Trump Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

I disagree, ACA was a dead policy walking: bad time, bad economy and the Liberals royally screwed themselves by compromising from full single payer to Romneycare.

They would have been better off trying to do single payer in the first few weeks of Obama's admin, either succeeding or failing but getting to say to the rust belt "Look, we're trying to do it the best way from the outset, vote for us in the next mid terms if you think america deserves the best."

Nah, you don't understand the context of the time it was passed nor the benefits of the bill since you are in your bubble. If the policy was so bad, why haven't the Republicans gone through with "repeal and replace"? The ACA got millions of people covered who were not covered before either under private insurance or through expanding medicare. It was a big win, just not as big as the progressive wing wanted. Ironically, Obama's biggest flaw was PR after the election was over as he was unwilling to call it for what it was out of fear of alienating both the progressives and the hard right. Everyone walked away with egg on their face when Roberts had to sit everyone down and tell them, yes the government can do this, no Obama this is clearly a tax stop saying otherwise.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

Greyblades:

The ACA was never the goal. Single payer government healthcare has been the DEM/liberal goal since the late 1980s. The ACA was a far as they could go given the political opposition at the time, and was crafted in a manner that was designed to broaden coverage to as many as possible, but then fall short -- "forcing" us to adopt single payer to pick up the pieces and make good on our "commitment" to cover each and all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, you don't understand the context of the time it was passed nor the benefits of the bill since you are in your bubble. If the policy was so bad, why haven't the Republicans gone through with "repeal and replace"? The ACA got millions of people covered who were not covered before either under private insurance or through expanding medicare. It was a big win, just not as big as the progressive wing wanted. Ironically, Obama's biggest flaw was PR after the election was over as he was unwilling to call it for what it was out of fear of alienating both the progressives and the hard right. Everyone walked away with egg on their face when Roberts had to sit everyone down and tell them, yes the government can do this, no Obama this is clearly a tax stop saying otherwise.

ACIN:

The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

Greyblades:

The ACA was never the goal. Single payer government healthcare has been the DEM/liberal goal since the late 1980s. The ACA was a far as they could go given the political opposition at the time, and was crafted in a manner that was designed to broaden coverage to as many as possible, but then fall short -- "forcing" us to adopt single payer to pick up the pieces and make good on our "commitment" to cover each and all.

It's apparent to every one here that ACA is a bad law - this isn't about" living in a bubble" for us so much as it is America's bubble. If I had a penny for every American who told me the policy "can't work" or they "don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" I'D be able to fund your Single-Payer system personally.

What we are saying is that instead of a bad fudge Obama should have gone on record and told them that ONLY Single Payer can fix American healthcare and make it the world-class institution Americans deserve. If Congress will not support Single Payer he will oppose the Bill because otherwise if the Bill become Law it will just kick the can down the road, everyone will say "we fixed healthcare" and meanwhile things will get worse.

He didn't though - he fudged it - and that sort of political theatre is why the Dems are now a hollowed out shell, because whilst people LIKED Obama, even respected him, he wasn't seen to actually do much.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN:
The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

It is a bit early, but you know as well as I do Seamus that Republicans have been pushing for repeal and replace for over 6 years now. How do they not have the "replace" locked in yet?

You're playing the "why hasnt he done it yet" card at the one month mark of the president who is set to have the highest amount of fulfilled promises in generations.

Actually I wasn't talking about Trump at all, I was referring to the Congressional Republicans who have had 6 years to come up with an ACA replacement.

With the long term result of jacking up prices through killing competition and making the fines less painful than joining up.

Obama won't admit it, but I will. That was by design. If you want private insurance to cover poorer and sicker people, the others will need to pay more. That's how it works and the Dems PR ran in circles trying to avoid admitting it.

A tax hike in a recession for something noone is happy with?

A lot of people now eligible for medicare and private insurance are really happy with the ACA.
[/QUOTE]

It's apparent to every one here that ACA is a bad law - this isn't about" living in a bubble" for us so much as it is America's bubble. If I had a penny for every American who told me the policy "can't work" or they "don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" I'D be able to fund your Single-Payer system personally.

What we are saying is that instead of a bad fudge Obama should have gone on record and told them that ONLY Single Payer can fix American healthcare and make it the world-class institution Americans deserve. If Congress will not support Single Payer he will oppose the Bill because otherwise if the Bill become Law it will just kick the can down the road, everyone will say "we fixed healthcare" and meanwhile things will get worse.

He didn't though - he fudged it - and that sort of political theatre is why the Dems are now a hollowed out shell, because whilst people LIKED Obama, even respected him, he wasn't seen to actually do much.

That wouldn't jive in American politics, PVC. The president is seen as a man of action, it's bad optics to sit and wait for Congress to give him the bill he wants.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That wouldn't jive in American politics, PVC. The president is seen as a man of action, it's bad optics to sit and wait for Congress to give him the bill he wants.

Like Trump wouldn't fly? Like Obama wouldn't fly?

Come off it, I know you Americans think you're special, but you're not especially stupid.

[Idaho]

ACIN:

The repeal and replace effort is underway. They are attempting to do it in a manner that answers all of the difficulties and not with the simplistic repeal that had been sought rhetorically. We will see how well the effort fares. Too early to see....though way to late for the polemicists on both sides.

Greyblades:

The ACA was never the goal. Single payer government healthcare has been the DEM/liberal goal since the late 1980s. The ACA was a far as they could go given the political opposition at the time, and was crafted in a manner that was designed to broaden coverage to as many as possible, but then fall short -- "forcing" us to adopt single payer to pick up the pieces and make good on our "commitment" to cover each and all.

America. Home of Christianity. Where people love shooting each other with guns, and hate looking after the poor. Jesus is proud of you all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

America. Home of Christianity. Where people love shooting each other with guns, and hate looking after the poor. Jesus is proud of you all.

A majority of Americans are no longer churched, so labeling us the "home of Christianity" is at best relative. Most of South America is more staunchly churched than is the USA. Moreover, we are only about 2/3 Christian of one stripe or another.

More than half of our gun violence is concentrated in poor inner-city neighborhoods where the a number of rather self-defeating co-cultures have sprung up. "Love," however sardonically it was used, is a bit overstated.

"Hating" the poor seems a little off too, given the wealth of personal charity provided by most people in the USA source. The totals for charity and government welfare in the USA are comparable to Britain in terms of %age of GDP. Our system mostly doesn't use the government to accomplish this transfer of wealth.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

[Montmorency]

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

Is donating money to a charity more personally charitable than volunteering extra tax money to the government?

[Husar]

"Hating" the poor seems a little off too, given the wealth of personal charity provided by most people in the USA source. The totals for charity and government welfare in the USA are comparable to Britain in terms of %age of GDP. Our system mostly doesn't use the government to accomplish this transfer of wealth.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

That is all a bit weird, the wealth mostly transfers up so far.
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/

It was okay for a while after WW2 until people apparently realized the poor rich people weren't getting enough tax breaks or whatever.
Jesus also preached that you should pay your taxes and accumulate treasures in heaven rather than down here. And that people who put anything but him first, such as money or America, are not really going to get to heaven. Sad.

[Idaho]

A majority of Americans are no longer churched, so labeling us the "home of Christianity" is at best relative. Most of South America is more staunchly churched than is the USA. Moreover, we are only about 2/3 Christian of one stripe or another.

More than half of our gun violence is concentrated in poor inner-city neighborhoods where the a number of rather self-defeating co-cultures have sprung up. "Love," however sardonically it was used, is a bit overstated.

"Hating" the poor seems a little off too, given the wealth of personal charity provided by most people in the USA source. The totals for charity and government welfare in the USA are comparable to Britain in terms of %age of GDP. Our system mostly doesn't use the government to accomplish this transfer of wealth.

Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.

And yet the results are so poor. Huge economic inequality. Divergent social, educational and health outcomes from birth, etc.

The problem with the right is that the immediate moral itch is scratched (or blamed on the victims) and the overall situation gets worse.

[Shaka_Khan]

Wow! Even FOX News...

[Husar]

Well, Shepard Smith is someone I can respect even if I do not agree with him on everything.

Trump is a train wreck that is still sliding across the track thinking it has endless momentum.
Of course a lot of people actually saw that coming, but hey, I enjoy the ride so far.

[Greyblades]

If so I'd say that it backfired spectacularly.

Nah, you don't understand the context of the time it was passed nor the benefits of the bill since you are in your bubble. If the policy was so bad, why haven't the Republicans gone through with "repeal and replace"?

You're playing the "why hasnt he done it yet" card at the one month mark of the president who is set to have the highest amount of fulfilled promises in generations.

To call me the bubble dweller is the pot is calling the kettle wog.

The ACA got millions of people covered who were not covered before either under private insurance or through expanding medicare.

With the long term result of jacking up prices through killing competition and making the fines less painful than joining up.

It was a big win, just not as big as the progressive wing wanted. Ironically, Obama's biggest flaw was PR after the election was over as he was unwilling to call it for what it was out of fear of alienating both the progressives and the hard right.

A tax hike in a recession for something noone is happy with?

I'd say he really shouldnt have cared about alienating those ideologically incapable of changing their votes, but I dont think that was his actual motivation.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump's relationship with facts; a primer from John Oliver:

[Xiahou]

Flynn's efforts left him open to the risk of blackmail. This is a typical reason to deny someone a security clearance and/or to suspend or revoke an existing clearance. An NSA who does not have a clearance is more or less useless....

I'm still not sure what to make of the Flynn resignation, but I think there are some hints of conflict between elected officials and the entrenched bureaucracy, or deep state, that I don't care for.

It's the job of the bureaucrats to implement policy, not to determine policy- no matter who's in charge. Anything else is contrary to our democracy.

[Montmorency]

I'm still not sure what to make of the Flynn resignation, but I think there are some hints of conflict between elected officials and the entrenched bureaucracy, or deep state, that I don't care for.

It's the job of the bureaucrats to implement policy, not to determine policy- no matter who's in charge. Anything else is contrary to our democracy.

The justifications seem to be that the "deep state" swears duty to the Constitution over to the POTUS, but of course that misses a few steps in the process. There should be some specific, likely hidden, acts to reference indicative of serious and prolonged Constitutional violations. Even a President who repeatedly uses the tools of office to issue unConstitutional violations should be left to the courts in due time.

To go toward redeeming the decisions, whoever or however many actors are involved, their material should demonstrate a dramatic case for rapid impeachment very soon, and possibly Republican complicity behind desire to avoid pursuing it. Action-film measures demand action-film results, and it has some precedent.

[Gilrandir]

Flynn's efforts left him open to the risk of blackmail.

Like it transpired AFTER his appointment to the office?

[Husar]

president who is set to have the highest amount of fulfilled promises in generations.

That is exactly the problem here...

[Montmorency]

Actually, presidents tend to keep, or work towards, most promises they make.