gangstonc
Member
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-v-prevezon-case-settlement-russia-money-laundering-2017-5
This administration loves Russia more than the US.
This administration loves Russia more than the US.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Spare me the drama please. Where is your "shiver" about 20 trillion in debt, a ruling elite that does not live by the laws they make for the rest of us ? Where is your "shiver" over the almost total political corruption in Washington, judges that are not faithful to the Constitution ? Where is your " shiver" over the fact that politicians have robbed from medicare and Social Security and gotten away with it. I could go on but you know how the system is rigged. You sound just like Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper. Trump, Jr. got duped into a meeting he thought was about dirt on Hillary. Turns out she was trying to lobby the potential Republican nominees son over the Magnitsky act and the adoption of Russian children by American families. I have seen zero information that any information was exchanged by either side. Now, i do not have my nose in front of a computer screen or TV all day so who knows what is out there. The dems will continue this to keep their own Russian collusion from being exposed. So will their willing accomplices in the media. I predict that before this is over you will have egg on your face and crow on your plate!
Also, what policy of Trumps regarding Russia beneficial to Putin and Russia ? Putin owned Obama and Clinton for eight years. Why would he want a change ? It is illogical to think Putin wanted Trump to win.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...sinesses-whenever-he-wants-without-telling-usHow? Seems pretty textbook to me.
Trumpcare has failed. Although a serious subject, I can't help but stifle a small laugh because the promises to repeal Obamacare were always fraudulent lies simply to get votes.
Healthcare systems don't completely play by the free market rules of supply and demand, and there's no precedent for what would happen if you decided overnight to completely remove regulation and government from the healthcare system. It's too important and too big to decide to 100% change it overnight.
That's why a gradual phase-in of changes with numerous choices along with true competition is worth look. And to get that, you've got to look at Federalism. The states should be allowed to experiment thus allowing true innovation and "right-sizing" to take place.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of health-savings accounts that can grow tax free backed up by a high-deductible or catastrophic policy. Premiums should be based not only on age and health, but also how much someone is saving and other factors. And government can't be eliminated completely just yet. You are still going to have to have some kind of subsidy system.
We are never going to be able to move from one form to another with gradual changes and experimentation. If anyone says they have the answer to our healthcare system issues in one bill, idea, or plan then run and hide. No one does. But, perhaps, we can slowly get to a better system by trial-and-error and without causing people to have less coverage, lose coverage, or get frozen out completely.
I had only briefly heard about this plan previously, but I think it sounds like a good starting point.
Repeal and Compete: https://nyti.ms/2krVE3q
Long and the short of it is what I was referencing earlier. Let's states experiment and make decisions that are best for their population and area. You would absolutely have to have some very basic minimum requirements for plans/covariance, but as the article references people could opt out.
But, if New York decided they wanted to try single-payer they could do it. If Texas decided they wanted everyone to have high-deductible plans with HSAs then great. Sure, you'd have to establish rules about residency and other factors to make sure abuse didn't happen, but that's the beauty of a slow and gradual transition along with multiple options and competition.
Don't get me wrong. This isn't a panacea, and the ideas I'm talking about could be completely wrong or blow-up catastrophically. But, by nature some states are less risk averse than other, and some will be very aggressive. Some will maintain the status quo. Ultimately, however, no one single idea will be able to sink us all, we can see what works and what doesn't, what we like and don't like, and actually vote about it and see our vote matter again.
This is not to say that such an idea is without risk, but we've got to broaden our options to consider more than just single-payer or an immediately deregulated freeforall. After all, didn't such state level collaboration and experimentation lead to give greatest country on earth?
This is a perfect example of why every Republican Senator with a few exceptions needs to have a primary challenger. Toomey from Pennsylvania said they (R-Senators) never expected to be in this position because they were sure Hillary was going to win. So yes, they ran on repeal and replace only to get votes. This is the swamp that needs draining! Disgusting and vile people.
Sessions is having DOJ adopt a policy that is wildly unconstitutional, and the absolute antithesis of Conservatism. It's the type of law that fascists and authoritarians love, though.
What a hypocrite. State's rights and limited government my &$$.
Evan... the info I found on this said... "The Justice Department, with President Trump's support, will give new authority to law enforcement agencies to seize money, contraband and property when they can prove those assets are the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity."
This is in conflict with what Paula Reid says "police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it's been banned."
Can you clarify?
The man is a national hero. I hate this.Sen John McCain has brain cancer. Glioblastoma the most aggressive type. Per wiki average survival expectancy 3 mo-2 yrs. God Bless and comfort him.