Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
Did I start it? I only offered a one word reply to the arrogant con.... -
Assumptions were made that because he's a con, he must be white, fat, and a redneck. That's how it goes. Con gives his resume, Lib gives his. Pull your pants up and move on....Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz reacted to reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating President Donald Trump for possible collusion, but does not consider Trump a criminal target in the probe.
Dershowitz, a longtime Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, said Mueller would be "inventing a crime" to charge Trump in that case.
"There's no such crime as 'collusion' in the federal statute," he saidComment
-
This is the scope of Mueller’s investigation...
http://preview.ibb.co/fULtWc/0_FA1_B...58_ECC2828.jpgComment
-
Mueller has already said he's looking at obstruction of justice charges, along with financial/tax crimes. Then there's StormyOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
-
Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
One of the predictions that was made, with great fanfare, when Obamacare passed, was that our nation’s bankruptcy epidemic would finally come to an end. Last week, veteran liberal commentator Norm Ornstein declared that it had already come to pass.
“Before Obamacare,” he tweeted, “more bankruptcies from health bills than anything else. Now, hardly at all. Do we really want to go back to that?”
Did medical bills single-handedly account for more bankruptcies than anything else? No. This is an exaggerated half-remembering of a series of studies, authored by (among others) Elizabeth Warren, that were themselves exorbitant exaggerations.
I went into detail on the problems with the work seven years ago, but the highlight reel is that these authors have an aggressive tendency to employ any technique that ratchets the count of “medical bankruptcy” upward, while not using similar techniques that would tend to ratchet up other categories and diminish the number of bankruptcies counted as medical, and to present their results in misleading ways -- so as to obscure, for example, the fact that by their own accounting, the number of medical bankruptcies actually fell by hundreds of thousands between 2001 and 2007. Which is why their study tended to be presented in the media as “growing problem” rather than “shrinking threat.”Comment
-
"A correlation between variables does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable."Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
The decline in unemployment rates with the continuation of historically low interest rates has much more to do with few bankruptcies.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
The Myth of the Medical Bankruptcy
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...cal-bankruptcyComment
-
Hey TMan have you been watching the polls?
Bwahahaha!
Was anyone surprised by the recent CNN poll finding President Trump's approval rating at 42 percent, the highest it has been since the first Infrastructure Week?
...... It's not surprising that after little more than a year in office many people who voted for a president still support him. But it's also surprising that a president who has been the object of more negative reporting than any in our history still enjoys something like the same middling base of support he had before taking office. Unless it's the negative reporting that is the problem, which I suspect is very largely the case. You can only ask adults to participate in the fiction that a retweet of a wrestling GIF is a credible threat of violence against some nerd reporters at a cable station or delight in what you hope will be the failure of American trade policy before they decide to tune you out. Very largely this had already happened by Inauguration Day, but now the work of MSNBC and The New York Times and PolitiFact is complete. Millions of Americans do not know the difference between what is true and what is false and have decided that they do not much care either.
http://theweek.com/articles/764645/w...ular-than-everComment
-
Does this really surprise anyone?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Kicking City Slickers Off Of The Federal Farm Subsidy
The federal farm program was originally intended to “protect the national food supply” and “preserve the family farm.” Yet, our findings showed wealthy investors piggy-backing on a growing government program - the largess of farm subsidies had become part of their investment portfolio. Many of these wealthy investors don’t live in “rural areas,” but instead utilize “farm managers” and taxpayer dollars to maximize return on their “farm” investments.
The amounts are significant with the top 10,806 entities receiving billions. For example, just 491 entities received over $1 million in farm subsidies amounting to over $725.7 million (2008-2011) and averaged $1.734 million each.
In New York City, Wall Street financiers, Rockefellers, wealthy heirs and Upper East Side recipients all received subsidies. Even the non-profit National Audubon Society collected nearly $1 million in subsidies including New York tobacco subsidies and Minnesota lamb slaughter aid.
In Chicago, IL, the city ranks seventh out of over 1,200 municipalities in the state in the receipt of federal farm subsidies. It’s 930 individual entities collecting the subsidy including wealthy traders at the Board of Trade and downtown duck charities reaping millions. Even Reverend Minister Louis Farrakhan, the founder of the Nation of Islam, opened up two charities and collected over $317,000 of farm subsidies and commodities loans during a sixteen year period. Interestingly, the IRS and Illinois Attorney General have no record of either charity."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamand.../#2f39f8752c83Comment
-
" hundreds" ?
The obvious point is that, after months of investigating Trump, Mueller still does not have sufficient evidence to make him a “target.” True, a “subject” can become a “target” and a “target” can then become a “defendant,” but so can a “witness.” Clearly, Trump is a subject since he was the subject of the election itself and directly involved in the underlying matters under investigation. What is new is that Mueller confirmed Trump’s status has not changed.
Later, CNN analyst John Dean declared that an assurance Trump is not a target “does not mean a whole lot.” Dean’s rationale was that a president “cannot be indicted,” so Mueller would never have listed him as a target, regardless of the evidence. First and foremost, some of us believe a president can be indicted in office. While there is disagreement, including within the Justice Department and past independent counsels, the Supreme Court has never accepted such immunity from indictment.
More important, even if true, such immunity would not mean Mueller would declare Trump is not a target. Rather, Trump would remain a target as an unindicted co-conspirator or simply an unindicted person pending impeachment. Once impeached, he still could be indicted. Thus, it would be both illogical and unethical for Mueller to say Trump is not a target when he was pursuing possible charges, either as an unindicted co-conspirator or a post-impeachment defendant.
CNN analyst Philip Mudd was not satisfied with the “soft” depictions of the Mueller disclosure and declared that it was devastating news that Mueller was now investigating Trump and that, if Trump were declared a subject, “I would wet my pants.” CNN analyst Ryan Lizza went even further, suggesting that this was all a sham and Mueller is playing “chess to get the president into an interview.” Of course, such a bait-and-switch would be unethical in making false representations to the president’s counsel if Trump is already considered a target.
This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump is a disturbing pathology. Just because Trump is a subject of investigation does not mean he cannot become a target. Moreover, Mueller — as expected — indicated he will prepare a report on his investigation. This still is a positive development for Trump. It shows that Trump’s status has not materially changed but neither has the status of much of the coverage. Many media commentators clearly are stuck on denial and are a long way from acceptance in dealing with the legal status of the president.
Jonathan TurleyComment
-
Talk about grifters! Remember this? The New York Times reporting that Hillary Clinton's published, Simon & Schuster, wasn't likely to sell enough books to make back her hefty advance?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Sales of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new memoir, “Hard Choices,” declined 43.5 percent to 48,000 copies in its second week on the shelves, according to Nielsen BookScan.
The sales figures put pressure on the publisher, Simon & Schuster, which paid Mrs. Clinton a multimillion-dollar advance to write about her time at the State Department and has invested heavily in the book’s rollout, one of the biggest of the year.Comment
-
You assume their markets are going to dry up when in fact they still remain. Farmers just ship their products to Canada which does the processing and then sells to China.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment