Possible replacements - Sarah Palin or Steve Bannon are the obvious choices. Sarah is perfect for the Russia investigation, what with Alaska being so close and all…
Sure, an unexpected health crisis can change that person’s mind, but does it change anyone else’s mind? Back in the late 1990s, a friend of mine’s wife got cancer – his insurance immediately dropped them. They were able to get into one of those “high risk pools” that the republicans keep touting (they’re not new, they’ve been around), which at least allowed her to get care. However, their premiums were $1600 per month, with tens of thousands in copays and deductibles. By the time she finally succumbed about 10 years later, he was left with over $500,000 in debt. At his income level, I don’t think he will ever be able to pay this off.
When I mention this to my Trump supporting friends, of course they say how sad that is, how tragic. But again, they don’t want to have to pay extra because of someone else’s problems, that would be redistribution of wealth.
As for polls that say people want ACA to continue, I’m skeptical. I’d have to see how the poll was worded – if it’s a choice of simply repealing it, sure I might agree. But if there is a replacement that removes the mandate (which ACHA seems to be), I think most people who voted for Trump would be in favor of it. The ACA was wildly unpopular just a year ago.
I still believe that if Trump manages to get his health care bill passed, it will ultimately secure his re-election. Sure, there will be screaming about people losing their health insurance, and sick people unable to get health care. But that will always be the minority of people. Most people are healthy, and so most people will see their premiums go down, because they won’t be having to subsidize the sick anymore. You only need a majority of voters to win an election.
I have many friends who were able to get health care for the first time in their lives when the ACA passed. But every time I mention that to my Trump-supporting friends, they simply don’t care - they just say “but my premiums went up, why should I have to pay for someone else’s health care?”. That sentiment got Trump elected, it was what his voters asked him to fix, and that is what he is doing. I don’t see anything that would make that sentiment change. And for each screaming anti-Trump comment at the bottoms of ACHA stories, there are responses calling them snowflakes and people saying I don’t want to pay for your problems.
This is a fundamental philosophical issue. Should a country take care of its sick? I think that the current stance of a majority of Americans is no, every man for himself.
Best response in the comments: “Not a threat it was.”
I am far, FAR more concerned about what Trump could “accomplish” in 4 years than what he can do in the first 100 days.
I’m curious what festivities you are all planning for Loyalty Day? I’m looking forward to the parade, and have my notebook ready for the dear leader’s field guidance.
The Philippines are our allies and they are in the range of North Korea so it seems reasonable that a President would try having some civil discourse with their leader to help bolster the safety of the region and any civilians within reach.
It’s not idiotic by any means but you can’t please everyone. Unless of course, one doesn’t care about people dying, as long as it isn’t themselves.
Duderte is still five cans short of a six pack. (Trumpy at least has five.) Must we always get in bed with morally despicable people? He’s as bad as Ferdinand Marcos and his crazy shoe hoarding wife.
The Suadi’s are our allies and they bankroll tons of crap that isn’t likeable but I don’t hear anyone bitching about them?
You haven’t? Then you haven’t been listening.
Not going down the rabbit hole again…
And here’s the transcript.
TRUMP: No I have, it’s interesting, I have, seem to get very high ratings. I definitely. You know Chris Wallace had 9.2 million people, it’s the highest in the history of the show. I have all the ratings for all those morning shows. When I go, they go double, triple. Chris Wallace, look back during the Army-Navy football game, I did his show that morning.
AP: I remember, right.
TRUMP: It had 9.2 million people. It’s the highest they’ve ever had. On any, on air, (CBS “Face the Nation” host John) Dickerson had 5.2 million people. It’s the highest for “Face the Nation” or as I call it, “Deface the Nation.” It’s the highest for “Deface the Nation” since the World Trade Center. Since the World Trade Center came down. It’s a tremendous advantage.
I read the article and the transcript. Trump is not slamming 9/11, quite the opposite, he is showing that more people are interested in the crap reporting than they were with 9/11. And sadly, he is correct to say that it has bee a benefit to him. In fact, it helped get him elected, and they still can’t stop complaining instead of fixing what they did wrong to get him there.
There is NO possible way that Trump would intentionally claim that “crap reporting” helps him. He has continually derided criticism of him as being the crap reporting. Rather, clearly he is bragging about how wonderful it is that his ratings are higher than 9-11. As if the families of the victims of 9-11 were overjoyed at how high their ratings were. It’s similar to his referring to the Purple Heart with “congratulations” and “tremendous”… just in bad taste.
Presuming these are all examples of unintentional faux-pas, then it just shows how crass, un-thoughtful, and un-presidential he is.
Trump did not cheat Bernie Sanders, Trump did not have the answers given to him in advance of the Town Hall, Trump did not enlist the Russians to hack the election, and Trump did not keep Top Secret documents on an non-encrypted server at his home. If you think the fake media did not help get him elected that is your choice but I believe his comment was directed at the media, not to bolster his ego, by comparing himself to 9/11 coverage.
This is even more of an illogical non-sequitur than the post I responded to - both internally illogical and unrelated to what I said. I honestly wouldn’t even know how to begin to reply. Dang, this is why I promised myself to no-longer respond to your posts. Bad puggo! I guess I have to periodically be reminded.
And here’s the transcript.
TRUMP: No I have, it’s interesting, I have, seem to get very high ratings. I definitely. You know Chris Wallace had 9.2 million people, it’s the highest in the history of the show. I have all the ratings for all those morning shows. When I go, they go double, triple. Chris Wallace, look back during the Army-Navy football game, I did his show that morning.
AP: I remember, right.
TRUMP: It had 9.2 million people. It’s the highest they’ve ever had. On any, on air, (CBS “Face the Nation” host John) Dickerson had 5.2 million people. It’s the highest for “Face the Nation” or as I call it, “Deface the Nation.” It’s the highest for “Deface the Nation” since the World Trade Center. Since the World Trade Center came down. It’s a tremendous advantage.
I read the article and the transcript. Trump is not slamming 9/11, quite the opposite, he is showing that more people are interested in the crap reporting than they were with 9/11. And sadly, he is correct to say that it has bee a benefit to him. In fact, it helped get him elected, and they still can’t stop complaining instead of fixing what they did wrong to get him there.
There is NO possible way that Trump would intentionally claim that “crap reporting” helps him. He has continually derided criticism of him as being the crap reporting. Rather, clearly he is bragging about how wonderful it is that his ratings are higher than 9-11. As if the families of the victims of 9-11 were overjoyed at how high their ratings were. It’s similar to his referring to the Purple Heart with “congratulations” and “tremendous”… just in bad taste.
Presuming these are all examples of unintentional faux-pas, then it just shows how crass, un-thoughtful, and un-presidential he is.
Jetrell Fo said:
Trump is apparently the only President to be the worst human being ever to grace the White House.
Yep, pretty much. Many can be bad, but only one gets to be the worst.
Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?
All they have to do is change the rules back before the next election.
Trump didn’t say that O’Reilly hasn’t been proven guilty yet… he said that O’Reilly didn’t do anything wrong. Those are two very different things.
I suspect that by now my question may be redundant, but I’ll ask anyways…
I am pretty ignorant about the autism spectrum, but have had several students over the years with varying degrees. Having observed many of them perform at a VERY high level in my technical classes, I’ve wondered whether it is rightly considered a disability at all?
Again, I’m not expressing an opinion - just asking the prevailing views from people more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
http://www.theonion.com/article/mike-pence-asks-waiter-remove-mrs-butterworth-tabl-55661
Fake news.
I’m pretty sure Frink knows what “The Onion” is.
I just bought the domain, so I’ll show it off:
doubleofive.com takes you to my AboutMe page, where you can find links to my social profiles.
Hey cool! I wish I had a site but I’m not a millionaire.
I bought you a present: TVSFRINKSUCKS.BIZ
Ok, that made me laugh.
CatBus, I saw this article and it made me think about your post about Trump, not you.
I am an atheist, and I disagree with all three of his “imperatives”.
I think that many Christians voted for Trump because he made clear his support of their hot-button items, and because of his hard-line stance against other non-Christian religions. Also because of the perplexing fact that most Christians are republicans.
I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.
So many republicans liked her before the elections. For examples:
Mike Huckabee called her a “policy genius”.
David Petraeus said she’d make a “tremendous” president.
Condoleeza Rice said “she’s very tough”, “she’s got the right instincts”.
Lindsey Graham said she is “extremely well respected throughout the world” and has a work ethic “second to none”. He also said that she was "one of the most effective secretary of states, greatest ambassadors for the American people that I have known in my lifetime."
John McCain called her an “international star” who did a “tremendous job” as secretary of state.
But come election cycle, the republicans decided to trash her so they could have Trump instead. I still am in shock over it. With all due respect to the many basically good republican people around the country, I can’t help but consider a vote for Trump over Hillary to be extreme gullibility at best, and/or frankly disgusting. Which leaves me with unanswered questions about my own U.S. culture that produced this behavior. By all logic and morals, this should have been the easiest vote ever.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
That’s because she’s basically a pro-choice, pro-diversity Republican. She is further right than the first George Bush. She is not a liberal in any way, shape, or form.
Which is one reason the smear campaign the right built against her was so disingenuous.
This notion that Trump and Hillary are equally bad is, in my opinion, purely a product of an extraordinarily successful smear campaign. Before she was a candidate, Hillary was one of the most respected democrats among republicans:
https://nondoc.com/2016/08/09/25-times-gop-praised-hillary-clinton/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/remember-when-republicans-loved-hillary-clinton.html
That republicans were so desperate to win that they were willing to throw the Clinton Foundation under the bus along the way, dissolved any respect I might have had for them.
Can’t believe you guys are still arguing with Jetrell.
I have to admit, there is a certain genius to defending Trump’s outlandish statements by saying that he has freedom of speech. Even Spicer hadn’t thought to use that one.
Also, as Cheney taught us, there are other less-straightforward but equally effective avenues for declassifying info.
Threatening to shoot the other person in the face?
Simply leaking the classified info yourself and burning our intelligence contacts in the process. i.e. Plame’s contacts re: weapons proliferation.
I can’t tell if you missed the joke or just ignored it.
Shooting an old guy in the face and then having that guy apologize to you …
Sounds analogous to building a wall and having them pay for it. 😃
I think Trump would have beaten Bernie even worse than he beat Hillary. He was able to brand her “Lyin’ Hillary” and get it to stick, even though he without question told more lies than any other politician in history. Surely Trump could have easily gotten “Commie Bernie” to stick, despite Trump himself being the one in bed with the Communist superpowers. His simplistic bullying tactics proved extremely effective, and it will be a while before the rest of the national political landscape reaches his level of efficacious insolence.
In reality, this degree of behavior is probably not natural, and instead must be nurtured by power-hungry psychopaths like Hitler, the Kim’s, and possibly certain orange people (which wasn’t happening in the alleged study).
The Kardashians are behind it all! I knew it!
AH, FINALLY I’ve learned something from this thread!