Too bad the Repubes are such feckless pussies... there's clearly enough evidence to convene a grand jury and send the whole Obongo commie crew to Leavenworth.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Cernovich Explains How He Learned About Susan Rice
But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn't need a 'deep throat' within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America's corrupt mainstream media outlets. As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration.
"Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration."
"Eli Lake had it. He didn't want to run it and Bloomberg didn't want to run it because it vindicates Trump's claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a 'never Trumper.' Bloomberg was a 'never Trump' publication."
"I'm showing you the politics of 'real journalism'. 'Real journalism' is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn't run it because they don't want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that's why they sat on it."
"So where did I get the story? I didn't get it from the intelligence community. Everybody's trying to figure out where I got it from. I got it from somebody who works in one of those media companies. I have spies in every media organization. I got people in news rooms. I got it from a source within the news room who said 'Cernovich, they're sitting on this story, they're not going to run it, so you can run it'."
"If you're at Bloomberg, I have people in there. If you're at the New York Times, I have people in there. LA Times, Washington Post, you name it, I have my people in there. I got IT people in every major news room in this country. The IT people see every email so that's how I knew it."
But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn't need a 'deep throat' within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America's corrupt mainstream media outlets. As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration.
"Maggie Haberman had it. She will not run any articles that are critical of the Obama administration."
"Eli Lake had it. He didn't want to run it and Bloomberg didn't want to run it because it vindicates Trump's claim that he had been spied upon. And Eli Lake is a 'never Trumper.' Bloomberg was a 'never Trump' publication."
"I'm showing you the politics of 'real journalism'. 'Real journalism' is that Bloomberg had it and the New York Times had it but they wouldn't run it because they don't want to run any stories that would make Obama look bad or that will vindicate Trump. They only want to run stories that make Trump look bad so that's why they sat on it."
"So where did I get the story? I didn't get it from the intelligence community. Everybody's trying to figure out where I got it from. I got it from somebody who works in one of those media companies. I have spies in every media organization. I got people in news rooms. I got it from a source within the news room who said 'Cernovich, they're sitting on this story, they're not going to run it, so you can run it'."
"If you're at Bloomberg, I have people in there. If you're at the New York Times, I have people in there. LA Times, Washington Post, you name it, I have my people in there. I got IT people in every major news room in this country. The IT people see every email so that's how I knew it."
I wonder if this is just a ploy to get everyone in those news rooms talking about violations of privacy.
Could be because that would further make the case against the Obama administration, but Haberman also has a history of this sort of thing; partisanship, lying, covering up, etc... She's a fake news political hack. From the Podesta emails.
I was meaning the part where he says he has people in the IT departments of all the major news outlets reading all their emails.
Bernie, there are many insurance products you can't buy across state lines due to state insurance laws. That said, I have no problem with allowing it. But the idea that it's going to affect rates in any measurable way is lunacy.
Insurance rates are determined by the risk presented by those being insured. Rates are lower in some states than others because some states have healthier populations than other states. What happens when the more unhealthy seek the policy in the lower rate state? It increases the risk which will lead to higher premiums. The net effect will be that it levels rates across all states. If you live in a high rate state you may see your rate go down...if you live in a low rate state, your rates will rise.
Think about it. Insurance companies are pulling out of states because they are losing money on the group they are insuring. So do you think that other insurers are going to be able to provide the same coverage at lower rates?
Selling insurance across state lines is akin to taking water out of the Atlantic, pouring it into the Pacific. There is nothing wrong with doing so but don't go expecting to see a change in the water level.
To set the record straight on the golf thing, frankly, I really could care less how much golf the POTUS plays. In the grand scheme of things the money wasted on it is peanuts compared to what is being wasted on other things by the government.
I do believe Trump uses golf more to his advantage from a business perspective than Obama ever did, but I doubt Trump is making big deals with Tiger, Rory, and others he has recently played with at his club on our dime.
I am more worried about a crooked media that refuses to hold the Obama administration accountable, is trying to sabotage the Trump administration, high level folks who should be going to prison, and the list goes on. Golf is pretty low on that scale whether it is Obama or Trump.
I do believe Trump uses golf more to his advantage from a business perspective than Obama ever did, but I doubt Trump is making big deals with Tiger, Rory, and others he has recently played with at his club on our dime.
I am more worried about a crooked media that refuses to hold the Obama administration accountable, is trying to sabotage the Trump administration, high level folks who should be going to prison, and the list goes on. Golf is pretty low on that scale whether it is Obama or Trump.
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
I never really thought it through, but Fuzz explaining how allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines thereby introducing more competitors into the markets while increasing the size of the risk pools and giving more options to consumers really won't do anything to lower costs really is making me question the laws of economics.
More options that will fit individual needs will bring prices down. Those areas you say insurance companies are losing money is because those very people don't have choices to go outside of their plan and the IC has to provide coverage.
Why should a 20 year old healthy individual have to participate in a plan with 60+ year olds? Why not be able to pool those people from across the county into a single plan where prices would reflect the risk? Why couldn't a middle aged man with kids pool with others like himself?
The reason premiums are high now is because insurance companies are able to hold states hostage.
well, if you can't trust an associate of Rice on this, who can you trust, after all?CNN sets you repugs straight:
MSNBC's interview of her was done by a former co-worker in the BO administration.
Then throw in essential benefits like vasectomies, mammograms and etc. No reason everybody should pay for these so called essential benefits.
I wasn't sure I'd ever see a woman more dishonest than Hillary Clinton, but Susan Rice is giving her a run for her money.
Bernie, your rational does not make sense and your conclusion is not true. How are states held hostage? They are losing money because the people don't have options out of market?
If what you claimed was true, that the insurers were holding the state hostage...wouldn't they set their rates so they wouldn't lose money?
Check out premiums for the non-Obamacare market. The commercial healthcare insurance market that employers who offer healthcare insurance as a benefit for their employees. There are multiple companies bidding for that market. Their overall rates are slightly lower than for the same Obamacare plan but that's because people who are employed are on a whole, healthier than those who do not work and cannot work due to their illnesses or injuries.
The "options" for plans are pretty much the same across all the states because Obamacare sets the baseline of options for all. You basically have 5 options, Bronze (60%), Silver(70%), Gold(80%), Platinum(90%) and Catastrophic (high deductible). Those are the same from state to state.
Why should 20 yr olds be in a plan with 60+ yr olds? Frankly, because very few 60+ yr olds would be able to afford insurance otherwise. So you want to penalize the 60+ age group? The political reality is 60+ yr olds vote whereas the 20 something's don't.
Why not drop people with pre-existing conditions or disallow coverage for that condition? That would drop rates tremendously...but then leaves out a population that needs healthcare.
There are lots of way to decrease premiums for specific populations but doing so penalizes other populations in doing so.
People will use the healthcare system if they have to do so regardless of their ability to pay. You can't expect that healthcare providers are going to simply eat all of that cost. You also can't ask healthcare providers to throw people out on the street who are unable to pay for services.
WHEN obama was golfing was my problem. When Trump goes golfing the same day as a terror attack, get back to me.
Obama did this ALL the time.
Obama did this ALL the time.
Dishonest isn't the word I'd use.
For me it's blindly stupid.
She'll get sacrificed in this thing while the people above her skate.
I'll save everyone the time and annoyance. That line above sums it up. Since sick people would need to pay more in a free market for their medical treatments, we must make sure everyone in the country is worse off.
"Insurance" no longer means risk transference, but rather means a plan for prepaid discounted medical treatments.
Can't wait until people with impeccable driving histories pay the same to insure a Honda as people with 30 speeding tickets pay to insure a Benz. I mean, some people are worse off if they have to pay more, so we just need to make sure everyone is worse off and pays more.
You choose to live at the top of the hill? Well sorry about your luck. You need to buy this flood insurance, because if you don't, Johnny who chose to build a house next to the river may need to pay more. We can't have people suffer the consequences of their own choices and poor decisions. Insurance is about someone else paying for your problems, not about someone else being willing to take on the risk for a calculated price.
Etc. Etc. Jesus Christ liberals are goddam idiots.
Basically, Fuzz just needs to stop calling whatever he's talking about "insurance". It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the word.
Clinton's can't earn money if it isn't peddling power in politics. That's why they're so desperate for someone, anyone, in their familyto get back in some office.
CNN sets you repugs straight:
Whew. Glad they cleared that up
Hannity saying he's going to sue Obama for being surveiled ha
The difference is that if the person driving the Honda wrecks he car and isn't insured, nobody else pays to fix his car.
The person whose home is flooded without flood insurance doesn't get paid for his loss.
Compare that with what happens with healthcare. You're sick, injured, have a medical emergency you go or are taken to the ER, treated and cared for. Can't pay? They aren't going to return you to your original condition. The money is already spent, the care already delivered. Who do you expect to absorb the loss? The healthcare provider?? Right. They figure those losses into their rates you idiot!
Bury your head in the sand all you want...that ain't changing regardless of who is in the White House or congress.
Has nothing to do with being a liberal and everything with actually understanding the landscape of healthcare. Sorry that you're either too stupid or too lazy to understand the same.
When you figure out a plan where people who cannot pay for care don't get it and therefore the cost of their care doesn't get shifted to you and me then you can come make your comparisons to auto and flood insurance. Until then, you're ignoring the elephant in the room.
BTW, you also have to figure out how the low reimbursement rates for Medicare/Medicaid don't also get cost shifted as well.
Call it whatever you want.
To even attempt to compare auto, flood or any other insurance to healthcare "insurance" shows at best a fundamental ignorance of the American healthcare system.
To discuss a subject without acknowledging the parameters around which that subject is intertwined is meaningless. No different than discussing how high one can jump and ignoring the environment in which that jump is being performed. If that jump is performed on the moon or in a body of water it would be different than if performed on dry land.
No, dip shit, home owners insurance, auto insurance, health insurance, malpractice insurance, life insurance, etc. etc. Any variation of insurance you can think of is fundamentally the same. I have a risk. I'm willing to pay someone to take on that risk. Someone else is willing to accept my payment to take on the risk.
That's insurance.
Once you start introducing preexisting conditions, etc., you're no longer talking about insurance. You're talking about discount medical payments. No person in a free market would be willing to take on the risk, because the risk of loss is 100%. The only way I'd provide auto insurance to someone who already wrecked their car is to charge them premiums equal to 100% of what I'd be reimbursing them. The only way I'd insure someone who's house had burned down is to charge them 100% of replacement value. It's mind numbingly stupid to use the word insurance and introduce preexisting conditions. The word insurance loses all meaning when you're talking about transferring the risk of a 100% certainty.
So there are two groups of people in this country. Those that can get actual insurance giving meaning to the word, and those who cannot find a willing party on the open market to accept the risk of them getting sick.
The government SHOULD be there to backstop those who can't get insurance on the market.
Just because the system is broken doesn't mean we necessarily must operate within the parameters of that broken system. That's for small minded liberals like you.
The healthcare system is fvcked at it's core. The government has ensured there is no free market. I can't look up the prices of procedure online. I don't comparison shop. I have a small tax deductible HSA but my medical expenses need to exceed 10% of my AGI to be tax deductible. Notice I haven't even gotten to insurance.
We needed health care reform - For example, require doctors to post prices as a condition of being licensed. Expand the use of HSAs and the tax deductibility of OOP medical expenses. Allow people to comparison shop. Then we needed to tackle fixing the insurance system for those who can actually participate in the insurance system - allow people to shop for insurance across state lines. Allow individuals to deduct medical insurance premiums, not just businesses and self employed. Expand the use of high deductible HSA based plans. The last step always should have been fixing the system for those who cannot participate in the free (once its fixed) market health insurance system - this would necessarily be a government safety net. That order would ensure we made it better for everyone. That could have been done with minimal laws and regulations everyone could have read. Small incremental steps. You can't fix a problem this big at once.
But, no. As with all dumbass big government programs, we started with the last step. Rather than incrementally fixing the system to make it better for everyone, you jackasses decided to make the system worse for most.
So here we are. You're dumbass "health care reform" was a bullshit reform of what were the insurance markets, addressed none of the fundamental problems with the healthcare industry, and now you sit here trying to convince us all you know the solutions while using words you fundamentally don't understand.
In sum, all you lefties can get fvcked. I hope you're all the first to lose your discount healthcare payment plans when Obamacare collapses.
That's insurance.
Once you start introducing preexisting conditions, etc., you're no longer talking about insurance. You're talking about discount medical payments. No person in a free market would be willing to take on the risk, because the risk of loss is 100%. The only way I'd provide auto insurance to someone who already wrecked their car is to charge them premiums equal to 100% of what I'd be reimbursing them. The only way I'd insure someone who's house had burned down is to charge them 100% of replacement value. It's mind numbingly stupid to use the word insurance and introduce preexisting conditions. The word insurance loses all meaning when you're talking about transferring the risk of a 100% certainty.
So there are two groups of people in this country. Those that can get actual insurance giving meaning to the word, and those who cannot find a willing party on the open market to accept the risk of them getting sick.
The government SHOULD be there to backstop those who can't get insurance on the market.
Just because the system is broken doesn't mean we necessarily must operate within the parameters of that broken system. That's for small minded liberals like you.
The healthcare system is fvcked at it's core. The government has ensured there is no free market. I can't look up the prices of procedure online. I don't comparison shop. I have a small tax deductible HSA but my medical expenses need to exceed 10% of my AGI to be tax deductible. Notice I haven't even gotten to insurance.
We needed health care reform - For example, require doctors to post prices as a condition of being licensed. Expand the use of HSAs and the tax deductibility of OOP medical expenses. Allow people to comparison shop. Then we needed to tackle fixing the insurance system for those who can actually participate in the insurance system - allow people to shop for insurance across state lines. Allow individuals to deduct medical insurance premiums, not just businesses and self employed. Expand the use of high deductible HSA based plans. The last step always should have been fixing the system for those who cannot participate in the free (once its fixed) market health insurance system - this would necessarily be a government safety net. That order would ensure we made it better for everyone. That could have been done with minimal laws and regulations everyone could have read. Small incremental steps. You can't fix a problem this big at once.
But, no. As with all dumbass big government programs, we started with the last step. Rather than incrementally fixing the system to make it better for everyone, you jackasses decided to make the system worse for most.
So here we are. You're dumbass "health care reform" was a bullshit reform of what were the insurance markets, addressed none of the fundamental problems with the healthcare industry, and now you sit here trying to convince us all you know the solutions while using words you fundamentally don't understand.
In sum, all you lefties can get fvcked. I hope you're all the first to lose your discount healthcare payment plans when Obamacare collapses.
I suspect Hildebeast's campaign has her sausage fingers and 30,000 deleted emails behind some of this. She WAS the democratic heir to the throne when all of this heavy-handed shit was going down... big dawg on the tarmac wasn't gettin tuggers from Susan Rice (ok, well maybe).
He was tapping the source of all the classified info without a paper trail.
He was tapping the source of all the classified info without a paper trail.
Ok, buddy. Get one of your GOP buddies to propose what you state. Your team controls the WH, the house and senate. Go for it!
Funny that GOP healthcare...call it Trumpcare, Ryancare...whatever you want was basically 90% Obamacare. So you can take all your shots at "liberals" you want but you're getting no closer to solving a problem because the POLITICAL REALITY is that regardless of who controls any branch of government, nobody is going even propose ANYTHING like what you suggests.
So again...rant all you want. Blame it all on "liberals"...your head is in the sand. It isn't a "liberal" problem. It's political and social and ethical reality.
High deductible plans only work for people who actually have the cash to pay their deductibles. I have a high deductible plan. I've actually reached my MOOP the past two years, did it on Jan 3 this year. But you're going to have to explain how and why people who won't save for retirement, won't or can't save for their kid's education, don't have $1000 total between their checking account and savings account...how/why they are going to save money for future medical bills?
Are you going to stop them from going to the ER when they need care?
Are you going to dispatch EMTs when there's a wreck on the highway and have the EMTs find proof of financial responsibility before transporting the injured to the ER?
Half the fvcking people in this country don't pay federal taxes, so how is tax deductibility going to help them? Anyway, a tax deduction is a subsidy that is worth more to people who earn more than those who earn less. Why should I subsidize your healthcare???? You are all into financial responsibility, how dare you ask for a tax deduction.
The healthcare genie is out of the bottle and is never going back. Medicare is never going away and because of that you can never get the reform that you suggests. Again, your argument ignores the herd of elephants roaming in the room.
Every time we have argued this subject you ignore the fact that care is delivered regardless of ability to pay. You ignore that those things that could be shopped total up to be a tiny piece of the pie. You ignore that for a large segment of the population that have at best one resource from which to receive care so they have no viable options between which to choose.
The world you describe left us 50+ years ago.
If the world that has existed for the past 50 years had not existed, medical technology and treatments wouldn't be where they are. But we have them. Cancer treatment wasn't very expensive 50 years ago because it essentially didn't exist. It does now. It isn't the $500 colonoscopy or $150 office visit that has blown up healthcare costs/insurance or whatever you want to call the thing commonly referred to as healthcare insurance. It's the $150,000 - $250,000 cost to treat cancer or heart disease/strokes/attacks. When I was 13 I broke my femur, spent a month in the hospital in traction. Total cost was about $2500. Today you can't be admitted to a hospital for less than $10,000 a day.
To supposedly be a lawyer you make a terrible argument because it's one based upon fantasy.
Pretty sure it was for an alibi.
Isn't Obama hanging out in a non extradition country?
If he's not he should be. My life would be complete if I could see Obama sitting there being destroyed by Trey Gowdy.
TG: "so, what is meant by this email that says "potus has told everyone that he found out about the private server at the same time they did, so we need to take care of that""?
BO: "uh"
TG: "did you converse with HC via email"?
BO: "uh"
TG: "would you like to have someone write down their thoughts so you can read them off a prompter"?
BO: "uh, yeah"
TG: "say uh one more got damned time"!
TG: "so, what is meant by this email that says "potus has told everyone that he found out about the private server at the same time they did, so we need to take care of that""?
BO: "uh"
TG: "did you converse with HC via email"?
BO: "uh"
TG: "would you like to have someone write down their thoughts so you can read them off a prompter"?
BO: "uh, yeah"
TG: "say uh one more got damned time"!
So thinking about this whole game being played out through the media and I think it's safe to assume that the democrats were dropping news in an effort get Trump or his team talking during his or their conversations with or about Russian govt.
It didn't ever happen to the degree they were hoping and so they kept their talking points fired up in hopes that it would still come to fruition.
Seemingly once Trump came out firing about surveillance the accusations came out in full force and seemed to be close to bringing his term to a demise.
But now he has withstood the firestorm and is still virtually clean, meanwhile we are damn close to destroying Obama politically in this country.
Good luck libs. You can ignore all you want but shit is hitting the fan on your establishment.
It didn't ever happen to the degree they were hoping and so they kept their talking points fired up in hopes that it would still come to fruition.
Seemingly once Trump came out firing about surveillance the accusations came out in full force and seemed to be close to bringing his term to a demise.
But now he has withstood the firestorm and is still virtually clean, meanwhile we are damn close to destroying Obama politically in this country.
Good luck libs. You can ignore all you want but shit is hitting the fan on your establishment.
Well considering it isn't just the libs stopping his biggest political motivations what I mean by demise isn't an impeachment type scenario by any means.
In politics image is everything, and his is one of not being able to close right now with the stupid healthcare crap dumping egg on his face every day.
I'm not pretending things are as bad as a CNN is saying but they aren't as bright as trump lovers pretend either.
I get that there are headlines insisting great things and awful things.........but what Trump really wants isn't happening and probably won't until his healthcare issue is resolved, unfortunately.
In politics image is everything, and his is one of not being able to close right now with the stupid healthcare crap dumping egg on his face every day.
I'm not pretending things are as bad as a CNN is saying but they aren't as bright as trump lovers pretend either.
I get that there are headlines insisting great things and awful things.........but what Trump really wants isn't happening and probably won't until his healthcare issue is resolved, unfortunately.
Similar threads
