a bully is not the "path to peace" -- this has basically never worked in any situation.

In any case, the most troubling part of the situation with our election is not so much that Russia would try to influence the results -- we have every right to be unhappy about that, but Russia is not bound by US law and they are known to be a "bad actor" in any case. The troubling part is that we had a presidential candidate who was openly accepting and encouraging Russian interference (which is a clear violation of US election law) and was acting as their proxy in a host of ways... and somehow both our intelligence services (who had evidence that this was the case) and our news media (who also had access to part of the evidence) and the members of his party (who knew about this and claim to put "country first") did not see fit to make a big deal out of it, and our populace elected him anyway.

By the way, Hillary did not do any of the things you've accused her of, and she is not the candidate who openly advocated discarding a peace agreement with Iran and instead using nuclear weapons.

The US Ministry of Peace perverts the Ministry of Truth. We're influenced by different propagandists but I suppose we're all susceptible to "fake-news".

Thus, some naively believed that the combined US and UK intelligence services, after several years investigation, using high-tech surveillance methods, would produce a more accurate report about Iraq weapons of mass-destruction than Andrew Gilligan (BBC journalist), after a convivial lunch-hour chat with David Kelly (Microbiologist).

Anyway, thank you, awm, for addressing some of my concerns.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2017-February-11, 21:40, said:

We seem paranoid about Putin and Russia. The US has supported revolution all over the world (South America, Afghanistan, Chechnya, The Balkans). For instance, the US spent billions, replacing the elected government of the Ukraine and plunging the country into civil war. Europe (and to a lesser extent Russia) suffers from economic sanctions that we imposed on Russia. Currently, we are fighting another terrifying proxy-war in the Middle-East, supporting Al Qaeda against Syria (our former ally, to whom we sent suspects for "rendition") and Russia.

In this surreal maelstrom, we should welcome any tentative step-back towards world-peace -- especially peace with Russia. Instead, Intelligence services claim that Russia influenced the US Presidential Election. Admittedly, Russia would have been mad not to try, since Hilary Clinton seemed set on starting WWIII. Russia was accused of acting as a whistle-blower -- by leaking evidence that Hilary was breaking her party's rules, disenfranchising a rival candidate, and undermining a fair election. Putin might not be a good guy but, If that allegation is true, then he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, rather than vilification

Remember those halycon days of yore when each and every one of Nigel's posts was an inane demand that the world adopt a universal alerting standard?
Complete gormless nonsense, but there was something almost charming about his persistence and his inability to adapt to criticism.

Sadly, I think that the constant stream of criticism was too much for the chap, for he has seemly created a new identity for himself as Nigel, defender of the indefensible, champion of the downtrodden right wing.
(Every bit as stupid, with none of the charm)

Where to begin:

Putin is a dictatorial, genocidal war criminal. He has been slaughtering his own people in large numbers since the days of the Chechen wars.
Now he is upping his game by killing Ukrainians, Arabs, anyone unfortunate to be flying over Ukrainian airspace as the wrong time....
The thought that Putin should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom is one of the most offensive things that I have ever seen on these forums.

I know that you are bitter because people spent years mocking your pet project. However, you really need to get something through your thick skull: The fact that people (nearly) universally despise an idea is a really good sign that something is wrong with it. It doesn't mean that it is a good thing. And Vladmir Putin very much falls into this category.

I have mixed feelings about the whole idea of a Russian "reset". For better or worse, Putin is going to be around for quite some time. There are arguments in favor of trying to normalize relations. There are arguments against. But this is incredibly different than what Nigel is claiming. (And don't pretend for a moment that Putin will bring any peace to Syria other than the "peace of the grave". Killing the entire Syrian population will most certainly bring peace to this land. However, genocide is is not normally considered to an acceptable policy outcome)

As for the idiotic claims about Hillary Clinton, the DCC, and the 2016 primaries...

It s almost certain that the DCC preferred that Clinton - a long time member of the Democratic party - won the Democratic Primary as opposed to Bernie Sander (an outsider trying to take control of the party apparatus because he could not build his own).

Guess what? Party officials possess agency! And politicians act in their own self interest. However, in no way, shape, or form did this undermine the fair nature of the Democratic primaries.

Saunders had lost the Democratic primaries long before they ever began.

He failed to build any kind of electoral apparatus down South, he got skunked on Super Tuesday, and there was no way in hell that he could ever make up this difference in votes.
Sadly, Sanders was never able to recognize this and his carping about the Clinton foundation and Goldman Sachs was incredibly damaging during the general election.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-12, 05:42, said:

Remember those halycon days of yore when each and every one of Nigel's posts was an inane demand that the world adopt a universal alerting standard? Complete gormless nonsense, but there was something almost charming about his persistence and his inability to adapt to criticism.
Sadly, I think that the constant stream of criticism was too much for the chap, for he has seemly created a new identity for himself as Nigel, defender of the indefensible, champion of the downtrodden right wing. (Every bit as stupid, with none of the charm)
Where to begin:

Hrothgar has a distinctive style of argument

I admit I've advocated many radical simplifications to the rules of Bridge, almost all rejected by law-makers

hrothgar, on 2017-February-12, 05:42, said:

Putin is a dictatorial, genocidal war criminal. He has been slaughtering his own people in large numbers since the days of the Chechen wars. Now he is upping his game by killing Ukrainians, Arabs, anyone unfortunate to be flying over Ukrainian airspace as the wrong time..

Well nobody's perfect

..

hrothgar, on 2017-February-12, 05:42, said:

The thought that Putin should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom is one of the most offensive things that I have ever seen on these forums.
I know that you are bitter because people spent years mocking your pet project. However, you really need to get something through your thick skull: The fact that people (nearly) universally despise an idea is a really good sign that some is wrong with something. It doesn't mean that it is a good thing. And Vladmir Putin very much falls into this category.
I have mixed feelings about the whole idea of a Russian "reset". For better or worse, Putin is going to be around for quite some time. There are arguments in favor of trying to normalize relations. There are arguments against. But this is incredibly different than what Nigel is claiming. (And don't pretend for a moment that Putin will bring any peace to Syria other than the "peace of the grave". Killing the entire Syrian population will most certainly bring peace to this land. However, genocide is is not normally considered to an acceptable policy outcome)
As for the idiotic claims about Hillary Clinton, the DCC, and the 2016 primaries...
It s almost certain that the DCC preferred that Clinton - a long time member of the Democratic party - won the Democratic Primary as opposed to Bernie Sander (an outsider trying to take control of the party apparatus because he could not build his own).
Guess what? Party officials possess agency! And politicians act in their own self interest. However, in no way, shape, or form did this undermine the fair nature of the Democratic primaries.
Saunders had lost the Democratic primaries long before they ever began.
He failed to build any kind of electoral apparatus down South, he got skunked on Super Tuesday, and there was no way in hell that he could ever make up this difference in votes.
Sadly, Sanders was never able to recognize this and his carping about the Clinton foundation and Goldman Sachs was incredibly damaging during the general election.

My political views are eclectic and I'm an not simply an apologist for right-wing opinions. Had I been eligible to help choose a US president, I would probably have supported Bernie Sanders -- however futile that might have been, especially if the leaked allegations against Hilary Clinton are true.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2017-February-12, 06:00, said:

Hrothgar has a distinctive style of argument

I admit I've advocated many radical simplifications to the rules of Bridge, almost all rejected by law-makers

My political views are eclectic and I'm an not simply an apologist for right-wing opinions. Had I been eligible to help choose a US president, I would probably have supported Bernie Sanders, however futile that might have been, especially if the leaked allegations against Hilary Clinton are true.

I find nothing eclectic about the repetition of right-wing memes.

[PassedOut]

nige1, on 2017-February-12, 03:53, said:

Thus, some naively believed that the combined US and UK intelligence services, after several years investigation, using high-tech surveillance methods, would produce a more accurate report about Iraq weapons of mass-destruction than Andrew Gilligan (BBC journalist), after a convivial lunch-hour chat with David Kelly (Microbiologist).

As you might recall, the "intelligence" about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction was shaped to support the US plans to attack: THE STOVEPIPE By Seymour M. Hersh

Quote

In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.

A retired C.I.A. officer described for me some of the questions that would normally arise in vetting: “Does dramatic information turned up by an overseas spy square with his access, or does it exceed his plausible reach? How does the agent behave? Is he on time for meetings?” The vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign-agent reports—sensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authorities—a process known as “stovepiping”—without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”—the C.I.A. director—“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.”

Preferring fantasy to fact resulted--predictably--in a disaster for the US. And now the US has an administration with the same preference. That's just one reason why so many of us are worried.

[jogs]

The Unaffordable Care Act

Ezekiel Emanuel claims healthcare premiums increased 80% the 8 years before Obama. Those premiums only increased 35% during Obama's 8 years. Emanuel says facts can't be made up.
Rashomon. There's a lots of facts out there. Healthcare premiums increased more than 35% in 2017. Both sides picks and chooses the time frame that supports their argument. Emanuel didn't include the 2017 increase as part of Obama's watch. Also during the startup of Obamacare Obama told health insurance companies not to raise rates. The Obama administration would reimburse their losses. Obama backed loaded taxes on medical equipment companies. Those taxes would start in 2017. These higher prices will appear in 2018 insurance premiums.
Of course the republican plan for healthcare wont lower prices either. Healthcare accounts. Are they kidding? 69% of American adults have less than $1,000 in the bank. How will they be able to start healthcare accounts?
Here's a novel idea. Healthy people who weren't sick during the year should pay nothing to the healthcare industry. Eliminate healthcare insurance. It is just another layer of expense. Eliminate the healthcare execs from healthcare. That ought to save the public billions. Doctors are too expensive. America should switch to a nurse practitioner model. NPs would have a Skype connection to a PCP. The PCP would rarely see a patient directly. Those who are willing to pay a higher price are welcome to use a PCP rather than a NP.
Affordable healthcare??? A stupid elitist politician idealistic term. Healthcare is never affordable. With luck and with subsidies poor people will be willing to sacrifice and allocate money towards their own healthcare.
Tell the truth. Single payer doesn't work. Long wait periods. Maybe a hybrid may work. Single payer/free markets. Give surgeons an inventive to work. Each operation at the single payer rate will earn credits toward a free market operation. One must perform x number of operations at the single payer rate earning enough credits to be allowed to perform one operation at the free market rate. Prominent surgeons may purchase these credits from others at a free market rate. Mainly everything which can or may lower the cost of healthcare is on the table.
Alas I don't believe Trump will be able to keep those who are poor and have pre-exiting conditions on health insurance subsidized by taxpayers. My estimates for this free healthcare is over $200 billion a year. When taxpayers learn the cost to them they will balk at paying the price.
End-of-life care will break the banks of every nation in the world. My hope is that Trump creates a less unaffordable care act.

[hrothgar]

jogs, on 2017-February-12, 18:07, said:

End-of-life care will break the banks of every nation in the world. My hope is that Trump creates a less unaffordable care act.

Just to be clear, you're advocating in favor of "Death Panels"?

[mike777]

Perhaps it is time for courts to decide if there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. If yes, then another question is should the central government pay for it?

If the answer is no, there is no such right, then it will be left to each state to make its own rules.

[Winstonm]

The current ACA pays for visits to the doctor to discuss end-of-life options, such as advanced directives and powers-of-attorney for healthcare. These are reasonable discussions and decisions best left to individuals, as the ACA does.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-13, 04:35, said:

Just to be clear, you're advocating in favor of "Death Panels"?

And if you are, should party affiliation or support for Trump be a consideration?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-13, 09:24, said:

The current ACA pays for visits to the doctor to discuss end-of-life options, such as advanced directives and powers-of-attorney for healthcare. These are reasonable discussions and decisions best left to individuals, as the ACA does.

What end of life options are rights under the constitution is the question, assisted suicide being one example


Your suggestion that the final decision should be left to an individual without the required permission of a doctor or permission of government is an interesting discussion.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-February-13, 09:42, said:

What end of life options are rights under the constitution is the question, assisted suicide being one example


Your suggestion that the final decision should be left to an individual without the required permission of a doctor or permission of government is an interesting discussion.

There are (at least) two sets of questions in healthcare: who gets to make the moral decisions and who has to make the financial decisions, as these two decisions are commonly at odds.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-13, 10:22, said:

There are (at least) two sets of questions in healthcare: who gets to make the moral decisions and who has to make the financial decisions, as these two decisions are commonly at odds.

As you and Barmar and many others have suggested, if Congress is slow then a judge may very well make these decisions with new laws that reflect 2017 society, not the old society and old meanings of the law.
Which all come backs to the question is there a constitutional right to assisted suicide?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-February-13, 10:48, said:

As you and Barmar and many others have suggested, if Congress is slow then a judge may very well make these decisions with new laws that reflect 2017 society, not the old society and old meanings of the law.
Which all come backs to the question is there a constitutional right to assisted suicide?

Constitutional questions are questions for the Supreme Court.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-13, 10:54, said:

Constitutional questions are questions for the Supreme Court. Other opinions are irrelevant.

not so for example see the recent ninth circuit ruling....not an irrelevant opinion

[kenberg]

All this death talk brings me to "A Man Called Ove" . If there is an academy award for single best line I nominate

Spoiler

"You are amazingly bad at dying".

I recommend this movie.

As to the right to die, I very much believe in it. There can always be situations where family or society goes to court to insist that a person is no longer mentally competent to make his/her own decisions, and sometimes I would agree with that. But I think the default position is that if a mentally competent person chooses to end his/her life, nobody gets to say s/he can't do so.
As to who should pay, I doubt the expense has to be great. I'm fine with the government supporting this. I am also fine with an individual doctor declining to provide this assistance. I don't think we should have it so that a person has to jump off a bridge.

I have no idea what the Constitution has to say about all of this. Probably nothing.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-February-13, 10:56, said:

not so for example see the recent ninth circuit ruling....not an irrelevant opinion

Note I edited my response and should have edited it further to simply say that questions concerning the U.S. Constitution are ultimately for the Supreme Court. Lower court opinions are certainly relevant.

[olegru]

nige1, on 2017-February-11, 21:40, said:

We seem paranoid about Putin and Russia. The US has supported revolution all over the world (South America, Afghanistan, Chechnya, The Balkans). For instance, the US spent billions, replacing the elected government of the Ukraine and plunging the country into civil war. Europe (and to a lesser extent Russia) suffers from economic sanctions that we imposed on Russia. Currently, we are fighting another terrifying proxy-war in the Middle-East, supporting Al Qaeda against Syria (our former ally, to whom we sent suspects for "rendition") and Russia.

Winstonm, on 2017-February-12, 09:20, said:

I find nothing eclectic about the repetition of right-wing memes.

What Nige1 wrote is not right-wing memes, but the mainstream of Russian propaganda. Accepting it is a huge mistake.

Rejecting it as a right-wing memes is not much better. It is a part of informational war and simple rejection will not help.

Here is a good article: The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Model
http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_PE198.pdf

Disinformation Review site: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2017-February-13, 15:14, said:

What Nige1 wrote is not right-wing memes, but the mainstream of Russian propaganda. Accepting it is a huge mistake.

Rejecting it as a right-wing memes is not much better. It is a part of informational war and simple rejection will not help.

Here is a good article: The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Model
http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_PE198.pdf

Disinformation Review site: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/

Thanks for the links. This part of the Rand article makes one wonder where Trump learned his techniques:

Quote

We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as “the firehose of falsehood” because of two of its distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions. In the words of one observer, “[N]ew Russian propaganda entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”

2 Contemporary Russian propaganda has at least two other distinctive features. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and
it lacks commitment to consistency.