By Michelle Goldberg at Slate.
I love the way the messaging turns on a dime.
One minute it's ridiculous to think that the Obama administration was doing surveillance on the Trump campaign. The next minute the Obama administration was doing the right thing if it did surveillance on the Trump campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
676 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 676 of 676Laslo,
"Althouse is Chuck"
When did "Chuck" first appear in the blog?
@ TTR and PB&J
I am perfectly happy to let renewables compete without subsidies against other energy sources.
Now what?
Where is the evidence that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election? Will somebody please point me to any evidence that is not hearsay or anonymously sourced?
People who don't think the government is the best solution to health care do care just as much as you do.
Just not enough to know the facts. Hating the government doesn't make someone a health policy wonk. Also, it strangely doesn't account for why Medicare is so durned popular with the same seniors who've had private insurance all their lives. For another, it doesn't account for why government healthcare seems to sit just great with all the Senators and other congress critters who enjoy it. Maybe it's one of those things like the SSI that Paul Ryan used; great for him, horrible for everyone else. Because he's a good big brother and he knows these things. He said it's a sign of freedom to allow yourself to be priced out of the health insurance market.
I have a lot more evidence government makes health care worse than you have about the government making it better.
See above.
Also, see the part where you included as part of your definition of "better" the following:
1. Access/universality
2. Continuity
3. Quality outcomes
4. Restriction of cost curve
Government does all four of those things better.
I work in health care. I can tell you for a fact that Medicare/Medicaid sets the bar for what other insurance companies then feel inclined to cover as a basic minimum. Sure there were Cadillac plans that thought boner pills etc. were really the best sign of compassion (even if Republicans don't think that cervical cancer screenings for women are). But that has nothing to do with actual metrics/parameters as described above. "Better" and "worse" are sloppy terms that kids can use and do no nothing to compare what actually matters to patients and doctors. The insurance companies are pulling a fast one by warping perceptions as if the product were comparable to a Happy Meal and all just about the perceptions of a plan as stipulated by the least informed purchaser.
Those town hall meetings tell you all you have to know. Those people often WILL die without coverage of the sort the ACA made possible. There's a reason that the age, pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap provisions aren't being challenged. Thank the ACA for those things and improve it rather than pretending you've got a plan by removing everything else.
I am perfectly happy to let renewables compete without subsidies against other energy sources.
Now what?
Take the subsidies and massive lobbying power away from the extraction industries.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Liar! No energy is "renewable!" That's a left-wing fantasy.
All energy comes from the ground. How do you think it gets up into the sun in the first place?
Republican energy strategists are waaaaaay ahead of you. And me. "
This is just dumb. So is it Republicans that are keeping the world from being powered by solar and wind? Handing out subsidies to political donors is not going to stop global warming.
Frackers have cut green house gas emissions more than all of those green energy government handouts.
@ TTR
Subsidies we agree. Gone all around. Frackers have received little in this regard.
You can stand alone in your objections to the First Amendment. They have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Pass an amendment if you can, you fascist piece of dung.
"Also, it strangely doesn't account for why Medicare is so durned popular with the same seniors who've had private insurance all their lives. For another, it doesn't account for why government healthcare seems to sit just great with all the Senators and other congress critters who enjoy it."
Things other people pay for are always popular.
But you are comparing apples to oranges. Free healthcare is going to be more like the VA than like Medicare.
Also, see the part where you included as part of your definition of "better" the following:
1. Access/universality
2. Continuity
3. Quality outcomes
4. Restriction of cost curve
Government does all four of those things better.
Like the VA?
Frackers have cut green house gas emissions more than all of those green energy government handouts.
That's only because it's competing directly against the nearly dead coal industry and is land-intensive, giving the owners way more clout. The land footprint of wind and solar hasn't gotten big enough to entice a billionaire to purchase all that land with nothing underneath it for him to extract. They just site the windmills on a rancher's farm or offshore. Even massive solar farms take up less footprint. That's the beauty of not having to crack up endless amounts of ground underneath to go "exploring". (Before the earthquakes start, of course).
Why do people assume Obama cannot be impeached? Politically it may not happen. But Constitutionally there is no problem. Impeachment is not limited to serving employees. And by referring to the pension, etc. it is clear that impeachment after leaving government is allowed.
Like the VA?
The VA is administration. We're talking payment/insurance, not who administers the care. Keep up.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Take the subsidies and massive lobbying power away from the extraction industries."
Done.
But you know that isn't the issue. The extraction industry has terrible ROI numbers. The government makes far more money in taxes than they do in profits.
@ TTR
Care to address your anti-First Amendment position?
Extraction is about as mature an industry as they come. I expect it to have a heavily lopsided hold on political/economic power. There really is something lucrative about owning a substance that you have the exclusive rights to mine, as opposed to the sun and wind, which nobody owns. Yet. I'm sure once that changes the economics will change also.
I quoted you, R&B. Quality outcomes is not payment/insurance. Your zeal for political control of other peoples' lives and money is dulling your wits.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Like the VA?
"The VA is administration. We're talking payment/insurance, not who administers the care. Keep up."
So no more insurance companies?
I have no problem with a Medicare system that gives everyone a voucher to buy insurance and allows people to start and maintain their own HSA. But I do have a problem with the government taking over the risk pool and determining what can be paid for. In less time than we all think health care will be extremely cheap and easily available and the only thing that will inhibit access are amoral fucks in DC who have nothing better to do than make rules for everyone.
And for the love of god why is HGH treated like it is?
@thetoothlessrevolutionary Just topic one of your criteria that I have personal experience with: Restriction of cost curve. Individual health insurance premiums in MN increased an average of 50% from 2016 to 2017. I have a hard time calling that restricting the cost curve. It is almost certain that premiums will increase by a greater percentage 2018. My wife refuses to buy insurance because of the high total cost required $9400 annual premium, $10,000 deductible and $6,000 in co-pays for a total of $20,000 in expense essentially before any benefit gets paid. That is up 100% from the beginning of Obamacare.
As for Access/Universality: an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune yesterday stated that the number of people buying individual policies in MN declined 18% in 2017. That is certainly a sign that the mandates that were supposed to force universal coverage are not.
The debate at the end of the article was whether Obamacare was in a death spiral. If you read the whole article you couldn't help but argue that it is. http://www.startribune.com/health-plans-in-minnesota-saw-their-worse-year-in-a-decade/417976423/
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Extraction is about as mature an industry as they come. I expect it to have a heavily lopsided hold on political/economic power. There really is something lucrative about owning a substance that you have the exclusive rights to mine, as opposed to the sun and wind, which nobody owns. Yet. I'm sure once that changes the economics will change also."
You have to know the biggest loser if extraction is replaced will be governments all around the world right? All of this is about freedom and quality of life, specifically cars.
Quality outcomes is not payment/insurance.
Yes it is. There is an incentive structure directly attributable to outcomes as to what's reimbursable and what's not.
Grasshopper.
Talk to someone who works in healthcare or insurance. Ask them what an "ACO" is.
Sometimes it's nice to know about things before getting political about them.
Where is the evidence that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election? Will somebody please point me to any evidence that is not hearsay or anonymously sourced?
There is no evidence because it didn't happen. It's wishful thinking and fodder for the defeated.
Millions of people who lost their plans, or - pay more (much more!) for the same or worse coverage, with sky-rocketing deductibles - are all WRONG! We are imagining it.
Balls knows.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Quality outcomes is not payment/insurance.
"Yes it is. There is an incentive structure directly attributable to outcomes as to what's reimbursable and what's not. "
You give the choice to a bureaucrat.
I give the choice to the patient with advice from their doctor.
Who is going to be happy depends on who is in control.
So no more insurance companies?
Whether we keep basic insurance companies to achieve universality or not I don't have strong feelings about. Many countries w/universal care offer private supplemental insurance. I expect that even if we do get to universality here we'd do the same.
I have no problem with a Medicare system that gives everyone a voucher to buy insurance and allows people to start and maintain their own HSA.
I'll tell you man. I've got a soft spot for HSAs. I love the concept.
The practice is where they lose me.
We all want to believe we're our own best healthcare advocates. The laws have changed to allow patients more rights and say in their care. But when it comes to specific covered acts, we're just not as good at that as we think. The data...
But I do have a problem with the government taking over the risk pool and determining what can be paid for.
I understand your concern and I share it. That's why I would prefer the US system to always retain some sort of hybrid system that always allows for the innovation in care delivery that we excel at and that is probably incentivized by a higher proportion of privately funded care than anywhere else. I don't want to lose that one strength that we have.
In less time than we all think health care will be extremely cheap and easily available and the only thing that will inhibit access are amoral fucks in DC who have nothing better to do than make rules for everyone.
Well, I can't do much of anything about that.
And for the love of god why is HGH treated like it is?
Production of biotechnology agents like proteins is complex stuff. You have to use DNA to inject it into a vector and quality test under much more complex scenarios to ensure production. And then the proteins have to fold right. It's like comparing the quality control of a Lamborghini to origami. Small molecules don't have tertiary or quaternary (more complex 3D) structure to worry about getting right. Proteins are large and degrade under much more fragile conditions.
The collective left have a bogus poll or stat to show you on how Americans love the ACA.
All of you who are paying more for less, thanks to the ACA, you are all imagining it.
Go read a fake ppp poll or a bogus NBC poll. Or one of the NY Times Polls.
You give the choice to a bureaucrat.
I give the choice to the patient with advice from their doctor.
Doctors lost control long ago. Insurance companies dictate what their patients can afford. Doctors don't want to deny care and allow for those more affordable options. There is no way to separate the financing from the delivery/availability. Doctors know this. They go 6 figures and ten years into debt to know better than to argue with whoever's got the cash.
Millions of people who lost their plans, or - pay more (much more!) for the same or worse coverage, with sky-rocketing deductibles - are all WRONG! We are imagining it.
You're emoting it. More people gained than lost. Many, many more. Many many more will lose again if the disastrous Trump-Ryan plan had passed.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the cost of HGH. If you're talking about dispensing restrictions, that's to do with what the states consider to be "abuse."
"Video of Susan Rice interview on the Andrea Mitchell show today."
Even with the help of friendly Andrea guiding her through her talking points, Rice is a terrible liar — defensive, sweaty, stumbling. She needs a better mask. Maybe she can borrow Barack's mask when they bring her in to question her under oath.
Even with the help of friendly Andrea guiding her through her talking points, Rice is a terrible liar — defensive, sweaty, stumbling. She needs a better mask. Maybe she can borrow Barack's mask when they bring her in to question her under oath.
I have to chuckle when I remember that this is being stated by the guy who thinks that Nixon was brought down unfairly.
It goes all the way back to '60, L. Remember those debate performances contra JFK? Avenge the non-telegenic!
exhelodrvr1 said...
...
When did "Chuck" first appear in the blog?
Good question. I'm not certain. 2008, I think.
Fix healthcare in 3 sentences. Not that it will happen. No room for graft.
Rice is a terrible liar. But she's lying for the greater good! Onward soldier!
@ Meade
I am pre-quoting Rice for your convenience: "On advice of counsel, I have been advised to invoke my Fifth Amendment rights."
You are welcome in advance.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"You're emoting it. More people gained than lost. Many, many more. Many many more will lose again if the disastrous Trump-Ryan plan had passed".
I don't think you are accepting that the system is going to collapse imminently or how expensive it will be to transfer Medicare over to everyone.
The biggest problem is handling this at the federal level. This needs to be a state issue. All of these discussions would be better if this was a state issue.
@ TTR
Jeremy Bentham is proud of you. Your utilitarianism is wonderful. Now if you could give a weighting to the loss of freedom in your analysis you might get somewhere.
Blogger Meade said...
"Even with the help of friendly Andrea guiding her through her talking points, Rice is a terrible liar — defensive, sweaty, stumbling. She needs a better mask. Maybe she can borrow Barack's mask when they bring her in to question her under oath."
This is not enough. She can't legally discuss what she did. There is a reason why when you are read on to these programs you sign up for a different set of rules. Anyone of us little people who had a clearance who did what obama and rice and clapper and the rest did would be having these discussions from a cell at best.
They abused powers that it is clear the government cannot be trusted with or at least democrats. Bbut would any of the trump haters out there want Trump to be doing what they did? I didn't think so.
If these people all don't go to jail and the government retains the power to use these intelligence tools like this it is time to burn It all down.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"I have to chuckle when I remember that this is being stated by the guy who thinks that Nixon was brought down unfairly."
What Nixon did was nothing compared to what obama and rice did. Not even close. It is closer to what Nixon's henchman did but far worse.
Note that Nixon got at least a part of what he deserved in my opinion. As a leader he should be held to a higher standard than a citizen.
Good God, 638 posts.
Why dont you all say "Just you wait, Henry Higgins!" and leave it at that? History will justify you, or not.
"A woman who utters such depressing and disgusting sounds has no right to be anywhere — no right to live. Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech . . . don't sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon."
"Even with the help of friendly Andrea guiding her through her talking points, Rice is a terrible liar — defensive, sweaty, stumbling.'
In her defense, it's a very big lie.
What do the bilious pigeons do now!
'Can't wait.
Blogger buwaya said...
"Good God, 638 posts.
Why dont you all say "Just you wait, Henry Higgins!" and leave it at that? History will justify you, or not."
Despite some sidetracking I am going to say this topic is worth 1000 posts if any topic is. It should be clear to anyone that a former president is facing a lot of jail time. He clearly understands as he remains outside the country and has been there a long time.
"I am perfectly happy to let renewables compete without subsidies against other energy sources."
Do we count fossil fuel subsides, corn subsidies, trillions in wars to protect reserves, and the cost of so-called friendly and not friendly Muslim countries who make dough to support terror-religion by sticking a straw in the ground?
Turn the fossil fuel Moooslims into the equivalent of the backwards Africans, as they deserve. I.e., make oil and such obsolete = save dough and dispense justice = win-win.
Notice that I didn't incl the cost of climate change?
How's that for winning points w/ you deniers?
You're welcome.
Farkas
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
Turn the fossil fuel Moooslims into the equivalent of the backwards Africans, as they deserve. I.e., make oil and such obsolete = save dough and dispense justice = win-win.
More like lose-lose. That sort of naive comment shows that the writer doesn't appreciate how well energy is stored in hydrocarbons. And energy must be stored. This is disappointing because I thought that I learned -- somewhere back in commenter school -- that PB&J had a background in chemistry (ChemE?).
The Saudis are blessed with easy oil. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.
false exculpatory statements
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
OMG! An endless Ritmo thread.
G'nite.
Farkas, Farkas, Farkas!
There are coal subsidies? Where?
Certainly not at $ .02 kw/h
Nor at $40-50/ton
Nor at the profit margins of Peabody.
PB&J, dont be glib. I order you to research electric rates and the effect of "renewables" thereunto. Go.
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Notice that I didn't incl the cost of climate change?
How's that for winning points w/ you deniers?
You're welcome.
You didn't include them because they don't exist.
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
"I am perfectly happy to let renewables compete without subsidies against other energy sources."
Do we count fossil fuel subsides,
There are none. The government in fact takes in a huge amount of revenue from fossil fuels in the form of taxes.
corn subsidies,
Nobody wants ethanol in gas. Except people in Iowa and DC.
trillions in wars to protect reserves, and the cost of so-called friendly and not friendly Muslim countries who make dough to support terror-religion by sticking a straw in the ground?
We are net exporters now thanks to fracking. In fact frackers are currently in the process of bankrupting several countries you discussed and the Russians. In addition frackers have made it so the US is the only country in the world to reduce it's CO2 emissions. Without any subsidies. Hug a fracker.
Turn the fossil fuel Moooslims into the equivalent of the backwards Africans, as they deserve. I.e., make oil and such obsolete = save dough and dispense justice = win-win.
We are, without destroying our quality of life like you want. Solar and Wind are just not going to be baseline suppliers of energy until we get to space in mass. They are intermittent sources of power by nature, and this is why they cannot support load in an Alternating Current system.
Chick,
At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's impossible to ever improve storage tech, it makes sense that you'd oppose increases in required efficiency (which nets out the same as increasing renewables re cutting down fossil fuel use), because it's impossible to build more efficient, less polluting engines.
But, forget that. We'll MAGA for the 21st century by moving mountains to find coal.
Got it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
Right Buw,
You can believe that the US doesn't subsidize fossil fuels (which is what I wrote), presumably this belief triggers some sorta feeling of satisfaction/accomplishment.
I dunno.
Ach,
Even Forbes while debunking "subsidies" can't get to zero:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/2/#385a2b0ff451
Maybe you could forward them your data so they can update their info.
"In fact frackers are currently in the process of bankrupting several countries you discussed and the Russians."
Can we add Kentucky to the list?
I saw a life-long Republican on Tucker Carlson that made me wonder if our life-long Republican is bald-headed with a fringe middle-age guy. This one was just about as spittle-flecked as ours.
At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's
impossible to ever improve storage tech, it makes sense that you'd
oppose increases in required efficiency (which nets out the same as
increasing renewables re cutting down fossil fuel use), because it's
impossible to build more efficient, less polluting engines.
I look at the problem of energy storage periodically.* Carbon,
lithium, oxygen, hydrogen are relatively light elements and any useful
storage technology should use them. But lithium is not as plentiful
as some seem to think and much of it is located in nasty places.
Bolivia apparently has lots of untapped lithium. But there we go again
with the mining. Hydrocarbons are the obvious and best energy storage
medium -- duh! If you want to research more sustainable ways of using
carbon, research CO2 reduction using solar or nuclear power. It makes
more sense than energy-intensive processes like ripping oxygen away
from sand to make solar panels and extracting aluminum to make
windmills. Have these "energies" even attained break even?
__________________
*Pun intended
Making synthetic carbohydrates or even hydrocarbons using solar energy is a "soft" approach which yields "hard" stored energy. It mimics nature, of course.
Making Si-based solar panels will never be anything but energy intensive, not to mention incredibly messy, chemically. That's why we outsource it to China.
661
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Chick,
At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's impossible to ever improve storage tech,
. . .
Whenever liberals tell conservatives what they believe, they are wrong. It's like a law of nature.
Here is Wetzel's first law of global warming:
The more enthusiastic a person is about a replacement for fossil fuels, the less likely that person is to know how much electrical power is used in the United States each year.
People would rather read a pop-sci article about giant windmills than spend a few minutes at the DOE website, I guess.
FYI, the number was just shy of 4,000,000 gigawatt hours in 2015.
Carry on!
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Ach,
Even Forbes while debunking "subsidies" can't get to zero:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/2/#385a2b0ff451
Maybe you could forward them your data so they can update their info.
I just spent 5 minutes reading that article. There are zero subsidies. I realize you think accounting procedures and tax breaks are subsidies. That is because you are dumb. Every one of those "subsidies" were guidelines on how the companies expense costs with the exception of the marginal lands royalty fee absolution. They don't pay royalties on those particular federal lands but they pay taxes on what they extract.
On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up.
That is the highest rate of taxation of any industry in the country by a long ways. 45% tax rate? That is egregious by any measure. You are not discussing this in good faith if you keep trying to assert the fossil fuel industry is "subsidized."
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Chick,
At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's impossible to ever improve storage tech, it makes sense that you'd oppose increases in required efficiency (which nets out the same as increasing renewables re cutting down fossil fuel use), because it's impossible to build more efficient, less polluting engines.
I realize you think that technology improvements happen by magic. It is also clear you have no idea how storage technology limits solar and wind. It isn't just capacity, but transfer loss. You also refuse to understand that current storage technology is brutal environmentally and so is solar. None of those technologies are produced in the US because they can't be and pass environmental regulations.
But, forget that. We'll MAGA for the 21st century by moving mountains to find coal.
Got it.
I know democrats love to put people they don't like out of work by government fiat. These people will all transfer out more or less peacefully.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
I spent another 5 minutes reading that article. More unicorns and fairies. You really have no idea about how any of this actually works and neither does the tool who wrote that article.
Right Buw,
You can believe that the US doesn't subsidize fossil fuels (which is what I wrote), presumably this belief triggers some sorta feeling of satisfaction/accomplishment.
I dunno.
It doesn't subsidize fossil fuels. There are specific rules for how that industry has to calculate expenses because making rules for how companies calculate expenses is what the IRS does. After all of these "subsidies" the extraction industry still pays a 45% tax rate. You are not this dumb. Stop posting garbage in bad faith.
FYI, Forbes is not a reliable source. Not unless you verify the author's cred, anyway. Forbes is almost a blog these days. It accepts articles from "contributors."
The "author info" of the page PB&J links to says:
Drillinginfo is the leading SaaS and data analytics company for energy exploration decision support, helping the oil and gas industry achieve better, faster results. The company's predictive decision platform combines intelligence, analytics, tools, and services in one seamless system to deliver value at every stage of the E&P process. Drillinginfo services more than 3,200 companies globally from its Austin, Texas-based headquarters, and has more than 500 employees on five continents. For more information, visit www.drillinginfo.com.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
There were exactly 666 comments on this post before I made this comment. I think we should all congratulate Ann for a devil of post.
Rah! Rah! Rah!
There were exactly 666 comments on this post before I made this comment.
And the Devil is now pissed that you fucked things up for him.
"The truth is, yes, the Obama national security team had a job to do. IF they suspected illegal contact between Trump and foreign contacts then it was their DUTY to investigate."
I felt compelled to respond to this. No, it was not the job of the "Obama national security team" to investigate. It was their job to maybe request an investigation. We have entire agencies whose jobs it is to do investigations (e.g. DoJ, FBI, CIA, NSA). The White House and the President's NSA are not on that list. And that is intentional. The heads of those departments and agencies are subject to Senate confirmation and removal by impeachment or cause. The President's NSA serves at his convenience, not subject to any oversight whatsoever, except by the President. They cannot be removed by Congress for any reason or by any method. Rice was NSA because she showed her loyalty with Benghazi, and was the highest office that Obama could appoint her to that did not require Senate confirmation, which, as I noted before, wouldn't have even been forthcoming even for dogcatcher, thanks to her blatantly lying to the American people on national TV about Benghazi. If the White House national security team was concerned about Trump's ties to Russia (and not Crooked Hillary's?), their response should have been to task the investigation agencies to respond to their concerns, like Trump has asked them to research the leaks and unmasking. The last person that the American people should want running an investigation of political enemies is a known political hack like Rice operating with no accountability or reviewability.
Maybe the my short answer is that the big reason that we know that the "investigation" was political and not truly involving national security is because the person apparently running it was because it was run out of the White Hiuse by a political hack, and not out of or by our investigative agencies.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. It is apparently both sexist and racist to point out that Susan Rice was a political hack misusing the national security apparatus for political gain. Saw this several times yesterday, which says, to me, that some Dems are worried about this scandal hurting them.
Inga said...
"I guess I would say this — that my impression is ... I wouldn't be surprised after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail," Castro said."
4/4/17, 7:16 PM
If that is the entirety of the quote, what makes you think he was referring to Trump people?
It takes 671 comments but Bruce Hayden wins the thread.
@ Todd
Castro was asked if he meant Trump people and he said "Yes." in response. He is lying to distract from the damaging news that Susan Rice likely asked the foreign intelligence apparatus to create spreadsheets of communications of American citizens for political purposes.
So there's that.
Are we still allowed to waterboard US citizens?
Jeff H said...Are we still allowed to waterboard US citizens?
Waterboard, no. Obliterate with drone strike and/or JDAM, yes.
Post a Comment