Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 02:12PM -0700

I laughed pretty hard when I read this paragraph about Comey's testimony.
Essentially, the reason HRC is not President is because of the "Bill n Lynch Tarmac meeting", where they discussed grandchildren.
 
Justice served....LOL!!
 
----------------------------
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-director-james-comey-mildly-nauseated-clinton-email-probe-decisions-may-have-impacted-election/ar-BBAFE8A?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
 
Nevertheless, the director acknowledged that he "worried'' about the Justice Department's credibility to resolve the inquiry after Lynch's impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton last summer when their planes were parked nearby at the Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport. So, Comey said he took it upon himself to first publicly announce the outcome of the FBI's inquiry in July and then re-open it in October. "Her meeting...was the capper,'' Comey said.
Still, the director added, "I wouldn't have done anything differently. I don't have any regrets.''
 
Clinton has blamed Comey as recently as Tuesday for torpedoing her campaign as the Democratic presidential nominee. The FBI ultimately cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing on the weekend before the election.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 03 02:57PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:12:04 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Essentially, the reason HRC is not President is because of the "Bill n Lynch
> Tarmac meeting", where they discussed grandchildren.
 
> Justice served....LOL!!
 
Justice? Not until Comey is held accountable his gross violations of the Hatch Act.
 
 
> The FBI ultimately cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing on
> the weekend before the election.
 
Irrelevant, as the intervention was already done and couldn't be undone.
 
While Comey *claims* that he had no other options, there's at least
one very obvious one AFAIC: write & sign a Memo which details what
the Weiner laptop concerns were and CLASSIFY it under the auspices
of non-intervention as per the Hatch Act, with a "Declassify On"
date being one day after the Election.
 
Problem Solved.
 
How/Why? First, because the memo would have formally put the
concern on the record, so that he would be protected from accusations
of inaction, and his BS claim that it was violating prior testimony.
It would have done so with a formal gag which prevents any real
or perceived conflicts of interest with the election (IAW Hatch).
It also would have provided the ways & means to make sure that
there's no leaks ... while also allowing FBI staff to continue
to work the question in said classified environment to find out
the potential answer. The net result would have been that on
November 9th, 2016, there would have been a report that said,
"We found more possible evidence, looked into it, and found nothing".
 
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 03:22PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:57:34 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
 
> > The FBI ultimately cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing on
> > the weekend before the election.
 
> Irrelevant, as the intervention was already done and couldn't be undone.
 
Why?
 
Here is my take. His announcement and subsequent clearing had no effect on the election. She lost because she had no message. She can blame Bill, Comey, the Russkies all she wants but the buck stops with her.
 
Americans in key battleground states rejected her. Simple as that.
 
Perhaps in her upcoming book, she will actually take responsibility.
 
Perhaps...
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 03:33PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> Americans in key battleground states rejected her. Simple as that.
 
> Perhaps in her upcoming book, she will actually take responsibility.
 
> Perhaps...
 
That is not why she lost. She had a very clear message, but voters
weren't interested in it. Maybe that's because she did a poor job
of articulating it. She lost because voters just didn't like her for
one reason or another. Message had nothing to do with it and seldom
does in a presidential election.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 03:39PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:33:35 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> of articulating it. She lost because voters just didn't like her for
> one reason or another. Message had nothing to do with it and seldom
> does in a presidential election.
 
We might be saying the same thing. I think her message was the continuation of Obama's policies and the denunciation of Trump...which the voters rejected. I also agree they didn't like her...or Trump. It came down to jobs, gridlock, and the supreme court.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 03:51PM -0700

On 2017-05-03 3:39 PM, Dene wrote:
>> one reason or another. Message had nothing to do with it and seldom
>> does in a presidential election.
 
> We might be saying the same thing. I think her message was the continuation of Obama's policies and the denunciation of Trump...which the voters rejected. I also agree they didn't like her...or Trump. It came down to jobs, gridlock, and the supreme court.
 
And yet three million MORE US citizens voted for her than voted for Trump...
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 03 04:01PM -0700

Greg wrote:
>> > Tarmac meeting", where they discussed grandchildren.
 
>> > Justice served....LOL!!
 
>> Justice? Not until Comey is held accountable his gross violations of the Hatch Act.
 
Hmmm...
 
(And ditto for the editing cut proving him wrong on "no choice")
 
 
>> > the weekend before the election.
 
>> Irrelevant, as the intervention was already done and couldn't be undone.
 
> Why?
 
In simplest terms, because her dip in her polling numbers from his announcement never
returned to where they were when he said she was cleared. That's permanent damage.
 
> Here is my take. His announcement and subsequent clearing had no effect on the election.
 
Except the polls proved otherwise.
 
> She lost because she had no message. She can blame Bill, Comey, the Russkies all
> she wants but the buck stops with her.
 
Except that meddling by the Russians is now known. As such, we can't blithely ignore it anymore.
 
> Americans in key battleground states rejected her. Simple as that.
 
And with extremely small margins, but the "winner takes all" process made it appear bigger.
 
 
> Perhaps in her upcoming book, she will actually take responsibility.
> Perhaps...
 
Perhaps, but given the psychology of denial we so regularly see here, it's just as unlikely
as reading any concessions made here.
 
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 04:13PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:01:42 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
 
> > Why?
 
> In simplest terms, because her dip in her polling numbers from his announcement never
> returned to where they were when he said she was cleared. That's permanent damage.
 
The polls that said Trump was losing right up to election day?
 
> > Here is my take. His announcement and subsequent clearing had no effect on the election.
 
> Except the polls proved otherwise.
 
The polls that said Trump was losing right up to election day?

> > She lost because she had no message. She can blame Bill, Comey, the Russkies all
> > she wants but the buck stops with her.
 
> Except that meddling by the Russians is now known. As such, we can't blithely ignore it anymore.
 
But the effect is unknown. I think one of her key errors was the "deplorable" comment. It certainly affected my view of her. I was intending to vote for her right up until the last week.
 
> > Americans in key battleground states rejected her. Simple as that.
 
> And with extremely small margins, but the "winner takes all" process made it appear bigger.
 
Irrelevant. Trump won Florida, Penn., Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
 
> > Perhaps...
 
> Perhaps, but given the psychology of denial we so regularly see here, it's just as unlikely
> as reading any concessions made here.
 
Agree....which is one more reason she wasn't a good choice for POTUS.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 05:13PM -0700

On 2017-05-03 4:13 PM, Dene wrote:
 
>>> Americans in key battleground states rejected her. Simple as that.
 
>> And with extremely small margins, but the "winner takes all" process made it appear bigger.
 
> Irrelevant. Trump won Florida, Penn., Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
 
Where his margins of victory were (respectively): 1.2%, 0.7%, 0.3%,
0.7%, and 8.1%
 
You don't think that the Russian's actions along with Comey's could have
swayed things by a couple of percentage points, but her use of the the
word "deplorable" was key?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 05:19PM -0700

On 2017-05-03 2:12 PM, Dene wrote:
> campaign as the Democratic presidential nominee. The FBI ultimately
> cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing on the weekend before the
> election.
 
Funny you didn't mention this exchange:
 
'On Wednesday, Comey said Russia's cyberwarfare capacity presented the
"greatest threat of any nation on earth."
 
"Is it fair to say that the Russian government is still involved in
American politics?'' Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked.
 
"Yes," Comey said.'
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 03 02:42PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:31:46 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> > USA Federal government, specifically the CMS, can barely run a website.
 
> The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
> about them.
 
From what I recall, the problem with the Healthcare.gov website
included that it was contracted out ... IIRC, to a Canadian company?
 
 
"The design of the website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services and built by a number of federal contractors,
most prominently CGI Group of Canada."
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov>
 
Yup, there it is.
 
Overall, it was just a messed-up project that got high visibility,
and it probably didn't help that each State invariably had their
own delays in providing information, interfaces, requirements, etc,
which made it hard to go from zero to hero in a single development
cycle.
 
 
-hh
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 03 04:44PM -0500

John B. wrote:
 
>> USA Federal government, specifically the CMS, can barely run a website.
 
> The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
> about them.
 
And just how exactly would you know that?
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 02:56PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > USA Federal government, specifically the CMS, can barely run a website.
 
> The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
> about them.
 
Tell that to those who use healthcare.gov to sign up for ObamaCare. Each week I am calling them, having them straighten out one glitch after another.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 03:25PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:44:42 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
 
> > The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
> > about them.
 
> And just how exactly would you know that?
 
How would I know what? That no one complains about them? If
people complained about another government website to the
extent they complained about the ACA site, it would have
been in the press. I've used dozens of government websites
for one thing or another. A couple, like census.gov, are
complicated and hard to navigate, but I've never felt a
need to complain about any of them.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 03:27PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:56:28 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> > The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
> > about them.
 
> Tell that to those who use healthcare.gov to sign up for ObamaCare. Each week I am calling them, having them straighten out one glitch after another.
 
That's one site. The problems people have had with it are not
representative of other government sites.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 03:50PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:27:08 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
 
> > Tell that to those who use healthcare.gov to sign up for ObamaCare. Each week I am calling them, having them straighten out one glitch after another.
 
> That's one site. The problems people have had with it are not
> representative of other government sites.
 
It's representative of what would happen if CMS were the ones who ran a single payor system.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 03:52PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 12:00:32 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > run risk pool.
 
> But why should the State effectively "give away" to private industry
> the lower cost/risk clients for them to profit off of?
 
A healthier risk pool will result in lower premiums for all.
 
> Is the basic idea here going to be that all of the private healthcare
> companies who benefit from the State providing a healthier customer
> pool...are going to pay the State for providing this service?
 
In the old system, the insurers did support the risk pool with a premium tax.
 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 04:28PM -0700

On 2017-05-03 4:01 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
>> about them.
 
> Baker does.
 
What websites have I supposedly complained about, doofus?
 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 04:30PM -0700

On 2017-05-03 3:50 PM, Dene wrote:
 
>> That's one site. The problems people have had with it are not
>> representative of other government sites.
 
> It's representative of what would happen if CMS were the ones who ran a single payor system.
 
Of course, what you neglect to mention is that a website to be the
portal for a single payer system would be much, much simpler...
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 04:20PM -0500


> Clinton has blamed Comey as recently as Tuesday for torpedoing her campaign as the Democratic presidential nominee. The FBI ultimately cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing on the weekend before the election.
 
Liberals have to blame someone. If they ever took a real look at
themselves they would want to end it all.
--
"Welcome to Trumpton" <trumpton@maiIsorter.co.uk>: May 03 10:03PM

Moderate wrote:
 
> > election.
 
> Liberals have to blame someone. If they ever took a real look at
> themselves they would want to end it all.
 
Of course they want to end it all; they have been telling you that for
over 100 days.
 
You'll feel the same way sooner or later... probably too late to
prevent serious damage... you'll have to take owbership of that.
 
--
Most people believe there is truth and there are lies. "Alternative
facts" are lies.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 05:51PM -0500

>> Tarmac meeting", where they discussed grandchildren.
 
>> Justice served....LOL!!
 
> Justice? Not until Comey is held accountable his gross violations of the Hatch Act.
 
Bwaahaahaa. What a dumbass.
 
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 05:58PM -0500

> of articulating it. She lost because voters just didn't like her for
> one reason or another. Message had nothing to do with it and seldom
> does in a presidential election.
 
Or maybe because she ignored PA, WI and MI against the advice of
her ground people.
 
Hillary won the popular vote, she simply ran a bad campaign.
 
Crimes were committed and Comey took it apon himself to be cop and
prosecutor, because he felt the Obama WH was too corrupt.
That
was his crime.
 
In a truly bipartisan environment she would be in jail along with
her cohorts. Hillary caused herself to lose.
 
Thank God!
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 06:01PM -0500


> The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
> about them.
 
Baker does.
You don't know who complains or how many. You just
make bold statements based on nothing.
--
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 03 07:31AM -0700

The news story comes from a poll recently done by
the firm of PSB (Penn Schoen Berland); here's the link:
 
 
<http://psbresearch.com/trumpregretters/>
 
FYI, this related piece is also an interesting read:
 
<http://psbresearch.com/recent-polling-on-president-trump/>
 
 
In any event, the first link uses the terminology of
"Trump Regretters" and what's interesting about it is
that it isn't merely individuals who claim to have
voted for Trump; their statistical grouping is:
 
"About 11% of adults are what we call Trump Regretters.
They were Trump voters who wouldn't vote for him today,
or have become unenthusiastic in their Trump support.
Unenthusiastic Clinton voters who have grown enthusiastic
toward her, and non-voters who now would vote for Clinton
are also included in this group."
 
Part of the reason why this is interesting is that it
captures what I'll simplistically characterize as
undecided/fence-sitters. This is probably important too
because it is known that human psychology makes it very
difficult for anyone to admit that they made a mistake,
which results in a self-reporting suppression in the data.
 
Similarly, with some surveys reporting IIRC 4% of Trump voters
reporting regret, there may be some insight on what the
significance is of the net difference (11% - 4% = 7%) and
how it breaks down between its two subgroups, particularly
since a relatively small increase in future voter turnout is
another variable/wildcard in all of these sorts of calculations.
 
 
-hh
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment