Those people are not, and have not been welcome in the Democratic party for a while now. They are however welcome in another party in US politics.
The meme that "The Democrats" were the slaveholders is getting so fucking tired. Yes- it's true. Right up until the civil rights era, when all those dixiecrats felt the Democratic party betrayed them with the passive of the Civil Rights Act, and promptly became today's Republicans.
Over time, the parties have almost completely flipped in alignment. Today's Republicans are yesterday's Democrats.
Democrat, Republican- just names. The names don't stand for a goddamn thing outside of what they stand for in the current era. In 10 years, all the racist fuckwits in the south could take over the Democratic party again, and all us northerners would have to retake the Republican party.
In short, today's Democrats are the party of Lincoln, not today's Republicans.
Does a heat sink cease to be a heat sink when it's at equilibrium with its environment?
Nobody has claimed that a mature forest is not neutral in carbon flux.
If that mature forest stops performing its duty as an at-capacity sink, it will start releasing its CO2 back into the air. If a change in conditions allows its density to increase, it will begin taking it away from the air again. It is a sink. A sink at capacity- but nonetheless, it is a sink.
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
This was the initial quote objected against. And for good reason. "wodds and trees" *DO* sequester CO2. They are a balanced cycle after they're done growing with a net minus to extant gaseous carbon due merely to their existence.
1) You have a 20 pounds "carbon" tree:
I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year
After 10 years we have 9 pounds in the atmosphere and the tree gained 1 pound, so we have 21 pounds deposite.
You don't factor into this equation. Scenario 1 is a non-starter.
If the tree dies and rots, we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If that tree dies and rots in a stable forest, it will be replaced with the growth of another. That is *why* mature forests are carbon neutral.
2) Now we have no tree, 20 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with.
I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year
After 10 years we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere
I see what you're doing. You're busy looking at the tree, and you're missing the forest.
Apply previously mention fix to scenario 1 to make it real instead of hypothetical, and the difference is paramount.
Yes, a tree is a deposit. Which is a sink. Any sink is subject to recycling back into the atmosphere at rates determined by its nature. Lithographic sinks not excluded.
Every carbon sink has a cyclical period attached to it for how long it takes it to recycle. The tree itself is not what needs to be looked at, it's the forest. The forest is a carbon sink. During its growth period, it's an active reducer of atmospheric carbon (conversion into CO2 into carbohydrates), and upon maturity, it is a net zero. But that carbon *is* removed from the cycle as a whole, and now caught up in the balanced cycle of that forest.
The only difference, and that probably was your point, is: as long as some amount of CO2 is stored in trees, the level in the atmosphere is correspondingly lower.
All sinks operate in this fashion. Even throwing all the carbon you can get your hands on into the dirt will eventually recycle. No sink moving slower than 11.2km/s relative to the Earth is permanent.
However, even if we burned all trees on the world over night, that amount of CO2 would still dwarf the amount we releases with burning coal and oil the last 200 years.
Not sure what you're trying to say: that the extant biomass dwarfs the amount of long-cycle sunk carbon that we're extracting?
Again- you're wrong about a forest not representing a carbon sink. A mature forest may be a sink that's at capacity, but it's still a sink. That carbon is still not in the atmosphere, and thus no longer contributing to warming.
No you did not, and nor did I say you did.. In fact, I pointed out how you didn't;)
You pointed to its emissions as a drawback, while I pointed out that in comparison to any fossil source, it's not even a blip on the radar.
Studies show those emissions to be quite high- compared to zero emissions sources, sure. But not compared to any extant emitting power source.
Old growth forests/rainforests/jungles are net zero CO2.
No- they are a net zero in terms of active reduction of CO2 from the atmosphere- they're still made of sequestered carbon.
It's a simple logic exercise-
You have 20 pounds of carbon.
You can have 10 pounds of it in the form of wood, with 10 left over for the air, or you can have 20 in the air.
The tree is a sink merely by existing. An old growth forest is a sink merely by existing as biomass. It no longer actively scrubs the atmosphere- that's absolutely true, but in the absence of that forest- that carbon would be in the air.
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
I must pick a nit...
The fact that there is an increased biomass density in an area of land that is forested, is a net minus to the carbon that is available to the atmospheric portion of the cycle.
Sure that forest is still *part* of the cycle, but for as long as it is in existence, it absolutely is an effective sequestration of that carbon- because as you said, it's a zero sum game.
Your points are all 100% legitimate, and for the sake of honesty, I wouldn't argue any of them.
I do wonder, however, if you're aware of the relative scales.
A coal plant de-sequesters 9500 tons of carbon in the form of CO2... per day.
How many of the worlds dams does it take to de-sequester that forested space worth of carbon (remember, it has to decay underneath the water-inundated land) in a year that which a coal plant does in a day?
Ever think maybe the norms of society grew out of the ways that men are culturally raised to be violent and controlling?
I'm not saying that argument is better than yours, but I think you may have fired off yours as if it somehow held more weight than conflicting viewpoints.
You posted an article by a person and ascribed it to a movement that obviously doesn't support that viewpoint.
I mean, that alone indicates you're either woefully stupid, or highly manipulative.
The part you don't realize, is in doing this, you put someone making the argument that all Trump supports are racist coneheads on equal moral and intellectual honesty footing as you... Which limits our choices for your description to either woefully stupid, or woefully stupid and shitty at manipulation.
You mean that "left-wing bias" which gives rise to things like 20 years of screaming "the nazis/white supremacists are coming."
I'd hardly say they were wrong, as of today.
Not that I think Trump is either of those things, really, but it really is undeniable that a lot of his political power comes from people with fascist and white supremacist leanings. To ignore that is to try to alter reality.
The fact that you complain after shifting the goal post proves it is a fact.
No, it does not. It just proves that he's willing to be deceitful in his argument, as are you. It does however prove that you have no fucking idea what the word fact means.
Oh yeah, the 21st century version of 'The Soviets were not true Communists'. That famous 'No true Scotsman' argument
I think you're not a dim-witted person, so I'll respond to this with the assumption that you're just making a disingenuous argument against someone you yourself consider to be dim-witted.
Claiming that the Soviets weren't true Communists is an arguable point from many angles, starting with Marx, and ending with Trotsky.
Also, Claiming that they were is equally valid.
Of course if someone is interested in the real facts of the case and wants to find out where they really went so wrong, you'd arrive at the conclusion that Leninism, practiced in any form, in favor of any economic model, is pretty much bad for everyone.
I suspect that today, in the 21st century, very few self-proclaimed leftists are Leninists. Vanguard parties and dictatorships suck.
At the end of the day, there was very little difference between Hitler and Stalin. They had different theories about what would work best economically for their war machines, but they were both slime bag dictators. Neither libertarian, nor communist beliefs requires a dictatorship. The fact that a lot of Communist revolutions have ended in one is for the same reason that nearly all right-wing revolutions have ended in one- because the people who orchestrate a revolution tend to do it for the sake of seizing power. They're not seizing power for the sake of a revolution.
The best they could hope for would be some kind of equitable merger... and then $diety help us.
Speaking of, what the hell is with Apple fans throwing around APPLE COULD BUY YOO at everything?
Even if Apple did have the resources on hand to purchase the entire market capitalization of Microsoft, what the hell makes anyone think the MS shareholders would jump at the opportunity of a one-time-buyout of their ownership of one of the largest tech companies in existence?
I don't know what you do for a living; if you fancy yourself a scientist, you are a lousy one, since you seem to be incapable of distinguishing such elementary propositions as "the conclusions that researchers in climate change research reach have a strong impact on their funding and careers" and "AGW is happening". As it happens to be the case, both conclusions are true.
Yes, however the former conclusion is just sowing bullshit FUD.
You're using a statement of fact with questionable value to the discussion as a way to imply falsehood. You *are* doing that. You're doing that because you can't actually attack the evidence. You're also braindead about letting AGW "run its course."
To let it "run its course" would require the immediate complete cessation of all alteration of the long and short-term carbon cycle fluxes that were are fucking with, in this particular situation: recycling billions of metric tons of sequestered lithospheric carbon back into the atmosphere. Think of humanity as a really fucking big ongoing volcano that's accelerating its output, and by overall destruction of the earth's major biomass sinks.
There is literally no such thing as letting it "run its course" short of that, because we are literally altering the course every single day.
I'm looking at this from a different angle. No, most people are not going to use this for anything more than filming the dog shaking at 1000 fps a couple times.
As I read TFA, I was thinking to myself, wtf would I ever use this for?!
Sold.
I use "rough" intentionally, because that is what I mean. If there were only minor deviations and the theory would essentially be correct in all situations, I would not use "rough". However, as in the example with classical mechanics, it is quite possible that there are situations were the model basically fails completely, and that is why I call it a "rough" approximation.
And I still object whole-heartedly with that logic. You're claiming it's rough because it has not been disproven. That's a piss-poor argument.
Incidentally, no, we do not have 100% correctness.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of any non-pedantic argument you could make to back up that claim.
As I said, we have correctness within the energy levels we can test with. Sure the margins of error are there, but they're impressively standing up well to the march of technology. I'd love to be schooled otherwise here, because all I see from you is fallacious logic.
Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.
An inner voice tells me that guy isn't wrong. And that you and I agree on that point. But I think you're doing QM and QED a wild injustice by calling it a rough approximation with a lack of proof to back it up. At least Einstein was honest that he had nothing but a feeling.
I think he was more taking exception to your use of the word "rough"
Which.. I have to kind of say I do, too.
I fully understand what you're saying regarding the tough-to-swallow-pill that we live in a universe ruled by statistics with seemingly random constants punched in.
But there's nothing "rough" about the approximation QM and QED provide us.
It's upsettingly exact and for all the people like you (and I) who don't like the taste of a universe governed in such a way, upsettingly infallible.
It is our theory of how everything we can interact with works- and it's 100% correct in every instance we have the energy to test.
Not at all,
You're making a mess of a bunch of facts, that the article you cited lays out, though draws its own conclusions from.
A. The Administration knew that due to normal turnover, people in the individual market would end up on ACA plans pretty quickly. The ACA and government does not force this turnover. It's caused by *the insurance customers, and insurers*. Those people don't get to "keep" their current insurance, ACA or not.
B. The Administration erroneously assumed that the grandfather clauses would shield individual market people who actually keep their plan, which is the group that doesn't belong to the turnover group. This assumption turned out to be wrong for various reasons- one of which was that states told their insurers to cancel plans and send renewals instead of amend them, another of which was that the regulations were tight enough that anybody in the long-term individual market who's insurance carrier made significant changes to their policy instead of cancelling it would lose their grandfather status. The Administration failed to account for what the market would do in that regard when faced with the ACA.
I'm not defending the ACA here. It was, for obvious reasons, a big fucking mess. It accomplished some good things, and was made in the direction of people with a good-intentioned goal, but the resulting bill was Frankenstein's Monster with unpredictable outcomes.
I'm also not defending the naivety of the Administration from the people who wrote the regulations, to the guy who was the mouthpiece of the whole thing. But there is simply zero evidence that anyone on the executive side was lying. They were just stupid.
The NBC article is written by someone who doesn't really understand what he's reading. Simply a shitty journalist. And you just lacked the critical thought to see where he went wrong.
In Detroit, 158 of the 392 precincts with ballot discrepancies had just one extra ballot accounted for either in the poll book or in the ballot box, according to the Wayne County’s canvassing report.
For suburban Wayne County, 72 percent of the 218 precincts boxes with discrepancies in the number of ballots were off by one ballot.
The other ballot discrepancies in Detroit and Wayne County precincts ranged between two and five ballots, according to the report.
FT(original)S.
thepoliticalinsider.com is the definition of tabloid news. They took a fact, (the fact that a large amount of precints did not have exactly matching poll books and ballot counts), and instead of quoting the people with real explanations for the *fucking miniscule* discrepancies:
He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.
they said:
Now we’re seeing it in Detroit as Democrats engage in a scam recount effort.
You're a piece of shit for spreading that shit as authoritative.
Even a nearly empty glass looks full from underneath.
You are right that making assertions as to crowd volume using one of those photographs is entirely misleading, but it's not the one you think.
I missed the part where the Administration or the ACA stripped your doctor away from you.
You can *definitely* make the argument that free-market reaction to market dynamic changes resulting from the ACA resulted in some people losing access to doctors they once had due to rule changes within private insurance entities, but you're saying that Obama saying that is a lie, or a deliberate untruth.
The only untruth I see here, is your attempt to redefine lying to mean being wrong or naive. It would make sense, since actual lying, and attempting to forcefully alter perception of reality, something we're getting a rather sobering taste of at the moment, is a whole different level of fucked up.
No, sir, the liar appears to be you. Next up, shall we tango over Benghazi?
The article itself in order to generate clicks is a fabrication.
More newspeak.
Of course it's a fabrication. All things manufactured are, which includes any and all articles.
Oh, you're purposefully conflating the first and second definitions of that word to lend credibility to your redefinition of "irrelevant datapoint you don't like seeing" to "untruthful?"
Clever. Never seen that before. Cough.
Slashdot Mirror
Those people are not, and have not been welcome in the Democratic party for a while now. They are however welcome in another party in US politics.
The meme that "The Democrats" were the slaveholders is getting so fucking tired. Yes- it's true. Right up until the civil rights era, when all those dixiecrats felt the Democratic party betrayed them with the passive of the Civil Rights Act, and promptly became today's Republicans.
Over time, the parties have almost completely flipped in alignment. Today's Republicans are yesterday's Democrats.
Democrat, Republican- just names. The names don't stand for a goddamn thing outside of what they stand for in the current era. In 10 years, all the racist fuckwits in the south could take over the Democratic party again, and all us northerners would have to retake the Republican party.
In short, today's Democrats are the party of Lincoln, not today's Republicans.
Nobody has claimed that a mature forest is not neutral in carbon flux.
If that mature forest stops performing its duty as an at-capacity sink, it will start releasing its CO2 back into the air. If a change in conditions allows its density to increase, it will begin taking it away from the air again. It is a sink. A sink at capacity- but nonetheless, it is a sink.
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
This was the initial quote objected against. And for good reason. "wodds and trees" *DO* sequester CO2. They are a balanced cycle after they're done growing with a net minus to extant gaseous carbon due merely to their existence.
1) You have a 20 pounds "carbon" tree: I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year After 10 years we have 9 pounds in the atmosphere and the tree gained 1 pound, so we have 21 pounds deposite.
You don't factor into this equation. Scenario 1 is a non-starter.
If the tree dies and rots, we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If that tree dies and rots in a stable forest, it will be replaced with the growth of another. That is *why* mature forests are carbon neutral.
2) Now we have no tree, 20 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with. I produce 1 pound of CO2 per year After 10 years we have 30 pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere
I see what you're doing. You're busy looking at the tree, and you're missing the forest.
Apply previously mention fix to scenario 1 to make it real instead of hypothetical, and the difference is paramount.
Yes, a tree is a deposit. Which is a sink. Any sink is subject to recycling back into the atmosphere at rates determined by its nature. Lithographic sinks not excluded.
Every carbon sink has a cyclical period attached to it for how long it takes it to recycle. The tree itself is not what needs to be looked at, it's the forest. The forest is a carbon sink. During its growth period, it's an active reducer of atmospheric carbon (conversion into CO2 into carbohydrates), and upon maturity, it is a net zero. But that carbon *is* removed from the cycle as a whole, and now caught up in the balanced cycle of that forest.
The only difference, and that probably was your point, is: as long as some amount of CO2 is stored in trees, the level in the atmosphere is correspondingly lower.
All sinks operate in this fashion. Even throwing all the carbon you can get your hands on into the dirt will eventually recycle. No sink moving slower than 11.2km/s relative to the Earth is permanent.
However, even if we burned all trees on the world over night, that amount of CO2 would still dwarf the amount we releases with burning coal and oil the last 200 years.
Not sure what you're trying to say: that the extant biomass dwarfs the amount of long-cycle sunk carbon that we're extracting?
Again- you're wrong about a forest not representing a carbon sink. A mature forest may be a sink that's at capacity, but it's still a sink. That carbon is still not in the atmosphere, and thus no longer contributing to warming.
No you did not, and nor did I say you did.. In fact, I pointed out how you didn't ;)
You pointed to its emissions as a drawback, while I pointed out that in comparison to any fossil source, it's not even a blip on the radar.
Studies show those emissions to be quite high- compared to zero emissions sources, sure. But not compared to any extant emitting power source.
Old growth forests/rainforests/jungles are net zero CO2.
No- they are a net zero in terms of active reduction of CO2 from the atmosphere- they're still made of sequestered carbon.
It's a simple logic exercise-
You have 20 pounds of carbon.
You can have 10 pounds of it in the form of wood, with 10 left over for the air, or you can have 20 in the air.
The tree is a sink merely by existing. An old growth forest is a sink merely by existing as biomass. It no longer actively scrubs the atmosphere- that's absolutely true, but in the absence of that forest- that carbon would be in the air.
B) woods and trees don't "sequester" CO2. They use it to grow, and release it again when they die and rot. It is a zero sum game.
I must pick a nit...
The fact that there is an increased biomass density in an area of land that is forested, is a net minus to the carbon that is available to the atmospheric portion of the cycle.
Sure that forest is still *part* of the cycle, but for as long as it is in existence, it absolutely is an effective sequestration of that carbon- because as you said, it's a zero sum game.
Your points are all 100% legitimate, and for the sake of honesty, I wouldn't argue any of them.
I do wonder, however, if you're aware of the relative scales.
A coal plant de-sequesters 9500 tons of carbon in the form of CO2... per day.
How many of the worlds dams does it take to de-sequester that forested space worth of carbon (remember, it has to decay underneath the water-inundated land) in a year that which a coal plant does in a day?
Says the alt-facter.
lol- excellent rebuttal, Donald.
Ever think maybe the norms of society grew out of the ways that men are culturally raised to be violent and controlling?
I'm not saying that argument is better than yours, but I think you may have fired off yours as if it somehow held more weight than conflicting viewpoints.
You posted an article by a person and ascribed it to a movement that obviously doesn't support that viewpoint.
I mean, that alone indicates you're either woefully stupid, or highly manipulative.
The part you don't realize, is in doing this, you put someone making the argument that all Trump supports are racist coneheads on equal moral and intellectual honesty footing as you... Which limits our choices for your description to either woefully stupid, or woefully stupid and shitty at manipulation.
Come on, dude.
You mean that "left-wing bias" which gives rise to things like 20 years of screaming "the nazis/white supremacists are coming."
I'd hardly say they were wrong, as of today.
Not that I think Trump is either of those things, really, but it really is undeniable that a lot of his political power comes from people with fascist and white supremacist leanings. To ignore that is to try to alter reality.
The fact that you complain after shifting the goal post proves it is a fact.
No, it does not. It just proves that he's willing to be deceitful in his argument, as are you. It does however prove that you have no fucking idea what the word fact means.
Oh yeah, the 21st century version of 'The Soviets were not true Communists'. That famous 'No true Scotsman' argument
I think you're not a dim-witted person, so I'll respond to this with the assumption that you're just making a disingenuous argument against someone you yourself consider to be dim-witted.
Claiming that the Soviets weren't true Communists is an arguable point from many angles, starting with Marx, and ending with Trotsky.
Also, Claiming that they were is equally valid.
Of course if someone is interested in the real facts of the case and wants to find out where they really went so wrong, you'd arrive at the conclusion that Leninism, practiced in any form, in favor of any economic model, is pretty much bad for everyone.
I suspect that today, in the 21st century, very few self-proclaimed leftists are Leninists. Vanguard parties and dictatorships suck.
At the end of the day, there was very little difference between Hitler and Stalin. They had different theories about what would work best economically for their war machines, but they were both slime bag dictators. Neither libertarian, nor communist beliefs requires a dictatorship. The fact that a lot of Communist revolutions have ended in one is for the same reason that nearly all right-wing revolutions have ended in one- because the people who orchestrate a revolution tend to do it for the sake of seizing power. They're not seizing power for the sake of a revolution.
In their wildest dreams
The best they could hope for would be some kind of equitable merger... and then $diety help us.
Speaking of, what the hell is with Apple fans throwing around APPLE COULD BUY YOO at everything?
Even if Apple did have the resources on hand to purchase the entire market capitalization of Microsoft, what the hell makes anyone think the MS shareholders would jump at the opportunity of a one-time-buyout of their ownership of one of the largest tech companies in existence?
I don't know what you do for a living; if you fancy yourself a scientist, you are a lousy one, since you seem to be incapable of distinguishing such elementary propositions as "the conclusions that researchers in climate change research reach have a strong impact on their funding and careers" and "AGW is happening". As it happens to be the case, both conclusions are true.
Yes, however the former conclusion is just sowing bullshit FUD.
You're using a statement of fact with questionable value to the discussion as a way to imply falsehood. You *are* doing that. You're doing that because you can't actually attack the evidence. You're also braindead about letting AGW "run its course."
To let it "run its course" would require the immediate complete cessation of all alteration of the long and short-term carbon cycle fluxes that were are fucking with, in this particular situation: recycling billions of metric tons of sequestered lithospheric carbon back into the atmosphere. Think of humanity as a really fucking big ongoing volcano that's accelerating its output, and by overall destruction of the earth's major biomass sinks.
There is literally no such thing as letting it "run its course" short of that, because we are literally altering the course every single day.
Doesn't justify forging one out of titanium
Sounds cold... But also strangely awesome
I'm looking at this from a different angle. No, most people are not going to use this for anything more than filming the dog shaking at 1000 fps a couple times.
As I read TFA, I was thinking to myself, wtf would I ever use this for?!
Sold.
I use "rough" intentionally, because that is what I mean. If there were only minor deviations and the theory would essentially be correct in all situations, I would not use "rough". However, as in the example with classical mechanics, it is quite possible that there are situations were the model basically fails completely, and that is why I call it a "rough" approximation.
And I still object whole-heartedly with that logic. You're claiming it's rough because it has not been disproven. That's a piss-poor argument.
Incidentally, no, we do not have 100% correctness.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of any non-pedantic argument you could make to back up that claim.
As I said, we have correctness within the energy levels we can test with. Sure the margins of error are there, but they're impressively standing up well to the march of technology. I'd love to be schooled otherwise here, because all I see from you is fallacious logic.
Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.
An inner voice tells me that guy isn't wrong. And that you and I agree on that point. But I think you're doing QM and QED a wild injustice by calling it a rough approximation with a lack of proof to back it up. At least Einstein was honest that he had nothing but a feeling.
I think he was more taking exception to your use of the word "rough"
Which.. I have to kind of say I do, too.
I fully understand what you're saying regarding the tough-to-swallow-pill that we live in a universe ruled by statistics with seemingly random constants punched in.
But there's nothing "rough" about the approximation QM and QED provide us.
It's upsettingly exact and for all the people like you (and I) who don't like the taste of a universe governed in such a way, upsettingly infallible.
It is our theory of how everything we can interact with works- and it's 100% correct in every instance we have the energy to test.
Not at all, You're making a mess of a bunch of facts, that the article you cited lays out, though draws its own conclusions from.
A. The Administration knew that due to normal turnover, people in the individual market would end up on ACA plans pretty quickly. The ACA and government does not force this turnover. It's caused by *the insurance customers, and insurers*. Those people don't get to "keep" their current insurance, ACA or not.
B. The Administration erroneously assumed that the grandfather clauses would shield individual market people who actually keep their plan, which is the group that doesn't belong to the turnover group. This assumption turned out to be wrong for various reasons- one of which was that states told their insurers to cancel plans and send renewals instead of amend them, another of which was that the regulations were tight enough that anybody in the long-term individual market who's insurance carrier made significant changes to their policy instead of cancelling it would lose their grandfather status. The Administration failed to account for what the market would do in that regard when faced with the ACA.
I'm not defending the ACA here. It was, for obvious reasons, a big fucking mess. It accomplished some good things, and was made in the direction of people with a good-intentioned goal, but the resulting bill was Frankenstein's Monster with unpredictable outcomes.
I'm also not defending the naivety of the Administration from the people who wrote the regulations, to the guy who was the mouthpiece of the whole thing. But there is simply zero evidence that anyone on the executive side was lying. They were just stupid.
The NBC article is written by someone who doesn't really understand what he's reading. Simply a shitty journalist. And you just lacked the critical thought to see where he went wrong.
In Detroit, 158 of the 392 precincts with ballot discrepancies had just one extra ballot accounted for either in the poll book or in the ballot box, according to the Wayne County’s canvassing report. For suburban Wayne County, 72 percent of the 218 precincts boxes with discrepancies in the number of ballots were off by one ballot. The other ballot discrepancies in Detroit and Wayne County precincts ranged between two and five ballots, according to the report.
FT(original)S.
thepoliticalinsider.com is the definition of tabloid news. They took a fact, (the fact that a large amount of precints did not have exactly matching poll books and ballot counts), and instead of quoting the people with real explanations for the *fucking miniscule* discrepancies:
He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.
they said:
Now we’re seeing it in Detroit as Democrats engage in a scam recount effort.
You're a piece of shit for spreading that shit as authoritative.
Even a nearly empty glass looks full from underneath.
You are right that making assertions as to crowd volume using one of those photographs is entirely misleading, but it's not the one you think.
I missed the part where the Administration or the ACA stripped your doctor away from you.
You can *definitely* make the argument that free-market reaction to market dynamic changes resulting from the ACA resulted in some people losing access to doctors they once had due to rule changes within private insurance entities, but you're saying that Obama saying that is a lie, or a deliberate untruth.
The only untruth I see here, is your attempt to redefine lying to mean being wrong or naive. It would make sense, since actual lying, and attempting to forcefully alter perception of reality, something we're getting a rather sobering taste of at the moment, is a whole different level of fucked up.
No, sir, the liar appears to be you. Next up, shall we tango over Benghazi?
The article itself in order to generate clicks is a fabrication.
More newspeak.
Of course it's a fabrication. All things manufactured are, which includes any and all articles.
Oh, you're purposefully conflating the first and second definitions of that word to lend credibility to your redefinition of "irrelevant datapoint you don't like seeing" to "untruthful?"
Clever. Never seen that before. Cough.