BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9531  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:25 PM
ZeykShade's Avatar
ZeykShade ZeykShade is online now
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
When even Joe Manchin (who I presume isn't running for president) comes out saying Congress should explore single payer health care... I'd say we have near unanimity in the Democratic Party. This is getting good.
The other good thing about all of this is, Healthcare has rocketed ahead of all other issues in polls for people when considering their politics.

If the Democratic Party can become the Party of, "We want to help you" vs. the "Got mine, fuck you" GOP, it'll be good in 2018 and beyond.

The problem I have is that the Dems suck complete cock at messaging. The GOP and the industries that would be most affected by single payer are going to sell it as a massive tax increase without mentioning the $10k-20k less a family of four is going to spend insuring themselves. They won't mention the huge labor cost savings for businesses either. They won't mention the employment freedom having single payer represents for people either.
Reply With Quote
  #9532  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:39 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,278
Default

There's already been 17 GOP Congressional retirements this cycle. They're on pace for 31 overall, and that may be underselling it. Smart people know the backlash to Trumpism is coming.

To me, 90% of the battle is Democrats simply getting correct on policy, and in this environment a lot of the rest will take care of itself. And a lot of getting correct on policy is simply to stop being neoliberal Republican-lite on domestic policy.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2016-2017: 09

This message is hidden because WaiverWire is on your ignore list.
Reply With Quote
  #9533  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:58 PM
nutznboltz's Avatar
nutznboltz nutznboltz is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oldsmar F-L-A
Posts: 2,215
Default

Sarah Huckabee-Sanders during her press conference called "BernieCare" a "horrible idea" to inject the government to provide health care coverage. Lindsay Graham is also against it and wants to continue the repeal and replace road to nowhere.
Reply With Quote
  #9534  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:21 PM
ZeykShade's Avatar
ZeykShade ZeykShade is online now
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutznboltz View Post
Sarah Huckabee-Sanders during her press conference called "BernieCare" a "horrible idea" to inject the government to provide health care coverage. Lindsay Graham is also against it and wants to continue the repeal and replace road to nowhere.
"BernieCare" lmfao. It's fucking Medicare. Which polls at 71% popularity or some hilariously awesome number. The rebranding is already starting.

She also called for the firing of an employee of a private company for stating the obvious about the president. Imagine how she'd have reacted if an ESPN employee had accused the president of not being born in this country. I expect the full throated 1A defenders on the right to come out in support of Jemelle Hill.

I'd also like to point out that it took the White House far less time to condemn someone calling the POTUS a White Supremacists than it did for the White House to condemn White Supremacists murdering Heather Heyer in a terrorist attack.

Last edited by ZeykShade; 09-13-2017 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9535  
Old 09-13-2017, 07:17 PM
Flycoon's Avatar
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
Not sure how I feel about this. Forfeiture was a huge tool and helped pay for some of our long term investigations.
Forfeiture of assets of those convicted makes perfect sense. Forfeiture of assets of the accused is theft by the government.
Reply With Quote
  #9536  
Old 09-13-2017, 07:45 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 6,807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
Forfeiture of assets of those convicted makes perfect sense. Forfeiture of assets of the accused is theft by the government.
+1
__________________
Ivanka asked me "Daddy, can I come with you? I said yes, you can." Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #9537  
Old 09-13-2017, 07:55 PM
Hoek's Avatar
Hoek Hoek is online now
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 15,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
Forfeiture of assets of those convicted makes perfect sense. Forfeiture of assets of the accused is theft by the government.
Yep. When you have people getting their money seized simply because it's a lot of cash and no actual probable cause, the motivation is pretty clear.
Reply With Quote
  #9538  
Old 09-13-2017, 10:44 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 6,807
Default

Trump cuts his second deal with the democrats. This one protects the dreamers without including funding for the wall.
__________________
Ivanka asked me "Daddy, can I come with you? I said yes, you can." Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #9539  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:41 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 5,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
Forfeiture of assets of those convicted makes perfect sense. Forfeiture of assets of the accused is theft by the government.
Not entirely true. Many times agencies use this process when someone is accused of an illegal trade, such as drugs. If someone can not prove how they got their money it can be seized. When money or property is seized the agency must complete paperwork and serve the person in which the property was taken from with the date and time a court hearing will take place. It is up to the person to convince a judge the property was obtained legally. It is called "Due Process". So you see you just can not take they property and send them on their way and turn it over to any agency to use.

In Florida we had, and still do have, drug interdiction teams. Many times a stop is made a very large sums of cash is found in the vehicle and the driver can not explain where the cash came from. The money is taken as found property until such time as a reasonable answer is given.

Many times a quicker way is to just call an IRS investigator and provide them with all the information such as the amount of money or assets a suspect has. They in turn pull tax info to see if there is a reason to look further as in most case the money is never claimed to the IRS.

Off this subject some what bit here is one that many will not believe.

In 86 I worked a robbery of a Pace Warehouse. During the investigation I recovered just over $85,000. The insurance company had already paid the claim and sent the sheriff a letter of record. When I contacted the insurance company they wanted to come get the money. I told them they needed a court order under Florida Law. However I also told them that I would draft the form for the judge to sign and obtain a date they could have the order signed. The agent told me he could not do that as they would have to go through legal as it involved a court. Long story short they use an outside source for legal matters and did not want to give 40% to a lawyer for 15 minutes of work. We send the paperwork to them and they refuse to see the judge who then awarded the money to the sheriff after we made several attempts to have the agent meet with the judge, so the judge declared the money abandoned after 60 days.
Reply With Quote
  #9540  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:48 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 5,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
Trump cuts his second deal with the democrats. This one protects the dreamers without including funding for the wall.
From what I am reading this deal is to meet to address their differences in hopes of reaching a deal.




https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...all/664773001/

Whether it is a deal or an agreement to try and reach a deal lets hope they can come up with a solution that works for these kids. This is something that should had been done years ago by a congress that failed to act.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.