Old Tort laws made more sense.

[joepistole]

My guess is Susan Rice did not act alone, wiretapping the Trump team, under the guise of monitoring a foreign national. I would guess there is also a Valery Jarrett connection, since she was the henchman for President Obama. I would even guess there is a Hillary connection, since she was their preferred candidate, who was expected to win and who could cover up their efforts. Shouldn't the center of public integrity investigate this?

They spend months exploring the Trump-Russian claim with no smoking gun. Why not investigate the Rice, Jarrett and Clinton and for the same amount of time?

They did investigate Rice, and found there was no there, there...oops. But then you wouldn't know because the right wing news sources you listen to didn't tell you, did they? Republicans have spent almost 3 decades investigating Clinton. How much more investigating do you want? How much more investigation of the Clinton can be done?

They are just beginning to investigate Trump and they have already amassed a mountain of evidence. Do they have a smoking gun? If they do, it hasn't been revealed. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It took them months to find the smoking gun in Watergate Scandal. In fact, it took more than a year to find the smoking gun.

I am not much of a reader. I am more of a writer who develops my own ideas. I have never read Breitbart. I did go to their site once, when I heard the buzz word, just to see what the left was afraid of. I did not see any boogey man, just another POV.

I'd say you are more of a Fox News watcher and writer, but developing your own ideas? I think that's more of a fantasy. You just mimic whatever it is you hear on Fox News. There’s no thinking going on there.

The fact that liberal campuses cannot handle opposing views, tells you that the left's positions are not very secure; fact and reality. A secure position is like a championship team, ready for any competition. It does not have to trash talk, avoid teams and boycott games.

And your evidence to support that assertion is where? Unlike the American right, the American left has nothing comparable to right wing echo chambers like Fox News and right wing radio.

Whatever happened to the Russian connection and Trump? That was big leftist news for weeks. The real news was how Rice exposed America citizens during foreign data collection, with those citizens exposed being political adversaries.

Where have you been Wellwisher? Oh that’s right, you have been watching and listening to right wing echo chambers. Trump’s Russian connections have been in the news every day. The story hasn’t gone away. Trump was able to successfully scuttle the House investigation by compromising the Republican charged with conducting the House investigation, and now the Senate is conducting the investigation. But that doesn’t mean the investigation has gone away. Just because Fox News and right wing radio aren’t reporting it, it doesn’t mean the mainstream media isn’t reporting the story.

The real news isn’t Rice. Everyone who has reviewed Rice’s actions has found them to be normal and lawful. Rice did nothing wrong. But they you don’t know that because you hangout in right wing echo chambers like Fox News. Trump used the fake Rice scandal in attempt to distract the public from his Russian connections. It didn’t work, and it led to the removal of the House Republican charged with leading the investigation into Trump’s Russian connections because he participated in the distraction.

The excuse used to justify this would have been like Nixon saying we broke into DNC offices to help them do spell check. It had nothing to do with trying to get dirt they could use. That wiretapping was worse than Watergate and people should go to jail. What has been the position of the center of public integrity? This will tell us who pays for their integrity.

What the hell is that about? Yeah, Republicans broke into the DNC headquarters. And? If you are alluding to the Trump’s accusation that Obama illegally tapped Trump’s phone lines, Trump has been unable to support his accusations with any evidence. Trump has been repeatedly requested to provide evidence to back up his assertion and he has repeatedly been unable to provide that evidence. Moreover, the FBI has investigated the allegation and hasn’t found an iota of evidence to support Trump’s allegation, and Obama has denied Trump's allegation.

Unfortunately for both you and Trump, and your Russian comrades, you need evidence and you have none. This ain’t Russia. Just because Trump or one of your fellow right wing comrades says something or writes something it doesn't follow that it is true, because most often it is not.

 

[joepistole]

I stand corrected, I meant the Washington Post. I was thinking of the NY times.

This topic is about tort reform. The fact that lawyers donate so much money to politics; at the top, but mostly to Democrats, allows us to investigate if there is a correlation between donor money and political activism. This is how the swamp works. Obama Care did not address tort reform, because that would have kill the golden goose. It could have saved money, and maybe even made Obama Care feasible, but there would have been conflict of interests for the leaders who like donations.

The Republicans are more likely to address this. However, it is not clear whether this based on intellectual honesty, or whether this position is there to leverage future donations, so the lawyers have to pony up to Republicans, to create a change of heart. The wild card is Trump, who does not need the money and is less beholden to the donor class. He is a businessman and looks for cost savings. Trump may push for tort reform, while donor cost will need to increase, to help push back, since the Democrats are not all that useful out of power.

The main problem I have with lawyers, is they get to police themselves, while doctors are policed by lawyers via malpractice cases. Malpractice is not usually criminal, but is mostly civil. Lawyers are not perfect, either, so why are there not a similar amount of lawyer malpractice law suits? Why don't lawyers need to have malpractice insurance? It is because lawyers already have tort reform in their own profession. It saves everyone money.

Say a skilled lawyer is able to get someone off for crime A. Another lawyer, who is not as good, has a similar case , but he is unable to pull it off, so his client goes to jail. The question is, how does this differ from two doctors, performing a similar complicated operation, with one doctor being successful and other not quite so, leading to complications for their client? Both lawyers and both doctors tried their best, at a difficult task, but two different skill levels led to different outcomes.

Lawyers will not sue each other in this case, due to lawyer on lawyer tort reform. I believe in fairness and if we leave malpractice for doctors on the table, we also need to do it for lawyers so they can understand how this can get unfair. Picture how easy it would be to shake down accused lawyers, in front of jurors, especially if large law firms are known to have deep pockets. The sharks will eat the barracuda. I would watch that on TV.

That's not true, physicians are policed by physicians just as lawyers are policed by lawyers. Each state has medical board just as each state has a board of lawyers (bar association) to police the legal profession.

Tort reform wasn't included in Obamacare because it really doesn't apply to Obamacare. There is no credible reason tort reform would reduce healthcare costs. With respect to healthcare costs, tort costs are insignificant.