Yeah those were in the article, no? I just assumed they meant more.

I bet it's elizabeth warren

pacino wrote:I bet it's elizabeth warren

That would produce a liberal trail of tears, wouldn't it?

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:I bet it's elizabeth warren

That would produce a liberal trail of tears, wouldn't it?

She might get her portrait put up in the Oval office

Ryan and McConnell are reluctant to appoint select committees on Russia/election/Trump/Flynn for understandable reasons, but holy hell the 1st 2nd and 3rd thing out of their mouths tomorrow needs to be underlining the importance of and commitment to the ongoing investigations being carried out by the intelligence committees. Wishing this away isn't going to work.

jerseyhoya wrote:Ryan and McConnell are reluctant to appoint select committees on Russia/election/Trump/Flynn for understandable reasons, but holy hell the 1st 2nd and 3rd thing out of their mouths tomorrow needs to be underlining the importance of and commitment to the ongoing investigations being carried out by the intelligence committees. Wishing this away isn't going to work.

Maybe they're concerned about the composition of their respective committees?

Difficult to picture Burr effectively riding herd on the Senate committee. Rubio has reasons to get rambunctious, Collins is an obvious squish, and Blunt sometimes shows signs of having balls despite being a draft dodger (3-time "deferrer", whatever). Cornyn & Lankford are stiffs, Cotton's a loon, Risch is a cipher.

Further, though Burr was a drumpf campaign adviser, he's said he's not running for re-election in '22, so he's free to be "principled".

House Committee doesn't look like it's entirely in drumpf's pocket either - other than Nunes, unfortunately. A dearth of Freedom Caucusites. Would love to see Peter King kick up his heels, and maybe Joe Heck catches the fever. Nunes seems like more of a wiseass than a wiseguy (get a load of his months-out-of-date webpage, complete with a kinda-sorta anti-Putin featured article!). Across the aisle, Schiff's pretty adroit - plus he's got jumpin' Jimmy Hines for a wingman.

It's not that they were talking, it's what they were talking about. That whole "Russia hack here account" thing has all new, and chilling, meaning.

Although a little on the GOP paranoid edge sprinkled with DNC fairy dust, I think this is a well considered piece about what is happening.The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn. Start with Flynn and end with Trump. A question is who is behind it? What is the end game? It supposed that it is political infighting, maybe some of those BHO cells (FFS - this makes the Dems/former president terrorists), but it could be, if you squint just a little, the grander outside game of our adversaries pulling strings. What is better for them the a house divided and in complete turmoil? I know, that is amateur hour supposition, but it might also require us to not over think things.

he probably shouldn't have compared the intelligence community to nazis; i also doubt he read that piece.

i also feel the FBI showed their cards in October (remember what they did then?!), and over the past 90 years. to expect them to not be political is folly. the political assassination of Hillary Clinton was in October and based on lies and a barely used laptop containing some duplicate emails. all these leaks are terrible; i'm not a big fan of leaks...what's different this time in comparison to the Clinton leaks in October is these look true. there's no need to circle the wagons in the WH if they aren't. Trump just acknowledged their truthfulness on twitter this morning.

oh my god they are already polling 2020

STOP IT

CalvinBall wrote:CNN has the names of the people who were in contact with Russia. They aren't releasing yet because they are seeking comments from those people.

This is exciting stuff.

So we will have President Ryan after all

what a bunch of shit:

States of those hold-out governors could wind up the biggest losers if GOP lawmakers make good on their longstanding vow to cap federal spending by giving states lump sums tied to the number of Medicaid enrollees. So congressional Republicans are girding to spend significantly more money — at least in the short term — to effectively reward the non-expansion states for their resistance.

The goal, at the very least, is to ensure funding parity between expansion states that would stand to get more money under a capped program and conservative holdouts like Texas, Georgia and Tennessee.

“States that chose not to [expand] based on conservative principles and opposition to the takeover of health care should not be punished," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chamber's No. 2 Republican. "We’re not going to allow that to happen."

I don’t think that you can, as a fiscal conservative coming from a state that didn’t expand, punish that state for being what we would say is fiscally prudent with our state legislature and at the same time reward those states that took advantage of it,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus. “That’s not just unique to North Carolina. I’ve heard the same comments from Texas, Tennessee, Florida.”

THEY PUNISHED THEIR RESIDENTS BY NOT EXPANDING

they have about 6 competing ideas, which means they have no idea what they're doing.

etched Chaos wrote:Oh boy, seems the WH staffers are using an app to delete messages, so potentially classified info is being sent to a private company server, who knows what is happening to that info before being erased.

These apps are end to end encrypted and no one can see them except the two parties involved.

pacino wrote:what a bunch of #$!&@:

States of those hold-out governors could wind up the biggest losers if GOP lawmakers make good on their longstanding vow to cap federal spending by giving states lump sums tied to the number of Medicaid enrollees. So congressional Republicans are girding to spend significantly more money — at least in the short term — to effectively reward the non-expansion states for their resistance.

The goal, at the very least, is to ensure funding parity between expansion states that would stand to get more money under a capped program and conservative holdouts like Texas, Georgia and Tennessee.

“States that chose not to [expand] based on conservative principles and opposition to the takeover of health care should not be punished," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chamber's No. 2 Republican. "We’re not going to allow that to happen."

I don’t think that you can, as a fiscal conservative coming from a state that didn’t expand, punish that state for being what we would say is fiscally prudent with our state legislature and at the same time reward those states that took advantage of it,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus. “That’s not just unique to North Carolina. I’ve heard the same comments from Texas, Tennessee, Florida.”

THEY PUNISHED THEIR RESIDENTS BY NOT EXPANDING

You can say that, but here in Virginia we've been trying to expand for years now. First Bob McDonnell and the House wanted no part of it, then just the House, and now both the House and Senate, but we've had Democrats trying to get it through this whole time.

Our low income residents shouldn't get screwed on block grants because of the reticence of one party that holds a House supermajority via gerrymandering.

OK, but they're going to do it at the expense of states who DID expand in a long-term effort to cut it for everyone.

These states screwed their residents for years (who knows how many people died as a result of not having coverage) then get a reprieve when the Republicans get in charge at the expense of the states that did expand. I understand there are people that tried to expand in those non-expansion states, but this is just wrong.

ah, who am i kidding, block grants will kill medicaid in most states, anyway.

pacino wrote:OK, but they're going to do it at the expense of states who DID expand

Again, so what? Just because a poor person in upstate New York had the good fortune of living in a blue state, they deserve superior federal benefits to someone stuck in a red or purple state? Long-term cuts are obviously bad, but people need help, period.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote:OK, but they're going to do it at the expense of states who DID expand

Again, so what? Just because a poor person in upstate New York had the good fortune of living in a blue state, they deserve superior federal benefits to someone stuck in a red or purple state? Long-term cuts are obviously bad, but people need help, period.

they're not going to get help. this is simply going to cut the benefits of the person in NY.

their crocodile tears piss me off, richmond. it's nothing against people in these states, i wanted them to expand and I wnat them to have coverage.

they don't give a shit about these people in Virginia, or anywhere else, having coverage.

pacino wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote:OK, but they're going to do it at the expense of states who DID expand

Again, so what? Just because a poor person in upstate New York had the good fortune of living in a blue state, they deserve superior federal benefits to someone stuck in a red or purple state? Long-term cuts are obviously bad, but people need help, period.

they're not going to get help. this is simply going to cut the benefits of the person in NY.

They're proposing to spend more money, at least up front. Maybe I'm missing something, and you certainly pay closer attention to this than I do, but it sounds to me like they're raising the benefits of the VA recipient to equalize with the NY resident.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote:OK, but they're going to do it at the expense of states who DID expand

Again, so what? Just because a poor person in upstate New York had the good fortune of living in a blue state, they deserve superior federal benefits to someone stuck in a red or purple state? Long-term cuts are obviously bad, but people need help, period.

they're not going to get help. this is simply going to cut the benefits of the person in NY.

They're proposing to spend more money, at least up front. Maybe I'm missing something, and you certainly pay closer attention to this than I do, but it sounds to me like they're raising the benefits of the VA recipient to equalize with the NY resident.

until they figure out how to get block grant legislation to destroy medicaid. most of these states will not have the funds to match this fake expansion they're going to do and it will go away or benefits will be SEVERELY cut to the point that they're useless.