illinilaw08

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) Let's be honest here. If this were actually about the security and clarity of our elections, the objective wouldn't have been to publicly detail every single vulnerability in our electoral process. Much like our government actually operates they would have denied the intrusions, they would have identified the vulnerabilities, and fixed them all without admitting anything ever happened to bring the legitimacy of our entire governmental structure into doubt, from the top all of the way down to every single local election. If this were done like we have always done these things, we would continue to meddle in the elections of those who opposed us, again very silently, and figure out a way to even the score at the most inopportune times for Russia. We'd do like we have always done and run silent CIA campaigns to elect anti-Russian candidates hidden from having American fingerprints on the elections to even the score. But this has never been about neither the clarity, nor the security of our elections, hence the willingness to hand every two bit hacker in the world the keys to our electoral process in exchange for ammo against Trump. This has never been about the sanctity of our electoral process as the left would rather delegitimize Trump, versus keeping American confidence in our elections. You can bet your ass that if Hillary Clinton had won the election, none of this would have become public, and if it had every one of those 17 intelligence agencies would be out front denying everything about it. This is par for the course for the parties. The Republicans do everything in their power to personally target the President. The Democrats do everything in their power to delegitimize the President. The collateral effects of these actions is secondary for everything. They will worry about potential war with Russia later, and probably just blame it on Trump if it happens. The problem with this analysis is that IF the party currently in power collaborated with the Russians in influencing American elections, then doing nothing really doesn't do anything to keep the elections legitimate. There's no incentive for the Rs to not continue to collaborate with the Russians in 2018, 2020, and onward. I think the important distinction here is that the investigation is not into whether the Russians hacked the DNC in an attempt to influence election. That's been known by the American intelligence community since well before November 2016. What distinguishes this event is the extent to which the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in that effort. There is no evidence that I am aware of in American history of Presidential campaigns collaborating with other foreign countries to influence our electoral process. In fact, doing so is explicitly illegal. To say that is par for the course is just flat out not true. Looking beyond that, can you please explain to me how these investigations show "the willingness to hand every two bit hacker in the world the keys to our electoral process"? How have the investigations left our elections more exposed?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 10:10 AM) I have a bigger problem with Trump people continuing to flat out lie than I do with them meeting with someone who has dirt on another candidate. You know Clinton was doing the same s*** trying to find dirt on Trump. As you said, this stuff happens and will happen in the future. Even if that someone with dirt is a foreign agent which is in direct contravention of US law?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Eh, that's pretty weak. Obama already WAS helping Clinton. He was speaking on her behalf and endorsing her. Come on Jenks, you know there's a difference between Obama campaigning for Clinton, and Obama revealing that there is evidence that (a) Russia hacked the DNC; and (b) the Trump campaign might have collaborated with Russia in doing so.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:55 AM) We keep getting told that we can't do anything about these other countries because of how dangerous they are, and the risk of war and millions of dead people. But when it comes to a country that has actually invaded neighbors, and has the second biggest nuclear arms set in the world, they have no problem antagonizing them for nothing more than political points. The risk here is so huge, infinitely bigger than taking action on NK. They are backing themselves into a corner where the only answer is going to be war with Russia, but the left doesn't care because Trump. This is such a giant leap. Because Congress and a special committee are investigating the extent to which Russia collaborated with the Republican Presidential campaign to hack the Democratic candidate, the left is backing itself into a corner where the only answer is war with Russia? I mean, we didn't end up in a shooting war with Russia during the Cold War. I'm skeptical how this Congressional investigation and/or sanctions are putting us down an inevitable path to war. Contrast that with NK. If we invaded NK, the risk of an actual shooting war with China goes up exponentially. The best path to dealing with NK remains a regional solution, not a unilateral military decision by the USA.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:50 AM) While I agree with you 100%, why didn't Obama do anything? He had 6+ months. While I'm sure he did at some point, I don't remember him making a public statement condemning the DNC hack. Obama, I think, was in a kind of tough spot. Any public condemnation of the hack on the DNC could have provided the impression that Obama was attempting to help Clinton in the election. It seems like that's the reason that Obama handled the initial issue with kid gloves, and I can absolutely see the logic behind that decision.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 08:32 AM) I've seen a lot of comments about how terrible this is, but is there an actual criminal statute that's cited somewhere? Is there something we're basing the criminal aspect on? Jenks, see the below article re: the criminal statute that Don Jr. might have violated. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/1595059...k-times-illegal

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 09:42 AM) Again, after hearing the lefts positions on places like NK and Cuba, it amazes me to see them take the exact opposite tact with Russia, and publicly pushing us towards war with the absolute most dangerous country on earth. I too remember when NK and Cuba hacked our elections and the left looked the other away. Also, please show your work as to how the left is "publicly pushing us towards war" with Russia. I mean, I'm honestly all for improving relations with Russia. But it seems to me that the extent to which the sitting President and/or his campaign collaborated with Russian efforts to influence the Presidential election is a pretty important thing to investigate!

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 02:48 PM) How are the property taxes? My wife and I are looking to move to the Glen Ellyn/Wheaton area, and the property taxes for even moderately priced homes are $8,000 per year. Property taxes are probably a quarter of that out here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) Denver and anywhere near Puget sound are getting really expensive. Lots of Cali tech money looking at these places as cheap compared to the Bay area is driving up costs. Re: Denver, I can attest to this. Fortunately, we bought before things got really crazy out here. The Denver market is interesting though - it's Chicago real estate prices, but without the Chicago salaries.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 10:33 AM) It takes minutes away from young players you need to evaluate and helps you win meaningless games. I'm not a Kris Dunn but I'd still rather him get a ton of playing time and see what he has than sign a 30 year old PG to a rebuilding team. I might feel differently if I had any confidence at all the Bulls would move Teodosic for future assets if he actually shows himself to be a good NBA player. Could not agree more. The 30 year old Euro point made sense if you kept Jimmy and were trying to find lightning in a bottle. On a rebuilding team? Absolutely not.

Thanks for the heads up. That's an unreal deal.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) Even though it's 5-1, that's very underwhelming. If it's all-pitching (which is odd since we need to focus on acquiring position player talent), I feel like Hahn would insist on Allard. Not doubting the information or anything, it's just interesting that the rumored offer is so insignificant. Soroka and Gohara are good pieces, but the other three are not. That information is coming from the Braves side though. I think what this tells us is that the Braves are interested, but haven't made an offer that is close to what we all assume Hahn is asking in return.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 04:21 PM) It is bizarre to see the left wanting conflict with Russia to be a thing. It is bizarre to see the right sitting on its hands when Russia purportedly at a minimum attempts to hack and influence US elections.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) Now this I can get behind. What happens when one Speaker of the House [Enter Paul Ryan] And another speaker of the House [Enter Nancy Pelosi].... *Cues up the Odd Couple theme music*

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 09:59 AM) I've got no problem offering them a cheap/no cost alternative for the job they do. If they want something fancy, then they can pay. This I can agree with.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 09:42 AM) Just like the olden days... The rest of working america is ok with commuting, some even flying every monday and then home every thursday. Why cant they? The public transportation system is pretty great in DC as well. Looks like the salary for Congress is $174k annually. That's a healthy salary, obviously. You can't compare Biden riding the train in to the members of Congress from Alaska or Hawaii. And there's a legitimate argument to be made that some (not all) members of Congress necessarily have to maintain two households - one back in their home state/district and one in D.C. It's also (I think) fair to argue that we want Congress to be attractive to people to attract more and better candidates. A dorm or flying Monday to Thursday with a family is tough to pull off (and even flying Monday-Thursday, they would have to pay for the hotel - I doubt that's an expense that gets reimbursed, though I could be wrong). I'm not arguing that Chaffetz is right about the poor members of Congress who need more $$ to subsidize their housing. He's not, and it's tone deaf to suggest that members of Congress need a $30k housing stipend when you are gutting healthcare. But I do think it's difficult for most of Congress to not maintain two households during their term.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:10 PM) Let me ask it again as I'm not familiar with the amounts of money in each tax. Was this just the tax to pay for ACA or does it go above and beyond that? 3.8% tax on net investment income if your modified AGI is over $200k. 0.9% tax on wages over $200k for Medicare. http://blog.taxact.com/tax-law-changes-for-higher-income/ https://www.thestreet.com/story/11709964/1/...me-earners.html

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:53 PM) I don't buy into the theory that higher taxes is good for the greater economy. Employers were put in a tough position. Employers cut back on full time jobs. Obamacare is primarily high deductible plans so if you are in fact a poor person you really don't have any coverage at all with a high deductible ACA plan. Don't you think the subsidies for the poor are offset by the significant rises in premiums? They're saving money here so they can pay more here. Seems like the only winner there is the insurance provider. Looking at the whole picture, it doesn't seem to be a net positive. That part isn't relevant to the conversation though. You specifically stated that the ACA widened the gap between the haves and the have nots. That is absolutely not what happened. People who earned income over $200k annually - note that isn't business with revenues of over $200k, but individuals earning over $200k annually - had an additional tax that paid for subsidies on healthcare for the poor. Therefore, the ACA took wealth from high earners, and transferred that wealth to lower earners. As someone who has demanded citations, perhaps you can give me a source that shows that the people who received subsidies for their healthcare ended up paying more in premiums than they would have paid prior to the ACA.* * Also note that you are ignoring the other benefits in the law. Essential health benefits that had to be covered, guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, a cap on premiums that could be charged to the 55-64 age group that had not yet reached Medicare eligibility. You are making a lot of leaps in logic and in math to get to the conclusion that the ACA was not a net positive.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:37 PM) Maybe in theory. It was supposed to do a lot of things in theory. Could you provide backing on how the wage gape was lessened by the ACA? I am not a proponent of the AHCA - just a realist on the ACA. I'm not sure how to explain this better. People earning over $200k annually had an additional tax imposed on their income. That revenue was used to fund the subsidies in the ACA for low wage earners. Therefore, the ACA transferred wealth from high earners directly to lower earners, which redistributes wealth from the 1% to lower earners. From the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...-and-inequality

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:29 PM) That would a good regulation to allow the states and the individual to have a say in their individual coverage. In my personal example, my insurance is through the state. My daughter is going to school in Colorado. We are in a tiered insurance program and being out of state she cannot get Tier 1 coverage even if the provider is covered as Tier 1. Wouldn't less state control, and more national control, help with this issue? For me, the biggest issue here is that regulations should have the goal of helping the insured access and afford healthcare. Allowing states to opt out of covering "essential health benefits" and to sell insurance across state lines might lead to more affordable health insurance generally, but if the affordable health insurance doesn't cover anything, it only benefits those who never have to use the insurance.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) SB are you saying that health insurance companies want people to not be healthy? Are you saying the AHCA helps the health insurance industry? Are you opposed to the government giving them a bunch of money? I don't get your point. It seems like you're just trying to be righteous. While the Obama administration was driving the distance between the 1% and 99% the insurance companies were living it up. Check out the stock charts of Aetna, Cigna, Humana. Every single one of their stocks are 4-5x the price they were when Obamacare was signed into effect. If you're against the evil insurance companies or whatever you're trying to project with your cheap questioning, why support the ACA? The ACA couldn't have made it easier for them. They were swimming in money from 2010 on. I bought Aetna's stock shortly after the ACA went into effect and when I sold it I doubled my money. Those evil 1%er's who owned Aetna did the same thing because of the legislation the Obama admin put forward. The ACA is one of the bigger examples of wealth distribution from the government. They literally taxed the wealthy to subsidize health insurance for the poor. If you are worried about the widening income gap, the ACA took steps to shrink that gap. The AHCA and whatever they are calling the Senate bill end those taxes on the wealthy...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:13 PM) Pass. I'm not interested in Mudiay, but I could maybe get behind Harris + Murray + #13? If they don't think that Butler is here after he hits FA, I could live with that package.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 11:29 AM) I feel as if the Wolves are the only team potentially serious enough about getting Butler. The question is...would the Wolves do Wiggins, Dunn, and their pick for Butler. I think that would be my minimum required threshold for getting Jimmy. I feel at least the floor isn't bad (cause Wiggins is a good player...not Jimmy Buckets...but very solid). Dunn sucked last year, but Bulls liked him and young PG's can take time to develop. The pick isn't super high, but you have a shot at getting another quality player. I'm not in love with the deal...but if Bulls really wanted to move another direction...I'd be okay with it. I couldn't do a deal centered around Levine, Dunn, and the pick (or even future picks). To me, this is simple. Can the Bulls put together a contender around Butler? If not, then they need to trade him ASAP. The longer they hold on to Butler, the more his value depreciates. The longer they hold on to Butler, the longer it takes for the Bulls to bottom out and start landing the draft picks they need to start the rebuild. If the Bulls are convinced Butler is going to walk in two years, and Levine + Dunn + #7 is the best deal on the table, the Bulls need to think long and hard about taking that offer.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 03:22 PM) So you wouldn't take the 3rd pick this year, but would take some unknown slot picks from 3-5 years from now? It's rare to see GM willing to settle for that far in advance because they may not be around by that time. You also have to take into consideration you can't have two consecutive years without 1st round pick, so you might have to settle for Cavs 2020, 2022, and 2024 1st round picks, which means you won't get full return from the trade for 7 years. Can't you do pick swaps in the odd years? So it would look like Cavs 2020, swap 2021, Cavs 2022, swap 2023 (if you were hitting 4 years). Ideally by 2020, there's an interesting young core that is supplemented with high lottery picks from the Cavs (see the Celtics-Nets trade for the ideal example of how this works out). The philosophy here should be bottoming out and rebuilding through the draft. That means the Bulls aren't looking to be a playoff team until 2020 or so. Other than adding multiple high picks earlier in the process - something that really only Boston can give you - adding high picks 4-5 years down the road as a component of the trade actually has some value. Of course, the Bulls would be betting huge on Lebron opting out. Also those picks being in the late 20s would be a disaster.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 08:43 AM) So Jimmy is actually pushing the Bulls FO for a trade to Cleveland now? Cleveland is actually kind of intriguing to me. With the rumors that Lebron is going to walk after '18, if CLE was able to get a decent number of assets thrown in by sending Love to a 3rd team, and was willing to throw in their firsts in '20 and '22, that could be a haul for the Bulls. Those picks in '20 and '22 could easily be the equivalent of what Boston got back from the Nets.