placeholder

Actually, the problem is that the people who voted for tax cuts repeatedly claimed that they would pay for themselves because of the boost they would give to the economy. That was the lie Reagan, Bush, and Trump told.

For what it's worth, which isn't much, Hamas fighters seem to be positively enthusiastic about dying. I suspect the Israeli soldiers have enough sense to be less than enthusiastic about the possible fate.

I'm sure you think you're making a point here. What that point might be is anyone's guess.

Given that my conclusion was " I'd bet that there won't be way less air support." why would you think I was offering this as anything other than an opinion. As for the reserve duty pilots and aircrews, what did their earlier refusal have to do with Israeli policy towards the Palestinians? Wasn't it basically about Natanyahu's and company's plan to defang the Supreme Court? I didn't read much if anything much about Israeli policy towards Palestinians in their protests.

Well, given that Netanyahu and most of the cabinet are political players,and that Israeli Jewish citizens, as opposed to its Arab citizens, are mostly not overly concerned with the fate of the Palestinians in Gaza,, and that it's not just strategic considerations that drive Israel's incursion into Gaza, I'd bet that there won't be way less air support.

Which is why the first 3 friendly witnesses they called on essentially said they've got nothing.

Given the high level of gerrymandering in Republican states democracy is a dubious proposition when it comes to legislation. On the other hand, in those Republican states where the right to an abortion was voted on via referenda, the proposition won every time.

Really? The plan of revenge pursued by Benicio del Toro's character was not the story that shaped the drama? And you're questioning whether or not I saw the film? It is to laugh.

You mean because it was based on narcotics agents' operation instead of the military? You think that's an important point? Or that it was about personal revenge? Weird that you don't understand why what you originally wrote is relevant. It was about a special operation against a drug cartel kingpin inside of Mexico, was it not?

More likely it's what she's basing her plan on.

Your problem with the guy who wanted to send US troops into Mexico to battle the drug cartels is smarminess? Really? Come to think of it, i guess that makes sense from your point of view. Nikki Haley doubles down on promise to send special ops to 'eliminate' drug cartels across US-Mexico border Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley repeated her support for sending armed forces across the U.S.-Mexico border to target drug cartels. "When it comes to the cartels, we should treat them like the terrorists that they are," Haley told Fox News Digital in a recent interview. "I would send special operations in there and eliminate them just like we eliminated ISIS and make sure that they know there's no place for them." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nikki-haley-doubles-down-promise-send-special-ops-eliminate-drug-cartels-mexico-border

Especially when the person selected to do the looking into led a company that was fined for defrauding the government. At the time, it was the largest case of health care fraud in U.S. history. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/03/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-rick-scott-oversaw-largest-medicare-fra/

Sorry about the link. Here is it accessible via archive.today. https://archive.ph/JCgaG But I do want to thank you for providing the link to support your contention that "millions of Americans""who are paying more for their health insurance under obamercare than they were before." Oh...wait a minute...you didn't even provide one. If you do provide a link, I'll show you what B.S.it turns out to be.

Actually, while in the original indictment there was no mention of violations concerning classified document, in the superseding indictment there were. A new indictment was filed today in connection with the ongoing prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith of Trump and a top aide, adding charges against the former president for his handling of classified documents after he left the White House. The new, or superseding, indictment also charges Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago who helped move boxes in of classified documents. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-grand-jury-indictment-rcna96233

Did you forget to read the first page? https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mar-a-lago-affidavit-pdf/5cf823c5850b5e30/full.pdf

1)There is no evidence that Trump declassified the documents. None of his staff are actually backing up his claim. What's more, there is an audiotape of Trump reading from a classified document to an audience of a few people where he specifically says that the document was classified and he couldn't declassify it now because he was no longer President. 2)As for those talks with Trump and his people. At the end of them, Trump's lawyer signed a paper that all the documents had been returned. It was only when NARA got wind of the fact that not only had Trump retained documents, but that some of them were classified did they call in the Justice Dept. 3)And it is false to claim that the entire facility was guarded by the Secret Service. Mar a Lago a glorified country club. Unvetted people were in and out all day long. It's been documented that the documents were left in unguarded locations. The job of the Secret Service is to protect the person of the President and whoever else qualified for such protection. They do not protect the property. Your claim is false. What makes it even worse is that the Secret Service was never advised that there were such documents on the grounds. How would they even knhow to protect such documents if they didn't know that they existed? 4)What you conveniently ignore about Biden's possession of documents is that it has to be shown to be willful. In Trump's case the evidence is overwhelming since he could have been held in violation of the law simply for refusing to return the documents when NARA requested them. Also, the discovery of documents in pl 5)Hillary Clinton did not destroy her server or have it destroyed. As for her phones the issue is a lot more complicated. Here is an explanation. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-hillary-clinton-hammer-private-email-server-evidence-fbi-1806046 6)As for Clinton sharing classified info with her aides and technicians...even if you had evidence that they weren't cleared to see this information, which seems really unlikely, that a Sec of State's people couldn't view such info. the actions have to be shown to be willful violations of the rules in order to be judged to be criminal. Trump's clearly were willful.

As pointed out previously, the secret service was not of Mar-A-Lago to protect the documents. What's more, it wasn't even notified that there were documents to protect. Not that that would have mattered. And Trump had no right to negotiate the issue of what documents to return. The law very clearly states that a financial archives demands their return that they must be immediately returned. In fact, NARA, was just humoring Trump. After the documents were returned, Trump's legal counsel claimed that none remained in his possession. This was a falsehood. That raises the issue of obstruction of justice.

Anybody with an inkling of understanding of economics knows that the only way you can create widescale deflation is to create a severe recession or depression. And while the measures being discussed can't do much to address the current situation, they're certainly worth exploring should a similar crisis occur in the future.

You got any evidence to support that? Stop making things up.

It's instructive to recall that Trump actually claimed he had an Obamacare alternative that was just about ready to go even before his inauguration. Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan January 15, 2017 at 10:00 p.m. EST President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid. Trump declined to reveal specifics in the telephone interview late Saturday with The Washington Post, but any proposals from the incoming president would almost certainly dominate the Republican effort to overhaul federal health policy as he prepares to work with his party’s congressional majorities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html The Health 202: Trump keeps missing his own deadlines for a 'tremendous' health care plan https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/04/health-202-trump-keeps-missing-his-own-deadlines-tremendous-health-care-plan/

False The Secret Service is not responsible for securing those documents nor did it do so at Mar a Lago or anywhere else.. It's responsible for protecting the person of the President and whoever qualifies for its protection. "On page 5, it explicitly states that not only was the Secret Service not responsible for protecting the documents, the agency was not even informed of their presence at the property: The United States Secret Service (the “Secret Service”) provided protection to TRUMP and his family after he left office, including at The Mar-a-Lago club, but it was not responsible for the protection of TRUMP’s boxes or their contents. TRUMP did not inform the Secret Service that was storing boxes containing classified documents at The Mar-a-Lago club." What's more, what you don't seem to understand is that Trump isn't being prosecuted for having possession of these documents. It's for being knowingly in possession of them. That's the violation. He knew that he had them and still kept them. Subsequently, because he allegedly lied about being in possession of classified documents, he was also charged with obstruction of justice.. Despite which, the National Archives negotiated with Trump for months to gain possession of the documents in Trump's possession rather than asking for the participation of the Justice Dept. It was only when it was learned that Trump might be in possession of classified documents that the Justice Dept was called in.

I'm not sure how addressing the supply chain issue has much if any relevance to the current situation. It was clearly relevant back when inflation was surging. But that surge is largely over. The pandemic created an increased demand for goods (as opposed to services) that was exacerbated by a depleted work force necessary to create those goods. Bottlenecks at ports made the situation worse. So this looks more like a preparing a preventative effort in case such a situation arises again.

Even if Obamacare were responsible for this dodge, prescription drugs were only 1 part of the whole health care picture. Here's a graph showing how health expenditures have increased over time. You'll note that despite the fact that a lot more Americans were being covered both by insurance and Medicaid. health care expenditures didn't change their trajectory after Obamacare was instituted. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total national health expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, 1970-2021 As for premiums being higher, given that Obamacare was created in large part to give insurance to those with preexisting conditions, that was inevitable. However, there are subsidies available and these have been greatly increased under the Biden administration. And keep in mind that most Americans get their health insurance either from Medicare of employer health plans.

This is from a NY Times interview with Phil Klay: "There are people who feel like you cannot acknowledge, or shouldn’t acknowledge too much, horrors that are not ideologically convenient. This is why you’ll have the Palestinian National Initiative on CNN, speaking thoughtfully about the suffering of Palestinians but then denying that Hamas targets civilians, which is an insane thing to say. There was a debate in Dissent, the left-wing publication, about whether Israeli casualties should be considered “pregrieved” because their deaths will be used as a justification for whatever actions the I.D.F. takes. At the same time, if you listen to more neoconservative commentators, they feel aggrieved that the mainstream media is covering the widespread deaths of Palestinian civilians — as if that’s not a valid news story. People urgently want you to feel the moral horror of what is happening, but within a circumscribed circle. I think that is morally blinkered." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/26/magazine/phil-klay-interview.html Of course, it isn't only neoconservative commentators who take a partisan approach to stressing Israel suffering over that of the Palestinians.

A few years back, the reporting side of the Wall Street Journal sent an open letter to the editorial side that asked them to please stop making things up. The editorial you cited is more of the same. Elizabeth Warren never said that Obamacare caused the insurance companies to pull this ploy. What she lamented was the fact that it couldn't. Now maybe you believe that a huge profitable opportunity like this would have been overlooked by insurance companies, if there was no Obamacare. I don't think so. Especially given the trend towards consolidation in the healthcare industry. It's eat or be eaten.