Does he know the difference btn health insurance and life insurance?

 

"TRUMP: But what it does, Maggie, it means it gets tougher and tougher. As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of."

 islander wrote: 

The truth finally comes out on that one. It's been festering in him for a while but he's never been quite this blunt about it. Frankly, I think he was more mad at Sessions over this than at Comey. I think he thought Sessions would be able to shield him a good bit from the inquiry and he thought he would be able to contain Comey through Sessions. Once Sessions recused himself that all fell apart. 
 

 VV wrote: 
He would have to get rid of Sessions first, and then appoint a lackey who would carry his water and shut down the investigation. Can you imagine him turning on one of his early, loyal supporters like that?  Oh wait, you don't have to:

• In a rebuke of one of his staunchest supporters, President Trump said he “would have picked somebody else” had he known Attorney General Jeff Sessions was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

 VV wrote: 
Still working on my coffee this morning.  I gave you what I could at the spur of the moment.  Gimmie a little credit eh?

What's the Vegas line (over/under) for how many days Mueller has left in his current position?

 pigtail wrote: 
You forgot to bulletize it:

• Clearly, you've had your morning java and are ready for a match.  Let the games begin!

 VV wrote: 
Clearly, you've had your morning java and are ready for a match.  Let the games begin!

Hey, could someone please review the posts here over the past week and summarize them for me as bullet points (no more than 9-10). I'm busy and don't have time to read them all.
 
...oh yeah any kick-ass graphics to go with that would be boss.

Thanx much!

President Trump’s 492 false or misleading claims in his first 100 days:

 

Add the brutal vulgarity, the staggering blow to the nation's psyche he inflicts, to the utterly brazen mendacity that Trump exercises daily.

 LowPhreak wrote: 

What a shame you didn't continue quoting your Dailycaller.com piece, especially the exchange between Sen. Al Franken of MN and former DNI head James Clapper. Emphases are mine: 

Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that’s right.

Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office.

Franken: But all 17 signed on to that? 

Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a special situation because of the time limits and the sensitivity of the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed when it came out.

DHS published a joint statement with the DNI back in October expressing the same verdict about Russian interference, so it’s fair to say a handful of agencies have publicly drawn conclusions. But simply because the DNI speaks for the intelligence community as a whole doesn’t mean all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions, let alone conducted independent investigations. Clinton overstates her case.


Clapper's statement is a far, far cry from what you claimed in your earlier post: 


"There were only 4 out of 17 agencies that reluctantly agreed with what is actually a NSA leak, and that based on "best conclusions", not verifiable evidence, and after a charade was presented that ALL agencies agreed, ("widespread consensus") when they actually did not. "


If you want to wander back through the OSS/CIA's history, all the way back to WWII's Operation Paperclip and the CIA's nutty projects from the Cold War, have at it. That tells me you're stuck in the past, refusing to take into account changes in intelligence oversight and the near-impossibility of concealing covert intelligence efforts for any length of time in today's world. Thanks so much for that list of "42 admitted false flag attacks", btw—interesting that less than half of them were run or suggested by US government personnel. 

But your claim that the NSA and other intel agencies are working "in cahoots" with the "mainstream media" to discredit Trump's election and administration is barking madness. Let's not even talk about how difficult it would be to conceal such a press/intelligence plot against Trump. There would simply be little or nothing to gain from running such a "false-flag" operation: American voters supporting Trump were still largely supporting Trump, even as stories about Russian groups trying to hack the DNC servers grew. They're still largely supporting Trump, even as stories about Russian government operatives having contact with Trump campaign members and Trump administration officials have grown. 

Hell, fewer Trump supporters now believe that Russia tried to influence the election:


A July 15 ABC/Washington Post poll found a similarly disturbing trend: Only 9 percent of Republicans polled said they believe Russia tried to influence the election, which was down — yes, down — from 18 percent in April.


Maybe we should sit the NSA, CIA, DHS, ODNI, New York Times, WaPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS etc. etc. etc. and give them a stern talking-to about running such a weak false-flag operation. Should I have included some other organizations or industries in your conspiracy list? Perhaps solar panel manufacturers, the NAACP, the EU? Cat owners? 

"Not going to waste further time & effort with anyone who endlessly repeats partisan denials in the face of hard evidence and facts."

Not surprising that I was thinking the same thing about you. Don't get swallowed up in all your conspiracy theories, LowPhreak. There seem to be a lot of them. 

 haresfur wrote: 

 LowPhreak wrote: 
First things first.  You don't know a lot about construction I gather.

See here.  

Analysis and Design of a
High Rise Steel Braced Frame Core

The Pennsylvania State University                          
Architectural Engineering Senior Thesis Final Report

Executive Summary

This report is the culmination of a yearlong study on the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel tower, a 40 story luxury
hotel located on the 1000 block of the boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Given the architectural
layout of the guest room spaces, a core only lateral force resisting system and flat slab concrete floor
system were designed to accommodate the architectural requirements of the project. With only the core
resisting the lateral forces acting on the tower, reinforced concrete shear walls with coupling beams were
designed to in such a way as to limit the wind drift and effectively dissipate the hurricane force winds of
Atlantic City. A concrete shear wall core of this nature was found to be extremely stiff and rigid. These
properties will eliminate any torsional flexibility issues that usually result from a slender core only
system.

The purpose of this study is to determine why a concrete shear wall core and filigree flat slab floor system
were selected as the structural system of the tower. The proposed lateral force resisting system redesign
consists of a core of steel braced frames, the majority of which will be concentric inverted “V” braces.
Eccentric braced frames will be avoided as much as possible in order to benefit from the greater stiffness
provided by concentric braced frames. The proposed gravity system redesign consists of a non-composite
steel frame and precast concrete plank floor system; this floor system offers the key benefit of fast
erection. Both systems were chosen on a basis to determine why a steel structural system was not chosen,
given its superior erection time compared to that of a concrete system. With a steel system, the
construction cost and erection time can be reduced; the hotel can open at an earlier date, thereby
generating revenue sooner.

The braced frames in the core of the tower were designed to effectively limit the building drift to H/400,
while providing enough strength capacity to meet the requirements of AISC LRFD 3rd Edition. To meet
the recommended drift limitation of H/400, large built-up column sections were required at the lower
levels of the tower. These built-up sections were pivotal in reducing the overall building drift because
column axial deformations had the greatest effect on overall drift.

Minor architectural impacts resulted from this structural redesign. The elevator/service core at the center
of the tower required redesigning in order to allow for more flexibility while determining the geometry of
the braced frames. The core redesign involved the relocation of openings, elevators, and spaces. The
floor to floor height of the tower was increase by 10 inches in order to accommodate the deeper steel
structure; this 10 inch increase has many cost implications. Soffits are required in order to conceal the
steel frame, particularly the spandrel beams and columns. These soffits will be visible in various guest
rooms throughout the hotel. As these architectural impacts seem minor in the grand scheme of things, it
is at the owner’s discretion to determine the acceptability of such changes. However, for the purposes of
this study these changes were deemed acceptable

Despite all of the architectural impacts, construction management breadth studies left me with the
conclusion that the cost of the steel structure is $1.5 million less than the concrete/filigree system. It was
also found that the steel structure would top out almost a month before the concrete schedule. It seems
like all design goals have been met.

However, drift and strength are not the only issues that need to be addressed in the preliminary design of a
high-rise lateral force resisting system. Motion perception of building occupants can sometimes control
the design of a structural system. In order to fully understand the structural dynamics of a building,
complex wind tunnel studies must be performed.

For the purposes of this study, a parametric RMS acceleration study was performed in order to determine
whether or not accelerations due to wind would be an issue. To better grasp the effects of accelerations
due to wind, the concrete shear wall core was analyzed as a way of comparing the two systems. The
concrete shear wall core was found to be an acceptable design based on this parametric study. However,
the steel braced frame core RMS resultant accelerations at the top floor of the hotel were found to exceed
the acceptable limit by a factor of 2.0. As the steel member sizes are already large, increasing the sizes of
columns, braces, and girders is not an option and will not be a viable enough solution to the acceleration
issue. Although nothing can truly be determined unless wind tunnel studies are performed, this still
indicates the presence of acceleration issues.

Therefore, the proposed solution of replacing the concrete shear wall core with a core of steel braced
frames is not directly feasible. Only with further investigations involving complex wind tunnel studies,
the acceleration problem may be solved utilizing a liquid-tuned column damper or tuned mass damper.
Keep in mind that such a solution will add upwards of $2 to $3 million to the project cost and will cause
the steel structural redesign to cost more than the current concrete and filigree system by about $1 million.
Therefore, for the purposes of this study the reinforced concrete shear wall core will be the accepted
structural system of the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel.
It is important to keep in mind that high-rise design involves many factors that are best solved by that of a
design professional with years of experience. This study has served more as a learning experience to the
student and may shed some light on the advanced design topics of high-rise design.

Here's another little tidbit for you ...

Steel Fireproofing and Fire Rated Partitions

Unlike its concrete counterpart, which has inherent fireproofing qualities, structural steel members of
hotels and multi-family residential buildings are required to be provided with a 2 hour fire rated
protection, as required by IBC 2003 for construction type 1A.

and

The final conclusion and recommendation is to keep the existing concrete shear wall core and filigree flat plate system. A braced frame core was found to limit the drift of the building within an acceptable range; however the dynamic behavior may prove to cause building occupants to experience motion perception in the form of accelerations. The filigree flat plate system accommodates the architecture of a hotel tower without any negative ramifications.

Read the full report, I did.  And my father was an architect who did residential, commercial and industrial buildings.  I did grow up in the business.

So what were you saying about concrete vs steel frames ?  Maybe for some places, but in coastal areas and those with seismic activity, the former is better and is more expensive and takes longer than the latter.  So its not about being cheap.

But the reality is also that in NYC and much of the Eastern seaboard, the Mafia has the construction industry in a stranglehold.  Its not like you have a choice to do or not to do business with them.  Trump had no choice.  All builders in NYC essentially had no choice.

See here 

mafia controls concrete in nyc google search

As for my respect for the Mafia, well its based upon personal experience.  I earned the respect and trust of the right people in order to do my job in the vending business that was totally legal, but run by the Mafia.  They had rules and didn't change them.  They said what they meant and meant what they said.  I made it clear that I was not going to interfere with what they did and would appreciate it if they would just let me do my job.  I was once greeted by what you would call a goon carrying a Louisville Slugger when I pulled up to the Teamster Joint Council 41 Union Hall during the national over the road Teamster strike in the 70's and had to prove that I was a Teamster just doing my job and was supposed to be there.  This while the FBI was investigating said JC 41 for "irregularities" .  People I knew went to jail.  Then there were the Danny Green bombings.  I know several of the people mentioned in the article rather well.  Kinda surprised to see their names there actually, but not really.

So when its all said and done, I recognize that Trump's association with the Mafia was involuntary, as was mine.  A consequence of the businesses involved.  Not that I condone the Mafia, but I respect them.

Make of that what you will.

Oh and Mueller is not the new FBI Director, Christopher Wray is.  Mueller is the special prosecutor investigating the Russian matter.  But I do agree with you on Mueller, can't trust him as far as I can spit and besides Comey and Mueller are BFF's.  On Wray, I do have to wait and see.

 R_P wrote: 
To be fair, would you really want him to pick people with the skill-set of his populist base?

How Trump the populist became Trump the corporate shill

(...) These examples are representative rather than exceptional. Corporate America has captured the Trump administration. Public Citizen's research has found that more than 70% of Trump's picks for top sub-Cabinet jobs have clear corporate ties.

In Trump's Washington, the populism of the campaign has been overtaken by conventional corporate cronyism on a grand scale. After his famous pledge to "drain the swamp," Trump issued a weak executive order allowing former lobbyists to immediately join the administration and then granted waivers to top White House staffers that render the ethics rules largely meaningless.

(...) During the presidential campaign, Trump proclaimed, "Our campaign is about breaking up the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C."

This claim should have seemed improbable coming from a flamboyant New York real-estate developer who once hawked Angus steaks, but tens of millions of Americans bought into Trump's promise. They were justifiably upset at a government that works for the powerful rather than the people.

But Trump has made a mockery of his pledge, bringing the same corporate lobbyists he denounced into the government. Now, working through their former employees and representatives, giant corporations are designing and carrying out policy to an extent unequaled in American history.

 aflanigan wrote: 
No I would not agree, since the NSA or any gov't agency spying on Americans (turning their programs "inward") is illegal and unconstitutional - as Binney, Drake and the others have said countless times but NSA has been doing so for years anyway. That is the opposite of what their mandate has always been.

Binney has said quite a lot about other intel agencies, not just NSA, but NSA is the big dog in the room since it has the data-gathering apparatus that most of them use or rely on. I think some of you here would do well to take a few hours and listen to what he and the other whistleblowers have to say through their various interviews.

It would do more good than wasting hours posting on websites without actual knowledge, only guesses and assumptions, or partisan bickering.

 maryte wrote: 
Can you show that what's in the links I've posted is not factual? It's easy to cast aspersions without supporting them.

 kurtster wrote: 
Trump used concrete framed designs in order to get the deals he did through the Mob in NY/NJ, when very few high-rises today are built that way (they use steel framing). If you can say that you have respect for organized crime and are OK with those like Trump who've consorted with them being in high offices of gov't, then really kurtster there's not much else to say.

Here's something you might find interesting: 21 Questions For Donald Trump

On the new FBI director Mueller, there's nothing to "wait and see" about. As I've demonstrated below, he is already disqualified by his impeachable performance in the 9/11 era.

 kcar wrote: 

"Do you have a link or links to back the claims you make here?"

Yes I do, and are easily found had you spent a few seconds on a search. First one I came to:

“Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January,” said Clinton. “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

Verdict: False

While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.

Yes Dorothy, the NSA, CIA, and other intel agencies work in cahoots with the MSM to sway public opinion and use disinformation/misinformation for nefarious ends. We're not in Kansas anymore. This has been known with any number of examples of it over the decades, exposed by the Church Committee in the 1970s, by FOIA document releases, etc.

Operations Northwoods, Mockingbird, Gladio, Paperclip, Project MKUltra, Gulf of Tonkin incident... The list goes on and on. Here are 42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks.

The NSA's "abilities and resources" have already been exposed by whistleblowers as I've listed. Saying, "It may simply be that the NSA does have a clear understanding of what happened to the DNC servers and Podesta's emails..." is like saying, "The dog ate my homework."

This is the same BS you've displayed elsewhere when you've attempted to defend the Dems/Clintons or the general establishment propaganda. As I said earlier, if the info given is not enough then nothing would convince you.

Not going to waste further time & effort with anyone who endlessly repeats partisan denials in the face of hard evidence and facts.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: