[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-July-18, 19:59, said:

Do you remember how many shoes Immelda Marcos had?

Do you really want to compare the Trump regime with the highly corrupt kleptocracy of the Marcoses?

[y66]

From The Health Care Collapse Is a Victory for the Truth by David Leonhardt:

Quote

After Donald Trump won the presidency, many Americans despondently wondered whether facts mattered anymore.

Trump, after all, won the presidency despite a constant stream of falsehoods. He launched his political career with a lie about Barack Obama’s birthplace and just kept on lying, about almost every imaginable subject. He also admitted to being a sexual molester. He refused to release his tax returns, unlike every other modern nominee. And yet he was elected president of the United States. There was, and still is, ample reason for despondence.

But the events of the past few months, and especially the last few days, offer some reason for encouragement. They have demonstrated that facts still matter and that truth has some inherent advantages over falsehood. That’s the No. 1 lesson to take from the collapse of the Republican health care bills.

In trying to pass a bill, Trump and his Capitol Hill allies had some big advantages. They controlled every branch of the federal government, and they were willing to ignore decades-old congressional traditions, such as holding public hearings when writing major legislation.

They had only one big weakness, in fact: They weren’t dealing in reality.

They had spent years making up untruths about Obamacare. They said it was written behind closed doors, even though it wasn’t. They said it was a big-government takeover, when it was actually a combination of conservative and liberal ideas. They said it was collapsing, when in fact it has mostly worked well — and its flaws, while real, are eminently fixable through bipartisan legislation.

Those arguments served Trump, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan very well when they were running political campaigns. Once they took power, however, they had a problem.

They didn’t have a real-world health care plan. They had a set of talking points. When they tried to turn those talking points into a bill, the result was a disaster. It would have taken insurance coverage from millions of people and worsened coverage and raised costs for millions more, many of them Republican voters.

Experts from across the ideological spectrum belittled their bill. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office dispassionately explained the damage it would do. Groups representing doctors, nurses, retirees, hospitals, insurers and people with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease and birth defects all opposed the bill.

In the House, Ryan and his leadership team were still able to jam through legislation, in a display of partisan loyalty. In the Senate, the famously crafty McConnell kept most of his 52 caucus members on board. But he could not lock down the 50 he needed.

He had a reality problem.

Too many Republican senators understood that the bill’s defenders could make up fictions about it for only so long. And those defenders certainly tried. In the last few days alone, both Vice President Mike Pence and Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, made blatantly untrue claims about the bill’s contents.

But, thank goodness, a handful of senators understood that they wouldn’t be able to create their own reality forever. Eventually, real people would lose real health insurance and be denied real medical care for their illnesses.

“I did not come to Washington to hurt people,” Senator Shelley Moore Capito, of West Virginia, said Tuesday, helping to doom the latest bill. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, explained, “This just creates more chaos and confusion.” Susan Collins, of Maine, cited the “deep cuts” to Medicaid coverage — the same cuts Pence and Price had tried to deny.

I remain worried that Trump may somehow make another run at shrinking health insurance coverage. But his basic problem isn’t going away. Facts still matter.

They’ve won a resounding victory this week.

[RedSpawn]

y66, on 2017-July-19, 02:43, said:

From The Health Care Collapse Is a Victory for the Truth by David Leonhardt:

Very good article. The theme of this article ties in directly to the other topic I resurrected. Republicans (and Democrats) create their own political reality which usually does not reconcile with the sentiments of Main Street. And the spirit of intelligent public discourse and compromise has been lost.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-19, 00:44, said:

Do you really want to compare the Trump regime with the highly corrupt kleptocracy of the Marcoses?

You are so partisan that you cannot even recognize a joke. Sad!

[Winstonm]

A comparison of slogans from Lyndon Johnson's presidency versus Donald Trump's presidency:

LBJ: War on poverty, civil rights, Great Society
Trump: fake news, witch hunt, Crooked Hillary

Sad!

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-19, 09:18, said:

A comparison of slogans from Lyndon Johnson's presidency versus Donald Trump's presidency:

LBJ: War on poverty, civil rights, Great Society
Trump: fake news, witch hunt, Crooked Hillary

Sad!

I think this is less of a reflection of Trump and is indicative of the "dumbing down" of the American constituency and our toxic political environment rife with incendiary language.

We live in a microwave society with microwave attention spans. We prefer convenient sound bites instead of interesting discourse over weighty complex issues.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-19, 10:25, said:

I think this is less of a reflection of Trump and is indicative of the "dumbing down" of the American constituency and our toxic political environment rife with incendiary language.

We live in a microwave society with microwave attention spans. We prefer convenient sound bites instead of interesting discourse over weighty complex issues.

Don't allow yourself to give Donald Trump a free pass. It reflects directly on the schmuck.

[billw55]

Hmm. For years the GOP congress churned out "repeal the ACA" bills, knowing full well they were going nowhere. It was all for show, to impress their far right constituents.

Now such a bill might actually get signed into law. Which would mean that some of their near right constituents would lose health coverage. And we are seeing quite a different song and dance ... leading to the same result. Could it be that the R establishment does not actually want to repeal the ACA? That they are once again putting on a show for the hard right?

I'm not normally a conspiracy guy but I do wonder.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-19, 11:15, said:

Don't allow yourself to give Donald Trump a free pass. It reflects directly on the schmuck.

And the campaign slogan of his opponent was Together Stronger.

And Trump's campaigns slogan was Make America Great Again.

I'm not impressed by either one....which is how I have always felt about the illusion of choice in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-July-19, 07:45, said:

You are so partisan that you cannot even recognize a joke. Sad!

As a non-American, I have no shoe in the race to be partisan about. Your "joke" seems to be for no reason than to avoid addressing the latest Trump omission regarding Russia and as such deserved to be mocked. Much as do your positions in several areas but that is typical when dealing with an extremist like yourself.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-19, 13:05, said:

And the campaign slogan of his opponent was Together Stronger.

And Trump's campaigns slogan was Make America Great Again.

I'm not impressed by either one....which is how I have always felt about the illusion of choice in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

I wasn't impressed by either candidate, either, but that still doesn't mean that when offered the choice between a bad hamburger and feces I should have trouble deciding where to eat.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-19, 14:29, said:

As a non-American, I have no shoe in the race to be partisan about. Your "joke" seems to be for no reason than to avoid addressing the latest Trump omission regarding Russia and as such deserved to be mocked. Much as do your positions in several areas but that is typical when dealing with an extremist like yourself.

My goodness! Lighten up!

[cherdano]

Speaking of "jokes" - now that you are back, ldrews, maybe now you could clarify your comment that "we" should provide [Trump] with pussy if it makes him a more effective president. Does that make you a

• tasteless troll,
  
• a despicable human being,
  
• a cranky misanthropic old guy who sometimes posts when he shouldn't (when he is too drunk), or
  
• all of the above?

It would be good to know to put your commentary in proper context.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-18, 15:15, said:

Trump is calling the democrats "obstructionists" after Trumpcare failed. He keeps using that word but I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

Inconceivable!

[RedSpawn]

https://www.usatoday...ions/494298001/

No one told Trump that Sessions was a bad choice....just review his work history. You can see that he was jockeying and lusting after a federal pension and position for a while.

Good luck with that.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-20, 05:26, said:

https://www.usatoday...ions/494298001/

No one told Trump that Sessions was a bad choice....just review his work history. You can see that he was jockeying and lusting after a federal pension and position for a while.

Good luck with that.

Trump thinks like a mafia don.

[ldrews]

cherdano, on 2017-July-19, 14:57, said:

Speaking of "jokes" - now that you are back, ldrews, maybe now you could clarify your comment that "we" should provide [Trump] with pussy if it makes him a more effective president. Does that make you a

• tasteless troll,
  
• a despicable human being,
  
• a cranky misanthropic old guy who sometimes posts when he shouldn't (when he is too drunk), or
  
• all of the above?

It would be good to know to put your commentary in proper context.

Our very survival depends on how effectively our President makes decisions, particularly concerning military/defense decisions. How balanced is he, how relaxed is he, how rational is he in the midst of conflict.

For example, the president is currently considering options on handling North Korea, including military options. Most military experts concur that initiating military action against North Korea could easily cost millions of lives. Do you want an emotionally off-balance person making that decision?

So, how many lives are you willing to gamble by putting the President in a personally frustrating condition? If providing pussy to the President will save lives, then I say provide pussy. How about you, are you willing to potentially sacrifice those lives to uphold your sense of morality?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-July-20, 08:08, said:

Our very survival depends on how effectively our President makes decisions, particularly concerning military/defense decisions. How balanced is he, how relaxed is he, how rational is he in the midst of conflict.

For example, the president is currently considering options on handling North Korea, including military options. Most military experts concur that initiating military action against North Korea could easily cost millions of lives. Do you want an emotionally off-balance person making that decision?

This is one of the reasons for the 25th Amendment.

[kenberg]

For those of us who cannot keep up with the dodging, I would like it very much if journalists or others who are in a position to push a bit would ask every Senator and every Representative, D, R, I, whatever, to answer some questions. I will not worry for the moment about the exact phrasing. The idea is that everyone would go on record answering something like the following:

If you could design and pass a bill exactly as you think best, who would receive Medicaid and what medical costs would it cover? One could supply specific choices such as

Everyone.
No one.
All children in famines with an annual income income of less than x
All members of a family with an income less than y
All people with an income less than z, but there would be a time limit
It would, or would not, cover birth control.
It would, or would not, cover medical needs arising from stupid behavior, with examples of what would not be covered. Breaking a leg while sky diving?
Etc.

I think it is fair, desirable even, to pin our representatives down to what they would consider ideal, even if this means that they have to then cooperate and compromise with others with different ideals.

On one day Trump said that the House plan was great, on another day he called it mean. Of course this need not be inconsistent, possibly he thinks it's great to be mean. Trying to make any sense at all of what Trump says is a fool's game. Some on this thread don't have a problem with that. I have a big problem with it, but I recognize reality. At least some Senators and some Representatives might be willing to express in a clear manner what they would see as a really good result. Something other than just "Anything, as long as we can call it repeal and replace". I hope that at least some have a higher standard.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-20, 08:37, said:

This is one of the reasons for the 25th Amendment.

You must live in a fantasy world. The probability of the 25th Amendment being used to remove Trump from office is extremely remote. You would have to convince Pence and the Cabinet to initiate such an action. Pence seems very supportive of Trump. And it would be a very long, drawn out process, during which time Trump is still the one making the decisions. I suggest you look for a more practical solution to your angst.