Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 16, 2017

OTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true

As is sometimes the case with Trump’s tweet’s, his claims don’t hold up. We identified 14 games that Trump has attended since 1988, including two preseason games and the game above. Of those 14 games, the Yankees won eight and lost six — 57 percent of the time during seasons when the Yankees won 60 percent of their games overall.

In other words — Trump might be a jinx.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 16, 2017 at 07:49 AM | 1967 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: astros, playoffs, politics, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›
   1301. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:39 PM (#5558228)
4 signs that Trump’s furious efforts to save coal are futile
I posted this before, but it bears repeating:

Detroit Edison (the 7th largest electrical utility in the US) is going to be coal-free by 2050. Last year, Consumers Power (the 10th largest electrical utility in the US) closed 7 coal plants, leaving 5 in their system.


   1302. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:39 PM (#5558229)
I dislike Trump immensely, but there's 8) Has done very little of significance. This is a feature and not a bug to me. Doesn't mean I'm a supporter or would vote for him in 2020, but if we're stuck with a ######### populist asshat loudmouth anyway, I'll take a legislatively incompetent one. At the very least, he's not a politician likely to start pushing towards or laying additional groundwork for $15 minimum wage or Medicare-for-all grotesqueries.
   1303. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5558231)
Maybe it's time for my every-few-months question for Sugar Bear and other loyalists: what is good about Trump so far?


I'm not a Trump loyalist but not initiating an Iraq-style war keeps him comfortably above Bush, even though the latter has taken to criticizing Trump today.

People who live in glass houses and start wars with Iraq shouldn't be criticizing those who don't.
   1304. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5558232)
Wind is about to surpass coal in Texas, the freest of free energy markets

Why would that be significant? Was there ever much coal used in Texas, a state fairly well known to be a huge producer of oil & natural gas? Even if there was a time when coal was cost-competive with oil & natural gas, which I doubt was true in Texas, that surely hasn't been the case since the increased supplies from the fracking revolution. That coal isn't the best option in Texas doesn't mean that is the case everywhere else. I'm fine with letting the market decide which energy source to use, but those looking to heavily subsidize alternative sources usually aren't. This is another sloppy Vox piece, in case anyone was in doubt.
   1305. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5558233)
You're not gonna change Ray's on this or get any concession from him, PepTech.

Remember: Ray sticks to his guns.


Yes, it's just me who sticks to his guns. Nobody else.

Remember the rule: BBTF: Changing no minds since 2004.
   1306. BrianBrianson Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5558234)
His election is a clear symptom of the Decline and the opposition's reaction to him is a clear symptom of the Decline.


Supporting Trump is causing the decline! Opposing Trump is causing the decline! Eating Cheerios is causing the Decline! Eating a full English is causing the Decline! Acknowledging the Decline is causing the Decline! Denying the Decline is causing the Decline! Springing Forward is causing the Decline! Falling Back is causing the Decline!
   1307. madvillain Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5558235)
I dislike Trump immensely, but there's 8) Has done very little of significance. This is a feature and not a bug to me. Doesn't mean I'm a supporter or would vote for him in 2020, but if we're stuck with a ######### populist asshat loudmouth anyway, I'll take a legislatively incompetent one. At the very least, he's not a politician likely to start pushing towards or laying additional groundwork for $15 minimum wage or Medicare-for-all grotesqueries.


I'm partly of the same mind, but as a white male, it's easy to say. Women and minorities are bearing the brunt of his EOs.
   1308. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5558236)
As long as it stems from freely entered into arrangements made by consenting parties, I wouldn't care if aborted fetuses were surpassing coal as an energy source.
   1309. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5558237)
Ray can call me the insane one, I guess I'm unique in my view that the CoC going with "I'm very sorry your son died under my command. Twenty-five grand be good for that?" is kinda gross.


Now who's revising history?

That doesn't resemble the conversation as reported by the father at all.
   1310. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5558238)
I'm fine with letting the market decide which energy source to use, but those looking to heavily subsidize alternative sources usually aren't.


Do hydrocarbon-based fuels count as heavily-subsidized primary sources, and thus exempt?
   1311. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:45 PM (#5558240)
I'm not a Trump loyalist but not initiating an Iraq-style war keeps him comfortably above Bush, even though the latter has taken to criticizing Trump today.


The modern lefty revisionism over W Bush -- who they utterly detested, and said so -- is indeed quite comical. It will be quite chuckle-worthy to hear them do the same with Donald Trump, the next time there's a Republican president. There will be enough versions of "Yeah, Trump was awful but at least he didn't ______________________" to start a game show.



   1312. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:46 PM (#5558243)
I'm partly of the same mind, but as a white male, it's easy to say. Women and minorities are bearing the brunt of his EOs.

But these EOs, in the big picture of day-to-day living, are essentially symbolic. I'm certainly not saying he's not a giant cocklord for these things. I'm just talking silver lining. A Democratic president was unlikely to commit these doucheries, but I don't consider it even exchange for nominating justices that favor government censorship of political speech.
   1313. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:46 PM (#5558244)
In the brief analogy there's a requirement and a deadline. On these facts there is no requirement and no deadline.
You're right - there was no requirement for Trump to donate money to the family. But once he made the promise, he did impose an obligation on himself to do so.

Of course, Ray and the rest of the Trump sycophants have never cared that Trump never keeps his word about anything, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised they don't see a problem here either.
   1314. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5558245)
Suffice to say that no amount of TDS can erase the fact that Trump gifted a grieving military father $25,000 after initially pledging to do so months ago and then not doing anything about it until the grieving military father mentioned to the press that he still hadn't received a cheque, unless you believe that it would take four months to send a cheque.


I think everyone can agree to those facts, right?

   1315. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:50 PM (#5558248)
No credit given for stock market going up. You can lay a straightedge across the Dow Jones Average since the year 1938 and it basically just climbs and climbs, with the occasional recession (even one as bad as 2008) just slowing the march for a little while.

I will just note again that that sentiment, while not inaccurate, was not mentioned on election night and the morning after, when OTP was awash in dire Krugman-like predictions of a Trump-induced stock market crash.
   1316. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5558249)
Of course, Ray and the rest of the Trump sycophants have never cared that Trump never keeps his word about anything,


Indeed I don't care, because politicians don't keep their word as a rule, but it's even more ridiculous here, where Trump _did_ keep his word. He sent the money.

Did the Obama sycophants care that Obama said you could keep your doctor? Did the Hillary sycophants care that Hillary lied about her server? This is a multiple choice question so I'll give you the list of possible answers to choose from:

A. No.
B. No.
C. No.
D. No.

It's even more absurd here, as we're talking about a gift, and not health care or national security.
   1317. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5558250)
Why would that be significant?


Why wouldn't it?

Was there ever much coal used in Texas, a state fairly well known to be a huge producer of oil & natural gas?


If you want to be informed Google to the rescue!

Read up.

Spoiler alert: Yes, plenty of coal is both produced and used in Texas.

Quick Facts

* Texas was the leading crude oil-producing state in the nation in 2015 and exceeded production levels even from the federal offshore areas.
* As of January 2016, the 29 petroleum refineries in Texas had a capacity of over 5.4 million barrels of crude oil per day and accounted for 30% of total U.S. refining capacity.
* Texas accounted for over 27% of U.S. marketed natural gas production in 2015, making it the leading natural gas producer among the states.
* Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation capacity with more than 18,500 megawatts; in 2014 and 2015, Texas wind turbines produced more electricity than the state's two nuclear plants.
* Texas is the nation's largest producer of lignite coal. About 40% of the coal burned for electricity generation in Texas is lignite.


Click through above for the graphs showing exactly how much electricity is produced by various methods.
   1318. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:53 PM (#5558251)
I dislike Trump immensely, but there's 8) Has done very little of significance. This is a feature and not a bug to me. Doesn't mean I'm a supporter or would vote for him in 2020, but if we're stuck with a ######### populist asshat loudmouth anyway, I'll take a legislatively incompetent one. At the very least, he's not a politician likely to start pushing towards or laying additional groundwork for $15 minimum wage or Medicare-for-all grotesqueries.
Yeah, in theory. But the problem is that even though he's the one who's incompetent, GOP voters are seemingly blaming the GOPe for his failures, weakening said GOPe even further in favor of nuts like Roy Moore. A congress filled with socialists on the Democratic side and wackos like Moore on the GOP side is not a recipe for libertarian happiness.
   1319. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:53 PM (#5558252)
I'm not a Trump loyalist but
hahahahahahahahahahaha!

(Who said he doesn't have a wry sense of humor, folks?)
   1320. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5558253)
1305

You're not gonna change Ray's on this or get any concession from him, PepTech.

Remember: Ray sticks to his guns.


Yes, it's just me who sticks to his guns. Nobody else.

Remember the rule: BBTF: Changing no minds since 2004.


Fair enough.
   1321. BDC Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5558254)
8) Has done very little of significance. This is a feature and not a bug to me (DJS)

Quite fair enough.

   1322. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:56 PM (#5558255)
Click through above for the graphs showing exactly how much electricity is produced by various methods

Your link seems to contradict your original article. That happens with Vox.
   1323. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:56 PM (#5558256)
In the brief analogy there's a requirement and a deadline. On these facts there is no requirement and no deadline.


Except human decency, which Trump lacks you don't recognize as a thing.
   1324. BDC Posted: October 19, 2017 at 03:59 PM (#5558259)
from the left, I like his at least apparent outlining of the idea that the health insurance companies shouldn't be getting government subsidies (SBB)

Sugar Bear, you noodle-head, this "left" position is

(a) something Trump made up in two tweets last week and

(b) his basic attempt to trash Obamacare by any means possible. It's not even coherent. The whole freaking nature of the ACA is a compromise between universal-care objectives and the realities of American health insurance. It enlists insurers in providing universal coverage. Since Trump has no universal-care objectives whatsoever, and no ideas about how to replace Obamacare if the private-insurance side of it falls apart, this couldn't be further from a "left" position. Its only practical implication is to tear down the whole regulatory structure and the funding apparatus, and move us closer to the die-if-you-can't-pay model beloved to conservatives.
   1325. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5558261)
Suffice to say that no amount of TDS can erase the fact that Trump gifted a grieving military father $25,000 after initially pledging to do so months ago and then not doing anything about it until the grieving military father mentioned to the press that he still hadn't received a cheque, unless you believe that it would take four months to send a cheque and he still hasn't set up the fundraiser he said he'd set up
FIFY.
   1326. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5558262)
Do hydrocarbon-based fuels count as heavily-subsidized primary sources, and thus exempt?


They are undoubtedly the most heavily susidized. Nothing else comes close.
   1327. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5558263)
I dislike Trump immensely, but there's 8) Has done very little of significance. This is a feature and not a bug to me. Doesn't mean I'm a supporter or would vote for him in 2020, but if we're stuck with a ######### populist asshat loudmouth anyway, I'll take a legislatively incompetent one. At the very least, he's not a politician likely to start pushing towards or laying additional groundwork for $15 minimum wage or Medicare-for-all grotesqueries.


The problem with this analysis - and I'm not calling Dan a Trumpkin - is that I think you're overlooking some groundwork he has laid...

I.e., Dan - I think you've demonstrated on multiple occasions your rather absolutist opinions on various 1st amendment issues. That's not a slam - as I've said several times over, my opinions on things like the Citizens United decision actually HAVE been changed by those very arguments (not to say that I don't think money in politics and how it is used isn't a problem, just that I freely admit my opinion today - or even last year, pre-Trump - is different than what it was 5 years ago).

Unless you're going full Ray -- and it's just all about taxes -- I would think that more than a few of Trump's hobby horses ought to be extremely alarming to you.

I.e., his wars with the "FAKE NEWS!" -- and his explicitly stated, in multiple forms, idea about revoking licenses from networks who publish or report things he doesn't like.

His silly war with the NFL -- and the player's kneeling for the anthem... as David noted - you've actually got the likely next GOP Senator from Alabama (and a former Alabama high court chief justice) explicitly claiming it's illegal and the illegality ought to be punished/enforced.

I think that if you're going to be honest to your principles -- and match the tenor and volume that you objected to campaign finance pushes -- you ought to be even more outraged over an even more direct and overt assault on that 1st amendment.

I suppose you can follow back on a generic idea that Trump's 1A assaults are much more ridiculous than say, lefty calls for a CU constitutional amendment... but I would say that such a distinction rings pretty hollow.
   1328. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5558264)
Ray, #1300:
Ray, any comment on the legal brief analogy?
An attorney is instructed to file a brief, and only actually does it after the case has been adjudicated. By that time his client has lost.
Would that be an issue in your practice? He did file the brief, after all.


It's an absurd analogy, which is why an analogy departing from the actual facts had to be made.



Ray knows that sensible Trump analogies are situated on the moon.
   1329. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:02 PM (#5558265)
Ray can call me the insane one, I guess I'm unique in my view that the CoC going with "I'm very sorry your son died under my command. Twenty-five grand be good for that?" is kinda gross.
Yeah, I have to say that this is not a fair characterization of the story as reported. After Trump called to offer his warmest condolences, the guy mentioned his financial struggles, noting that his ex-wife got the death benefits. And then Trump offered to help him out of pretend sympathy. But he didn't just call him up and say, "Hey, your idiot kid died. I prefer soldiers who don't die. What's he worth? $25K? I'll write you a check just to shut up your crying." as you portray it.
   1330. simon bedford Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:02 PM (#5558266)
Talking out of turn? that's a sign of the decline
Starring at my sandals? That's a sign of the decline,
Paddling with Patsy Cline? You can bet that's a sign of the decline.
   1331. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5558268)
Trump _did_ keep his word. He sent the money.
After he was publicly shamed for not doing so.
Did the Obama sycophants care that Obama said you could keep your doctor?
I'm not an Obama apologist, but there is nothing in the AHA that denies you the ability to keep your doctor. Individual doctors and individual insurance plans made decisions that forced people to change doctors, but that was not a feature (or if you prefer, a bug) in the AHA.
Did the Hillary sycophants care that Hillary lied about her server?
I'm not a Hillary apologist, but, um, yes? It bothered me greatly that she didn't just come clean about what she was doing, and especially since in the end it wasn't that big of a deal*.

*Yes, it technically was against the law (though national security was never at risk, despite your repeated bleatings). But to ward off more of your bleatings, it's also technically against the law to do many things that investigators and prosecutors later decide aren't worth the effort to go after.
   1332. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:07 PM (#5558270)
Your link seems to contradict your original article.


Good one. Do you ever bother to read and understand anything? Ever? Asking for a friend.
   1333. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:08 PM (#5558272)
The modern lefty revisionism over W Bush -- who they utterly detested, and said so -- is indeed quite comical. It will be quite chuckle-worthy to hear them do the same with Donald Trump, the next time there's a Republican president. There will be enough versions of "Yeah, Trump was awful but at least he didn't ______________________" to start a game show.


I don't think you know what the word "revisionism" means.

If the Cubs sign Jared Kushner to a 2 year/5 million contract -- it's not revisionism if I say that "Gee, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd pine for Aaron Miles". It's actually a perfectly consistent and logical complaint.
   1334. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5558275)
We weren't thinking about nuclear war one year ago nearly as much as we hear about it now.
   1335. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:14 PM (#5558277)
Except human decency, which Trump lacks you don't recognize as a thing.


It really isn't a thing of any import, save for those who have a psychic need for the head of state of their nation to possess certain qualities.

What "human decency" did, for example, Ted Kennedy possess? The only way you get to anything like such a statement is by pretending that favoring certain government programs gives you "human decency," in which case we could only be talking about the human definition of the term.

   1336. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5558278)
I'm not an Obama apologist,


The rest of your sentence refutes that quite nicely:

but there is nothing in the AHA that denies you the ability to keep your doctor. Individual doctors and individual insurance plans made decisions that forced people to change doctors, but that was not a feature (or if you prefer, a bug) in the AHA.
   1337. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:16 PM (#5558280)
Individual doctors and individual insurance plans made decisions that forced people to change doctors, but that was not a feature (or if you prefer, a bug) in the AHA.


LOL.

Other than not being able to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
   1338. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:25 PM (#5558293)
The rest of your sentence refutes that quite nicely:
Please, point out where in the ACA that certain doctors would be excluded from the program. For help, here and here are the two parts of the law.
   1339. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:27 PM (#5558297)
The big lie was actually the similar but not identical, "If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan."
   1340. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:30 PM (#5558300)
Your link seems to contradict your original article.

Good one. Do you ever bother to read and understand anything? Ever? Asking for a friend.

I understand that your own link contradicted the Vox article you originally posted. Do you always fall for their stuff? Even after they claimed there was a Land Bridge Between The West Bank and Gaza, a nonexistent, modern day Polish Corridor? Might want to use a different source, assuming you care about your credibility.
   1341. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5558301)
If that is 2.3 million in 1930's dollars, then that's about 4.1 billion in 2017 dollars. Impressive.

I believe it is.


More like $40 million if you are using inflation, $100 million with 5% growth.
   1342. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5558302)
I understand that your own link contradicted the Vox article you originally posted.


Please continue...
   1343. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:36 PM (#5558306)
Ray please answer 1076?
   1344. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:38 PM (#5558307)
I'm not an Obama apologist, but there is nothing in the AHA that denies you the ability to keep your doctor. Individual doctors and individual insurance plans made decisions that forced people to change doctors, but that was not a feature (or if you prefer, a bug) in the AHA.


No offense, TDF -- but you're playing a fool's game here... it's a shame that you're doing in so in good faith, and at least attempting to address practical realities but this is a perfect example of the nutra-sweet Bear and Ray trap.

You should have just stopped with the first sentence.

Individual doctors and insurance plans made decisions that had practical implications BEFORE the ACA.

The anti-lefty arguments conveniently ignore this fact -- that changes in plans, changes in availability of plans offered (in the non-group market and within the group/employer market) often had the practical impact of causing people to switch doctors. Trying to have an honest discussion on the matter with SBB or Ray means lefties don't point out this fact -- because, of course, it's kind of silly to claim that BEFORE the ACA, the practicalities meant you could only "keep your doctor if you liked your doctor" if the exact same financial realities were ignored.

It's the inherent problem with arguing with the intrinsically dishonest -- they've got no problem with goalpost moving to meet the ends of their own-in-the-moment argument, but they're never going to offer the same quarter.

Pre-ACA, you could keep your doctor if you liked your doctor if the realities of plan changes, financial practicalities, etc weren't taken into account.

Post-ACA, you can still keep your doctor if you like your doctor if the realities of plans changes, financial practicalities, etc were taken into account.

Nothing has changed.

Let the dishonest do the work of mustering the data and arguments. Don't do their work for them -- it's how the dishonest and lazy manage to just become more dishonest and lazy.
   1345. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:38 PM (#5558308)
Thankfully, John Kelly has now weighed in. Emphasis mine.
"He was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1%. He knew what the possibilities were because we were at war," Kelly said, channeling Dunford's words to him upon the death of Kelly's son. "And when he died he was surrounded by the best men on this earth, his friends. That's what the President tried to say to the four families the other day."

Rep. Frederica Wilson told CNN Tuesday evening that Trump told the widow that her husband "knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."
...
Cowanda Jones-Johnson, a family member who raised Johnson, told CNN Wednesday that Wilson's account of the call between Trump and Johnson's widow, Myeshia, was "very accurate." She said she was in the car when the call happened.
Hey, Trump tried. Maybe Kelly should have put a rebus on cue cards; I hear Trump likes pictures. Not that I should care if POTUS has a compassion deficit disorder. Valiant effort from Kelly; the words he quoted would have been fine, and the widow wouldn't have seen the clenched jaw on the phone.
   1346. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:41 PM (#5558310)
Sadly I can't wait for Clapper to further step in it. I have stuff to do.

Here is the quote from the article I linked to:
If recently announced coal retirements go through and the pace of wind energy construction continues at the expected rate, wind energy capacity could surpass coal capacity in Texas as early as next year.


I think it fascinating that Clapper imagines this is conflicted by a link which specifically cites 2017 numbers. Perhaps Clapper needs a briefing on the meaning of the words "If ... announced coal retirements ... construction continues ... could surpass ... as early as NEXT YEAR."
   1347. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5558311)
Post-ACA, you can still keep your doctor if you like your doctor if the realities of plans changes, financial practicalities, etc were taken into account.


ACA changed the "realities of plans changes, financial practicalities etc" such that it was self-evident that a bunch of people would not be able to keep their doctor.

I'm a lefty on health care, but I'm not a silly tribalist -- thus, I don't bother with silly tribalist arguments. If a massive income tax surcharge is slapped on doctors and a bunch of doctors leave the profession as a result, it's beyond satire silly to try to claim, "No doctors were ordered to leave the profession by the legislation." That's the kind of things tribalists and random assorted hacks say.
   1348. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:45 PM (#5558313)
The big lie was actually the similar but not identical, "If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan."

Long before Obamacare came around, insurance companies routinely changed the terms and costs of health care plans every year, essentially telling you to take it or leave it. Was that "letting you keep your health plan"?

And long before Obamacare was made into law, many companies either withdrew or shrunk their employees' health care coverage. Was that "letting you keep your health plan"?

Many of those appropriately labeled "buffalo" policies** were indeed restricted under the ACA, but given their almost total lack of real coverage, that was more of a feature than a bug.

** So named because they covered you only when you got trampled by a herd of buffalo

EDIT: coke to zonk
   1349. BDC Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:45 PM (#5558315)
Pre-ACA, you could keep your doctor if you liked your doctor if the realities of plan changes, financial practicalities, etc weren't taken into account.

Post-ACA, you can still keep your doctor if you like your doctor if the realities of plans changes, financial practicalities, etc were taken into account.


This. The parade of providers in and out of various plans I've had has been fairly constant before and after the ACA came along.

That fact doesn't excuse Obama for being misleading. But it is essentially true that if you had insurance before the ACA, you have the same problems coordinating care that you had before the ACA. It's just as much a lie for a provider or insurer to blame upheaval on the ACA as for Obama to suggest that upheavals would cease. Upheavals come with the territory of private insurance.
   1350. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:47 PM (#5558316)
Ray please answer 1076?


1076? Was that before Gore invented the internets?

1076. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:19 PM (#5557340)
This news would have been awesome had you dopes been making this argument back on 11/8. I could have promised to pay, and then not paid until some period of time passed, say, months.

What's the decorum on not paying as implied, how much time has to pass before it becomes gauche not to have paid? Too funny.


What do you want me to answer, specifically?
   1351. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:48 PM (#5558317)
That fact doesn't excuse Obama for being misleading.


No, it doesn't -- and Obama was "misleading" on a highly material point about a highly material piece of actual legislation.(*) Head of government stuff.

Compare and contrast the head of state trivia you're inviting people to get all outraged about w/r/t Trump.

   1352. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 04:51 PM (#5558320)
I think the question is specific, Ray.
   1353. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:06 PM (#5558325)
ACA changed the "realities of plans changes, financial practicalities etc" such that it was self-evident that a bunch of people would not be able to keep their doctor.


Show your work. I'm familiar with the numbers. But I'm not going to do your work for you. Define "a bunch". Define it both raw numbers and with relative proportions. I say the it's actually less than a bunch. If you think it is a bunch - then provide the data.

I'm a lefty on health care, but I'm not a silly tribalist -- thus, I don't bother with silly tribalist arguments. If a massive income tax surcharge is slapped on doctors and a bunch of doctors leave the profession as a result, it's beyond satire silly to try to claim, "No doctors were ordered to leave the profession by the legislation." That's the kind of things tribalists and random assorted hacks say.


And if random Medicaid recipients are selected by lottery to be ground up into soylent green fuel to power MRI machines for physician groups that accept Medicaid, it's beyond silly to claim that "No poor people were negatively impacted by the changes to Medicaid".

Both of these are hypotheticals.

There's a reason that both the AMA and AHA did ultimately support the final version of the ACA -- neither with great enthusiasm nor with no reservations, but both ultimately did support its passage.
   1354. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:08 PM (#5558326)
What's the decorum on not paying as implied, how much time has to pass before it becomes gauche not to have paid? Too funny.


I don't know that there's an answer to that. A reasonable period of time. Partly depends on your financial circumstances. If you have the money, a few weeks. If you don't, a few months or years or never -- in fact, I believe I even specifically said to you that if it was going to cause problems at home with your wife, I was happy to forget about it. I think I even left it to your discretion to send an amount you deemed do-able given whatever your financial state was. To your credit you said you were ok with sending the whole 2K but that it would also be nice if you could donate it for the tax deduction and I said, why don't you just send me 1K and the other 1K to charity if you so desire. Which you did.

The entire exchange was pleasant with an adult discussion on both ends as to what you could afford to do and what you wanted to do and what my wishes were.

But I don't know how any of that applies to this situation. Trump didn't lose a bet; he promised a gift.

But to the extent our bet is relevant to this situation, what I *wouldn't* have done is to immediately call you a liar if I hadn't gotten the money within X days/weeks/months. I'd have said, hey, did you forget, when do you think you might get around to it? (I might have actually just let it slide.) Instead, what happened here was that people immediately called Trump a liar. They didn't stop to try to ascertain what his thinking on the matter was. Did he forget? If not, when was he planning to send the money?

Instead people just came out with liar. Then after he sent the money they still called him a liar. For not doing a random act of kindness quickly enough. It's a disgusting display by people here, frankly.

(And that's not even getting into the dubious decorum of the father, who took someone who promised him a very generous gift and hung him out to dry by telling the media he hadn't gotten it yet. Greasing the skids for the media to go to Trump and be all, "You a$$hole. When are you sending him the $25,000 gift you promised.")
   1355. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:09 PM (#5558327)
I'm not an Obama apologist, but there is nothing in the AHA that denies you the ability to keep your doctor. Individual doctors and individual insurance plans made decisions that forced people to change doctors, but that was not a feature (or if you prefer, a bug) in the AHA.

It's far too late in the game to claim that Obama wasn't knowingly lying on this one. His often repeated campaign pledge was generally along the lines of that under his proposed healthcare legislation, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan; and you'll save $2500 a year". There are videos, previously linked bere, of Obama saying that over and over again, and even Andy's beloved fact-checker gave Obama the full 4 Pinocchios for that, much belatedly of course. Surprised anyone here missed that.
   1356. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:14 PM (#5558329)
His often repeated campaign pledge was generally along the lines of that under his proposed healthcare legislation, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan; and you'll save $2500 a year".
Clapper of course knows that a campaign promise and $5.00 can buy you a cup of coffee.
   1357. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:19 PM (#5558331)
25K is not ashtray money, especially to guys still trying to make money. Those kinds of promises aren't forgotten.
   1358. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:21 PM (#5558332)
The big lie was actually the similar but not identical, "If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan."


No, David, the big lie was actually the similar because it is identical, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."

With a "Period." for added truthiness.

Unless you think Wall Street Journal is lying:

Obama: ‘If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor’
By Mary Lu Carnevale
Jun 15, 2009 12:14 pm ET

President Barack Obama‘s address to the annual meeting of the American Medical Association today didn’t break new ground, but attempted to assure doctors and their patients that his prescription for overhauling the health care system would be good for them.

For patients, he made a sweeping pledge that “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”


But at least Obama only lied about health care reform that was to effect the entire country. As we now know from these pages, not lying about giving a grieving military father a $25,000 gift is far, far worse.
   1359. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5558334)
More like $40 million if you are using inflation, $100 million with 5% growth.
Whoops, I apparently typed 230 into the online calculator thingy instead of 2.3.
   1360. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5558336)
Yeah, in theory. But the problem is that even though he's the one who's incompetent, GOP voters are seemingly blaming the GOPe for his failures, weakening said GOPe even further in favor of nuts like Roy Moore. A congress filled with socialists on the Democratic side and wackos like Moore on the GOP side is not a recipe for libertarian happiness.

I'm just saying it's a concession prize for a situation we're stuck in.
   1361. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:26 PM (#5558337)
But I don't know how any of that applies to this situation. Trump didn't lose a bet; he promised a gift.

But to the extent our bet is relevant to this situation, what I *wouldn't* have done is to immediately call you a liar if I hadn't gotten the money within X days/weeks/months. I'd have said, hey, did you forget, when do you think you might get around to it? (I might have actually just let it slide.) Instead, what happened here was that people immediately called Trump a liar. They didn't stop to try to ascertain what his thinking on the matter was. Did he forget? If not, when was he planning to send the money?

Instead people just came out with liar. Then after he sent the money they still called him a liar. For not doing a random act of kindness quickly enough. It's a disgusting display by people here, frankly.

(And that's not even getting into the dubious decorum of the father, who took someone who promised him a very generous gift and hung him out to dry by telling the media he hadn't gotten it yet. Greasing the skids for the media to go to Trump and be all, "You a$$hole. When are you sending him the $25,000 gift you promised.")


This is, um, remarkable spin.

   1362. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:27 PM (#5558338)
But at least Obama only lied about health care reform that was to effect the entire country.


In fairness, though, when he said that, his jaw movements were real and they were spectacular.
   1363. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:28 PM (#5558339)
but there is nothing in the AHA that denies you the ability to keep your doctor.

"Billy, if you get a perfect report card, I'll buy you a PlayStation 4 for Christmas!"
<Billy gets a 4.0 GPA>
"Actually, I meant that I wouldn't actively forbid or hinder you from getting a PlayStation 4, not that I was going to get you one. It's the same thing."
   1364. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:29 PM (#5558340)
Clapper of course knows that a campaign promise and $5.00 can buy you a cup of coffee.
FWIW, this probably actually IS a sign of THE DECLINE. The fact that people on both sides let their politicians get away with knowingly making false statements during campaigns is Sad!.
   1365. Satan Says Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:32 PM (#5558341)
I'm partly of the same mind, but as a racist white male, it's easy to say

FTFY
   1366. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:36 PM (#5558342)
Actually, Ray, DMN didn't call Trump a liar, he said that the WH called the *guy* a liar. Which is an overbid, for reasons you have outlined. Yesterday's timeline:

1) WaPo asks guy about it, he tells the story, says no check (yet), which is true
2) Story breaks
3) (Presumed) WH sees story, hurriedly cuts check
4) WH is asked about the story, spokesman says truthfully "the check is sent", which is true, if barely

So yeah, no lying anywhere - unless you count a bit later the WH clarified and said well, yeah, it was sent that day and there was some kind of delay because of multi-agency jurisdiction over this sort of thing, which was clearly BS. Anyway, the point is, apart from Rickey in 1023 (and that's Rickey! :), and it could have been in reference to the BS), no one has called Trump a liar about this.

Trump pros:
Made a noble gesture
Followed through

Trump cons:
Took him four months
(Presumed) Never would have if he hadn't essentially taunted WaPo into factchecking his weird claim about being the BEST POTUS EVER

I'll sign on to the pros outweighing the cons, in the end. But you don't get to virtuously claim the cons don't exist, or lie about "everyone" "piling" on Trump "because" he sent a check, because that is definitely a lie you have repeated, repeatedly.
---------------------------
ETA: You added this in the interim:
(And that's not even getting into the dubious decorum of the father, who took someone who promised him a very generous gift and hung him out to dry by telling the media he hadn't gotten it yet. Greasing the skids for the media to go to Trump and be all, "You a$$hole. When are you sending him the $25,000 gift you promised.")
This seems a bit harsh. The guy didn't seek out the media, they specifically asked him questions (prompted by Trump's statement about how he had called everyone). And I don't believe the media used the phrase a$$hole, either. Should the guy have lied to the media about the content of Trump's call? Perhaps he should have said "the conversation was private". In that case, in your opinion, would Trump have paid up? And if he hadn't, would Trump still be welcher if no one but the guy ever knew about it?
   1367. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:38 PM (#5558343)
His often repeated campaign pledge was generally along the lines of that under his proposed healthcare legislation, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan; and you'll save $2500 a year".

Clapper of course knows that a campaign promise and $5.00 can buy you a cup of coffee.

At the risk of offending the BBTF coffee snobs, I even know enough not to spend $5.00 on an overpriced cup of coffee, and not to contend that Obama's healthcare pledge wasn't a lie. Seems strange to initially say that Obama's shouldn't be criticized for the pledge and then say that it being a lie doesn't matter because it was made during a political campaign, although Obama, in fact, repeated those assurances once in office.
   1368. Count Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5558345)
Not sure why I'm even bothering with this, but Ray, you think Trump would have ever sent the check if it wasn't publicized?
   1369. zenbitz Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5558346)
1) A bang-up job of judicial nominations. (I'm actually not being all that snarky. It's a duty and Presidents have to see that it's executed.)


Honeymoon over in Gorsuch land?

Now that the justice has been safely installed on the court for life, he has revealed himself to be more akin to melted sorbet: sickly sweet and insubstantial with a tangy finish that induces slight nausea. Gorsuch’s abrupt pivot to arrogance has been on full display in his bumptious opinions and questions from the bench. But it also appears to be infecting his interactions with justices behind the scenes. Whispers emerging from the court indicate Gorsuch is more likely to alienate than influence even his conservative colleagues.


(OK, OK, it's a hatchet job... but I was amused at even this ONE MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT being sullied)
   1370. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:47 PM (#5558347)
Actually, Ray, DMN didn't call Trump a liar, he said that the WH called the *guy* a liar.


That's not the accusations of lying I was referring to. People have smeared Trump over this, calling him a liar and saying he reneged and never planned to follow through until he was caught. Your 1366 seems to wash all of that away and pretend nobody has been spitting bullets at Trump over this.

   1371. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:49 PM (#5558349)
Not sure why I'm even bothering with this, but Ray, you think Trump would have ever sent the check if it wasn't publicized?


No idea. What I do know is that he sent the check. Which is rather bizarre behavior from someone who never intended to send a check.
   1372. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5558351)
That's not the accusations of lying I was referring to. People have smeared Trump over this, calling him a liar and saying he reneged and never planned to follow through until he was caught. Your 1366 seems to wash all of that away and pretend nobody has been spitting bullets at Trump over this.
So do you believe, in your heart of hearts, that Trump would have eventually remembered and paid, in the absence of the publicity?

And if he had never paid, even though the public never knew... you would have no issue with that, on the grounds that the pledge was off the cuff or something and not binding in any fathomable way?
   1373. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:51 PM (#5558352)
Ray here's a shocker: I think he was hoping they guy wouldn't have the balls to mention it to the press. You think otherwise, apparently (another shocker).

I'm right. :-)
   1374. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 05:53 PM (#5558354)
No idea. What I do know is that he sent the check. Which is rather bizarre behavior from someone who never intended to send a check.
This sounds a little bit like the "ethics" that state it's not cheating on your wife if she doesn't know about it.

------------

Joe, I think it's far more likely Trump forgot the words coming out of his mouth as soon as he said them. It's probable Trump has no idea that $25,000 could be a life-changing sum to some people. I don't think Trump even remembered the guy or the conversation he had with him in any detail whatsoever. Which isn't, in itself, a big deal, EXCEPT when you make pledges and renege on them. However, personal integrity is yet another virtue SBB mocks anyone for expecting in the Post-Decline Era.
   1375. Count Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:00 PM (#5558357)
Kelly's briefing is here. It is interesting and in parts unfortunate (making an allowance for the fact that he lost his own son in war). Kelly explained that he had told Trump a few days ago that presidents don't always call, they sometimes just write letters, and he did not believe that Obama called him when his son died (which Kelly said explicitly was not a criticism). This implies Trump ran with what Kelly told him and invoked it to justify why he had said that presidents never call the families of dead soldiers.

Kelly also explained that he was on the conversation with the family of the dead soldier and gave a plausible explanation of what Trump meant. But he went further and denounced politicization of gold star families and attacked the congresswoman in a misleading way and questioned why she was "listening in" to the conversation with Trump (she actually is a family friend of the widow, and the family agreed with her characterization). He then blasted her as an "empty barrel making the most noise." You cannot keep gold star families "sacred" while providing cover for Trump and engaging in his disputes.

Kelly also alluded to the Khans in a way that he suggested he was on Trump's side in that disgusting episode (he said he thought Gold Star families were sacred until the conventions).

edited to add: most bizarrely and unfortunately he would only take questions from people who knew gold star families.
   1376. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:02 PM (#5558359)
Your best argument here is that in the world in which Trump operated pre-president -- business, real estate, etc. -- lots of people make lots of empty promises that they know aren't worth the air they're uttered into until a written contract is signed. (Yes, there are situations where oral contracts attach. Not for all situations and they're harder to prove -- and in any event they don't exist when it comes to some things such as the sale of real estate, for example, at least not in New York. So in New York a would-be buyer can make all sorts of promises to pay $X for the property but until there's a real estate contract the buyer's promises are worth precisely nothing.)

So your best argument is that that is the world in which Trump is used to, where he and many others say stuff constantly that they forget as soon as the words leave their mouths because the promises aren't worth anything. And then he ran into a situation where the media forced him to honor his promise.

That's your best argument. Another argument is that he intended to deliver but forgot. Another argument is that he intended to deliver but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Arguments two and three are bolstered by the fact that he did send the check as soon as the matter was called to his attention.

If you want to draw inferences against Trump and not give him the benefit of the doubt you'll say that he's a lying weasel who exhibits this pattern of behavior often. After which I'll note that he did send the money and didn't have to promise the guy a gift.

So I don't know what we're really arguing over here. Trump promised the money; 4 months passed; when called to Trump's attention he sent the money. All else is mind reading. And none of it can erase the fact that he handed the guy $25,000 for no consideration and no reason other than he promised it to him.
   1377. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:04 PM (#5558360)
OK, OK, it's a hatchet job... but I was amused at even this ONE MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT being sullied

Relying on Slate's Supreme Court coverage is just not a smart move. It's politically-motivated hackery disguised as "journalism". There's nothing there but wishful thinking by folks who are trying to gin up a story out of nothing. You might ask yourself why you would credit implausible anonymous allegations against Gorsuch when you'd dismiss them if they were made against Ginsburg.
   1378. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:11 PM (#5558361)
(And that's not even getting into the dubious decorum of the father, who took someone who promised him a very generous gift and hung him out to dry by telling the media.)


I suppose that if there is one niche of this argument I can at least grok with Ray about, this might be it....

It's not directly analogous, but several years back my grandmother passed (my grandfather had passed a couple years prior). The estate wasn't "death tax" size -- well short of it, but it was comfortably in 7 figures (they were farmers, and as the saying goes... invest in land because they aren't making any more of it - plus, my grandfather, even with a 7th grade education, was a very sharp guy with his money).

My mom - her daughter - had passed away 25 years ago (cancer), and the ultimate, final will had basically split the estate 3 ways between her surviving daughters/my aunts -- the one son had been cut out of the will because... well... let's just say that he had more than taken his 'share' (including a fraudulent sale of 100 acres where he had outright forged her signature).

My grandmother had told two of my aunts (named as co-executors of the estate) that my brother and I were going to be included as beneficiaries more or less as stand-ins for our mom... she had also - after our grandfather had passed and the will had to be revised - also told the elder cousins (myself included, in probably THE most uncomfortable situation of my life) of this fact just so there were no 'hard feelings' (fat chance... but as she put it, the other cousins' parents were free to distribute or do with their inheritance as they saw fit).

Anyway, the provision apparently got forgotten over the course of subsequent revisions (cutting my uncle out over the unpleasantness as well as outrighting her home to one of the aunts that had moved in with her to provide a modicum of home care).

As unfortunately happens -- even when a will is written and estate planning done -- let's just say disposition of the estate was rather ugly.... not because of my brother or myself - but because the beneficiaries named were squabbling over how to sell the land, divvy various components of the estate, etc.

Neither my brother nor I made even the slightest peep or stink or even smallest of inquiries over us being dropped in a subsequent revision -- but thread-ironic (is everyone here a lawyer?), I did get dragged into the whole imbroglio as a supposed neutral party, plus the fact that while not-a-lawyer, the company I work for publishes the sorts of materials purchased by estate planning attorneys so I'm at least nominally familiar with the stuff - and if not directly familiar, have a lot of experts/colleagues/material readily at my disposal that an executor might need.

Over the course of the family brouhaha - the reading of the will, funeral, etc (we're a close family) - the question was asked in a not-so-subtle way "so what did YOU get" and I just answered honestly... but I also took great pains to make clear that regardless of what was said previously, I didn't expect anything, I was not owed anything, and more than anything else - I was just sorry to lose my grandmother. I wanted no part of the squabble and while I'll certainly admit a twinge of selfish disappointment (that I never even hinted at to family) - it's not like I had pre-spent anything. It was what it was. My grandparents were wonderful people who had been extraordinarily generous to all their grandchildren in more ways than just financial while they were alive. That ought to be more than enough for anyone.

But still - the question got asked and I answered it honestly.... and got dragged into the mess with all sorts of accusations - that I was conspiring with one aunt or another to challenge the final will, etc.

It's a no-win scenario. I'm firmly of the belief that when you make any sort of gift, bequest, or charity to someone else - you should do so solely with the idea that it IS a gift. If you have any expectation of credit, even thanks - you're no longer making a bequest or gift, you're doing a quid pro quo, however soft or ethereal the expectation of return is. Expand it to say that taking a lady out to dinner entitles you to nothing but the company during said, if you like.

Like I said - not directly analogous because the media isn't family.... but what do you do if asked? Lie? Say no comment? None of your business?

I think it's gauche to whine about it, but it's also kind of gauche to expect someone told they'd be getting some manner of gift to just lie and say otherwise if it didn't happen that way.
   1379. madvillain Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:11 PM (#5558362)
Your best argument here is that in the world in which Trump operated pre-president -- business, real estate, etc. -- lots of people make lots of empty promises that they know aren't worth the air they're uttered into until a written contract is signed. (Yes, there are situations where oral contracts attach. Not for all situations and they're harder to prove -- and in any event they don't exist when it comes to some things such as the sale of real estate, for example, at least not in New York. So in New York a would-be buyer can make all sorts of promises to pay $X for the property but until there's a real estate contract the buyer's promises are worth precisely nothing.)


Dude: don't ever change.
   1380. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:12 PM (#5558363)
Ray, I have no issue with anything in 1376. At all. You have the right to your opinion, and I respect that.

Do you understand that 1376 is lightyears away from your "My issue has been the people banging on Trump for having the unmitigated call to give $25,000 to a grieving military father."?
   1381. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:14 PM (#5558364)
Actually, Ray, DMN didn't call Trump a liar, he said that the WH called the *guy* a liar.
Actually, that was me, not DMN.
That's not the accusations of lying I was referring to. People have smeared Trump over this, calling him a liar and saying he reneged and never planned to follow through until he was caught.
No one here called Trump a liar.

I, and others, said he welched (or would've if he hadn't been called on it; I think the very fact it took 4 months shows the intent to welch). Given his history, it's no great leap to assume he would've welched if he hadn't been caught*.

*"Caught" - you word - even implies he was trying to get away with something.
   1382. Count Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:16 PM (#5558365)
Seriously? 1376 treats Trump as if we don't know anything about his character. Ray, haven't you yourself said many times he's a liar?
   1383. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:16 PM (#5558366)
Do you understand that 1376 is lightyears away from your "My issue has been the people banging on Trump for having the unmitigated call to give $25,000 to a grieving military father."?


It is unmitigated gall. Once you learn that someone gave a grieving military father a gift of $25,000 you nod your head as to the niceness of the act and you move on. Anything else is absurd.
   1384. Count Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:17 PM (#5558367)
No one here called Trump a liar.


Let me raise my hand: I think he was lying, as he has done many, many times when he has promised to donate to charity or claimed he had donated to charity (and of course he lies constantly about other issues large and small).
   1385. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:18 PM (#5558368)
Your best argument here is that in the world in which Trump operated pre-president -- business, real estate, etc. -- lots of people make lots of empty promises that they know aren't worth the air they're uttered into until a written contract is signed.


What would you say the contracts that Trump entered into in written form that were signed were worth?

Seems to me that they were worth precisely however much your own relative legal representation -and your ability to keep paying to litigate the contract - when they got litigated were worth.
   1386. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:19 PM (#5558369)
I will give you this, Ray, you contain multitudes.
   1387. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:20 PM (#5558370)
No one here called Trump a liar.

I, and others, said he welched


Welching is lying.

Not that I think welching applies to the promise to give someone a gift; I haven't checked the definition but I always understood it to apply to the context of a gambling debt.

(or would've if he hadn't been called on it;


Lol.

Tonight's lottery numbers too, while you're at it.

I think the very fact it took 4 months shows the intent to welch).


And the very fact that he wrote the check shows intent to honor his promise.

Given his history, it's no great leap to assume he would've welched if he hadn't been caught*.


Except for the fact that he wrote the check.
   1388. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:24 PM (#5558372)
Were his lips moving? Of course he was lying. He lies about lots of things.
   1389. Count Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:25 PM (#5558373)
TPM has a good take on Kelly's remarks:


...

I’ve seen very little evidence of anyone disrespecting military sacrifice. I’ve seen a lot of evidence of people thinking President Trump has done just that and being aghast at seeing it. We can’t know Trump’s exact feelings. We don’t know all his actions. But he’s given people lots of reasons to think and feel that way in recent days. It’s hardly surprising that people were outraged by the way he shifted toward baseless attacks on his predecessors to deflect criticism of himself. It was shameful.

Kelly also said, in addition to his other criticisms of Rep. Wilson that he was stunned she had ‘listened in’ on a call from the President to a bereaved widow. It seems quite clear from everything we know that the family took President Trump’s call on speaker phone with Rep. Wilson there with them. My understanding is she had a personal relationship with the family. He made it sound like she was violating some trust, eavesdropping almost. That seems deeply misleading and dishonest. Kelly did not mention that the mother, who was there, backed up Rep. Wilson’s account. Wilson made a very direct and damaging attack on the President. But this is a member of Congress, caring for and being with a bereaved family. Invited by them, sharing their pain. ‘Listening in’ is just an attack that turns everything on its head.

Kelly even seemed to suggest that the Khan Family, who then-candidate Trump mercilessly attacked, had dishonored gold star families. Among the things he said are now now longer sacred, he listed “Gold Star Families, I think that left in the convention over the summer.” It’s hard to imagine he was criticizing President Trump’s subsequent, widely criticized and vicious attacks on the Khan family. He seemed to be attacking the Khans themselves. They’re the ones who violated the sacredness of military sacrifice.

There was so much in his remarks that I want to take a bit to think it over, absorb it. There’s a lot there about this moment and the Trump presidency, a lot about John Kelly. Kelly has a lot of credibility he has earned. I don’t want to question his motives simply because his description and comments seem so at odds with what I have seen over recent days. But the entirety of his comments seemed exploitative, an effort to turn people’s certainly reasonable (and I believe accurate) sense of being appalled at the President into an attack on military service and military sacrifice. That’s not right. That’s not true. It’s a more emotion-packed version of Trump’s effort to turn the anthem/police brutality protests into dishonoring military sacrifice. He ended up by refusing to take questions from reporters who couldn’t say they personally knew a Gold Star Family.

Freedom of speech and the press is also sacred. It is one of the values American military personnel strive to defend. I understand that he said this in a moment of peaked emotion. But we individuals or reporters don’t earn our spurs of civic freedom by being proximate to military service. That’s ugly and wrong. I am going to leave aside Kelly’s motives. But this spectacle seemed ugly and exploitative, ignoring much of what has happened over the last three days, falsifying other things. President Trump is a blowhard and a phony and a liar. Kelly isn’t. He brings prestige and a lifetime of military service to every remark. But at the end of the day this seemed like putting that wrapper of dignity around the most Trumpian of traits: never apologize, always attack, let the truth defend itself.

   1390. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:27 PM (#5558376)
At this point I think Ray is either naive or auditioning for America's Next Presidential Spokesperson (to be installed after Sanders' shelf life expires).
   1391. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:28 PM (#5558377)
With regard to the "liar" claim, TDF, you and DMN had the same sentiment, but he had it first :). As a matter of pedantry, I don't call it a lie if there is no intent to deceive. Since (IMO) Trump lacks the compassion gene and his own words have no meaning, even to him, he wasn't lying, he was just spewing nonsense as usual. He even meant what he was saying, until the sentence ended and he forgot what he was saying. Come to think of it, he does that mid-sentence too. Remember when we had a POTUS who could think in paragraphs?

By this definition, Obama wasn't "lying" about keeping your doctor, because that was his intention when he said it. Didn't turn out that way. Call him a naive bumpkin, or charlatan, or a failure if you like, but he intended what he said at the time. Again, IMO.

Ray, on the other hand, persists in an outright lie. If there's gall for you to be outraged over, Ray, it's that Trump is being called a welcher after he paid, which depends on one's definition and personal ethics, and you are entitled to your opinion. Claiming gall *because he paid* is simply lying. Stick to you guns all you want, you're the liar on this one.
   1392. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:31 PM (#5558380)
Anyone who doesn't call Trump a liar is either a liar himself or so oblivious or obtuse that it's nearly unfathomable.

If you really cannot bring yourself to agree with the simple statement that Trump is a bigger liar than anyone that's ever inhabited in the oval office and certainly in the running for the world's biggest liar in any walk of life, then I think you've lost all credibility.

He's lied about virtually everything - big and small. He lies about important things, he lies about silly things. He lies about things he has said, he lies about things other people have said. When he doesn't lie, it's only some cosmic accident that his words match reality.
   1393. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:31 PM (#5558381)
Not that I think welching applies to the promise to give someone a gift; I haven't checked the definition but I always understood it to apply to the context of a gambling debt.
Yeah, well, you're wrong. From Merriam-Webster.com:
Less common variant of welsh

intransitive verb
1 informal, now sometimes offensive :to avoid payment —used with on
2 informal, now sometimes offensive :to break one's word :renege
Until called on it, either of these describe what Trump did.
I think the very fact it took 4 months shows the intent to welch).

And the very fact that he wrote the check shows intent to honor his promise.
Ray: Mom, I'll take the garbage out tonight.
(3 hours pass, while Ray reads a comic book, plays a couple of video games, swings on his swingset, etc. Ray's now in bed for the night)
Ray's mom: Why haven't you taken out the garbage yet?
(Ray takes the garbage out)
Ray: Why are you yelling at me? I honored my word!
   1394. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:34 PM (#5558383)
Actually, Ray, DMN didn't call Trump a liar, he said that the WH called the *guy* a liar.
Nah. In my first post about the subject when I started this discussion here, I did the latter. But I subsequently did the former. And I'll do it again: Trump's a liar. He had absolutely no intention of ever fulfilling his promise until he was caught by the Washington Post.

Ray's pretense that doing something after one is caught makes one retroactively truthful is Ray Trump-fluffing yet again.
   1395. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:35 PM (#5558384)
If you really cannot bring yourself to agree with the simple statement that Trump is a bigger liar than anyone that's ever inhabited in the oval office and certainly in the running for the world's biggest liar in any walk of life, then I think you've lost all credibility.
In his defense, Ray has often called Trump a liar. Along with every other politician.

Trump didn't lie *specifically* about this, perhaps only because he didn't really have a chance. I don't think he's even been asked publicly about this particular incident, it's all been spokespeople.

Yes I do find it somewhat frightening that I can project Ray's thinking. Perhaps I should unplug.
   1396. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:37 PM (#5558385)
And that's not even getting into the dubious decorum of the father, who took someone who promised him a very generous gift and hung him out to dry by telling the media he hadn't gotten it yet. Greasing the skids for the media to go to Trump and be all, "You a$$hole. When are you sending him the $25,000 gift you promised.")
Ray is a few hours away from claiming that Trump had a moral obligation to lie to the guy, and that the media publicly shaming Trump into keeping his promise is the equivalent of genocide.
   1397. PepTech Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:39 PM (#5558386)
In my first post about the subject when I started this discussion here, I did the latter.
Fair enough, I didn't have the stomach to re-read more than the first 100 posts or so about this crap.
   1398. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:43 PM (#5558387)
Once you learn that someone gave a grieving military father a gift of $25,000
But you can't help yourself. We didn't learn that. We learned that he promised to do it and never did, the exact opposite of what you claim.
   1399. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:48 PM (#5558389)
Given his history, it's no great leap to assume he would've welched if he hadn't been caught*.


Except for the fact that he wrote the check.


Except there is no evidence that he wrote the cheque until the whole story came out.

Which makes the original statement ("assume he would have welched if he hadn't been caught") still a possibility.

If you assume* he didn't send the cheque until it was publicized that the person did not receive a cheque, then you can safely assume that he wouldn't have sent the cheque until it was publicized he hadn't sent the cheque BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!

*If you DON'T ASSUME the above statement, and you think he did send a cheque, your only point of contention is that it has wrote the cheque and it has taken more the four months for it to arrive.

   1400. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 19, 2017 at 06:48 PM (#5558390)
No idea. What I do know is that he sent the check. Which is rather bizarre behavior from someone who never intended to send a check.
Setiously, Ray, you need psychiatric help. It's not only not "bizarre," but whatever the exact opposite of "bizarre" is. What you keep pretending didn't happen is that Trump paid the money he owed¹ after only he was caught. That's 100% exactly what one would expect from someone who never intended to send a check.


¹Yes, when you make a promise to do something or pay someone, you owe it. Of course we know that the law does not enforce gratuitous promises unless there's some other factor such as reliance, but we're not talking about whether it's enforceable in court.
Page 14 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1395 - 8:13pm, Nov 18)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(197 - 7:41pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogOTP 13 November 2017: Politics, race now touching every sport
(1980 - 7:40pm, Nov 18)
Last: Satan Says

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(181 - 7:36pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogThe Eric Hosmer Dilemma | FanGraphs Baseball
(34 - 6:06pm, Nov 18)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(240 - 5:49pm, Nov 18)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogStanton, Altuve capture first MVP Awards | MVP
(51 - 4:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogJim Palmer on Mark Belanger and Omar Vizquel: The Hardball Times
(98 - 4:33pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFangraphs: Let's Make One Thing Absolutely Clear About Aaron Judge
(22 - 3:42pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Modern Baseball Committee Hall of Fame Ballot
(74 - 3:16pm, Nov 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogThe story of Alex Anthopoulos: From tragedy to prodigy to Braves GM
(1 - 8:30am, Nov 18)
Last: bfan

NewsblogBraves will lose prospects, and possibly a lot more, for violating international market rules
(48 - 1:30am, Nov 18)
Last: Armored Trooper VOTTO

NewsblogJudge, Bellinger named BBWAA Rookies of Year | MLB.com
(86 - 9:25pm, Nov 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDerek Jeter addresses Giancarlo Stanton rumors | MLB.com
(24 - 7:38pm, Nov 17)
Last: Khrushin it bro

NewsblogYu Darvish is out to silence his doubters after World Series flop | SI.com
(9 - 7:15pm, Nov 17)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Page rendered in 1.5697 seconds
47 querie(s) executed